Too Sensible And Truly Helpful To Get Done
Rob Eshman writes in the LA Times about an idea I saw somewhere recently -- using huge tent cities to house LA's huge homeless population. (Jim Murez is a Venice neighbor and compadre who tries to do good.)
Eshman:
In the summer of 2028, hundreds of thousands of athletes, support staff and tourists will flood into Los Angeles for the 34th Olympiad, all needing a roof over their heads immediately. Within hours, they will all find one.Meanwhile, nearly 60,000 men, women and children continue to languish on L.A. sidewalks, underpasses, in cars and crowded shelters, their numbers growing every year -- and our leaders say it will take years to find them shelter.
So here's an idea: What if we treated homeless Angelenos with the same urgency and humanity that we will treat the visiting rowers and gymnasts? What if we eradicated homelessness not in eight years, or three years, but in a matter of months?
Believe it or not, there's a plan for that.
...Murez has now turned his attention to homeless people, whose tents and encampments he sees as a clear sign of the city's political and moral failing. Instead of slowly creating expensive temporary housing for them over a period of years, he has what he thinks is a far better idea: rapidly creating a housing and service center for every single homeless person.
Murez has an ideal location in mind: hundreds of acres of city-controlled land abutting Los Angeles International Airport.
...Murez proposes using the land for temporary homeless shelters and services. He estimates that of the 350 acres, between 70 and 175 acres could support temporary emergency housing, provided the government waives residential restrictions on them.
The actual shelters would consist of reinforced tent structures of the kind cities use when, say, Olympic athletes come to town. They are quick to set up and take down, highly configurable, and -- surprise -- already in use as emergency homeless housing in many places.
...Tent structures in San Diego went up in a matter of weeks, taking 700 souls off the sidewalks.
Murez envisions an array of such shelters on the land near LAX, laid out in a thoughtful, environmentally sound way. Families would be in one area, those needing addiction or mental health services in another. Garden areas for food production could serve both health and therapeutic needs. Some tents would serve as social service centers, security stations, dining and hygiene areas. LAX and the Inglewood stadium complex, two of the largest employers of entry-level labor in the region, would be minutes away.
...The impact of a large transitional housing village would resonate across the city. At present, the law prohibits removing homeless encampments because the city doesn't have enough beds or services for the people living in them. Under Murez's plan, every person currently sleeping in an alley, under a freeway or in a park, would have a safe bed, the services he or she needs, warm showers and hot meals. Residents and businesses would get sidewalks and parks back, while the city could work on longer-term housing solutions. It's true some people will always prefer sleeping outdoors, but the city can't even begin to address their resistance until it has enough indoor facilities for all.
Beats what the pols have proposed -- $500K to $700K condos (each!) to house the homeless. Seriously.
What I've learned from being in City Hall as a volunteer mediator one day a week and seeing how government does things: If there's a good idea, a sensible idea, someone in power will find a way to not let it be done -- and if they can, retaliate against the person who dared suggest it.
You might think this is hyperbole. It's not. It's more like business as usual.
If only we could trust the homeless people to move into these shelters and live lives of quiet order. And bonus if they actually work to improve themselves by seeking higher education, filling out job applications, etc.
No chance of these places being overrun by whores, druggies and the mentally ill, right?
It's a nice idea, but how often do these well-meaning attempts to care for the indigent end in disaster?
Patrick at November 12, 2019 12:06 AM
Homeless people camp near populated areas because begging cannot be done in a desert.
In addition, Patrick has a point. The homeless will not live lives of quiet order, through negligence, rebelliousness, or mental illness. That refusal to live in quiet order is one of the main reasons they're homeless.
A homeless tent city, regulated by the homeless themselves will descend into chaos. If run and policed by outsiders, it will become little more than a prison.
And what about fires? When I lived in California, there was a nearby homeless encampment (tent city). The danger of fires spreading from that camp was ever-present. Most of them were caught early, while still up in the woods, but there were a few fires that came within yards of the house. I would watch as CalFire firefighters clambered over the hillside behind my house with hoses and as helicopters dropped water.
Northern California tried to house the homeless in abandoned military installations at one point. Didn't work. Too far from the populated areas where in the homeless could go out and beg for money to buy booze, drugs, or other vices.
The NoCal experiment also resulted in building fires as cooking and warming fires were left unattended and spread. How flammable do you think a tent city by the airport will be?
Conan the Grammarian at November 12, 2019 4:20 AM
Why do well meaning libs always dwell in logistical fantasy land?
The problem with the homeless has never been housing. The homelessness is just a symptom of larger problems, many of which are well beyond merely putting a roof over their head and giving them access to porta potties.
Can’t imagine a worse place to put mentally ill drug addicts than right next to LAX. You will need to patrol the fences like the Berlin Wall to keep them off the runways.
Isab at November 12, 2019 5:37 AM
As you my recall, I have cited the National Guard's ability to build tent camps in a matter of hours several times. That this is not done for housing is not only because of the fact that many people are simply human-looking animals, incapable of order, but that there is insufficient opportunity for graft.
No pol can make money off an existing solution.
Radwaste at November 12, 2019 6:26 AM
I'm skeptical too. As others have pointed out, lack of housing is in and of itself not the problem. The percentage who are homeless solely due to unfortunate economic circumstances is small, and existing services do a pretty good job of taking care of them. For most homeless, the calculation goes like this: "Will this shelter let me drink and use drugs? No? Well, then, I won't go in."
(Also: If that land is where I'm thinking it is, it's underneath approach and departure paths for LAX. The FAA isn't going to allow any housing to be built there for safety reasons.)
Cousin Dave at November 12, 2019 7:15 AM
Why do well meaning libs always dwell in logistical fantasy land?
Because they're spending other people's money? because they've never engaged in a thought experiment?? because they've never done logistics.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 12, 2019 8:23 AM
PS: I have never understood the thinking which results in importing large numbers of helpless people, then wondering why they are not a success.
To get those homeless folk to stop crapping on YOUR STREET, you have to be willing to FORCE THEM AWAY.
They are not going away until you tell them, "No."
Radwaste at November 12, 2019 10:33 AM
Shut up Tranny.
john jacob at November 12, 2019 11:27 AM
Shut up Tranny.
john jacob at November 12, 2019 11:27 AM
Raddy , you going to take this lying down? :-)
Isab at November 12, 2019 11:31 AM
Whoever "john jacob" is, he's posted the same comment on several threads.
Cousin Dave at November 12, 2019 12:30 PM
{JJ misses the delicious, tasty irony of considering himself morally superior while degrading himself with derogatory language about persons, groups and concepts the high-minded pretend to treasure.}
Radwaste at November 12, 2019 12:41 PM
I think JJ has a transmission problem and hopes it'll go away by playing they radio louder.
Wrong thread? whoops.
I R A Darth Aggie at November 12, 2019 12:46 PM
If Amy decided that JJ needed to go the way of BitchLasagna or BOTU, I wouldn't object.
Patrick at November 13, 2019 10:09 AM
Patrick correct, twice in one day.
Crid at November 13, 2019 9:44 PM
Leave a comment