Major West Coast City Bans Urban Camping ( With Caveats)

www.cbs8.com...

We may have a chance! At very least I can say San Diego is actively fighting a San Fransisco style "doom loop".

The run down of the ordinance, which has to skirt a recent Federal law prohibiting camping if alternatives are not available, does exactly that.

First and foremost, starting 30 days after the first "safe lot" is running, it's illegal to camp on the street, in parks, canyons, and beaches if "shelter is available." The first big shelter is to be a fenced off parking lot where they used to park city vehicles.

If they can't live in the lot they are allowed to, they can get arrested and harassed.

As the mayor said:

This commonsense ordinance will be paired with a robust shelter strategy, which includes two new Safe Sleeping sites where more than 500 people stay in tents in secure areas with access to hygiene and services that will help them get on the path to permanent housing,

Typical spin there...

Our Mayor and all nine council members are Democrat. 10-0. No republicans at all. And they still voted 5-4, because our cities most important people, like Padres Owner Peter Siedler, are way futher right. And when the fan experience for 42,000 people on "Military Sunday" (or any other home game), is hampered by the amount of homeless crime 81+ times a year, "immenent public risk" is an undeniable issue.

I think this will work. It will leave only the habitual criminal homeless to be harassed in a far more forceful way. It will work *if* they open up the purse strings to law enforcement instead of renovating such expensive properties for shelter space. Focus on the much cheaper safe lots and hire cops.

The police are hiring all the uniformed officers they can right now. A slow go. College campuses and military bases. Still have about 200 vacancies. The Chief asked for a measly $625,000 (for hiring bonuses) and was given about 1/3 of it as of March. This ordinance, will most definitely lead to higher funding, because they want this to succeed. Their ordinance needs police to succeed. I have hope for pragmatism winning all of a sudden.

It will be nice not to see so many addicts smoking heroin off of foil in public view.

When oh when will people learn. You can harass, charge, move as much as you want, it solves nothing. Cure the disease not kick the can down the road. Why are these people living like that and find the "cure", not just turn your back on the problem and pass it on to others.

www.foxnews.com...
If you watch the video in this article, the woman speaking had an idea that I thought had merit.

Have the military build facilities in an area made for camping and keeping these folks somewhat safe, but have the things on site to help them transition. Sure some of them don't want help, they just want to do drugs, but some of them would be able to integrate back into society if they got the help they needed. And using the military to build this would lessen the cost by huge margins. Then all the money that's thrown at this could be used in a much smarter way.

I do know that doing the same thing and expecting different results is a little crazy.

originally posted by: crayzeed
When oh when will people learn. You can harass, charge, move as much as you want, it solves nothing. Cure the disease not kick the can down the road. Why are these people living like that and find the "cure", not just turn your back on the problem and pass it on to others.

The other way didn't work. They don't want help. They want to stab each-other and get high. Or walk around tourist areas with knives screaming.

I'm not really sheding a tear for their plight here. With about 1800 homeless downtown, a half dozen "safe lots" gives them all "shelter space".

The only reason they decline the options given are because they want to remain criminals and remain an addicted nuisance.

I think it qualifies as compassion to force them to choose. Camp in more hygienic safe lots and try to clean up (and have resources), or be treated like a criminal.

The soft approach works like a rent moratorium. People take advantage of the leniency because nothing forces a changing of approach.

I freaking love that the seemingly incompetent democrat city council is finally doing something that will clear tents off the sidewalk. And those sidewalks may stop smelling like urine and feces.

Good news indeed. The pendulum is swinging, it just takes time. Sadly, it never goes back 'like the way it was' but hopefully most people can start to lead somewhat normal lives. The drugs though.......that's a devastating issue I don't think will be easily handled, much less solved.

a reply to: Degradation33

this right here:

'I think it qualifies as compassion to force them to choose. Camp in more hygienic safe lots and try to clean up (and have resources), or be treated like a criminal.'

That's how it used to be. Or so I thought.

a reply to: Degradation33
Finding a solution to the problem is vital over compounding the problem into one place I’m afraid.

Concentrating strife in ghetto’s didn’t work out to well for Chicago, or many many other cities, they were all torn down to break up centralized hubs of major crime.

This will not fix the problem

When they came for the homeless, I kept silent; after all, I was not a homeless...

Let´s say you wanna do a wild camping trip there now, will you, as a hard working and tax paying, not criminal citizen get arrested because of problems with the homeless the USA, it´s government has?

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Degradation33
Finding a solution to the problem is vital over compounding the problem into one place I’m afraid.

Concentrating strife in ghetto’s didn’t work out to well for Chicago, or many many other cities, they were all torn down to break up centralized hubs of major crime.

This will not fix the problem

What's the alternative? There's no super-dope in the right way. They don't even qualify for the first step yet. You send a social worker to offer them a "bridge to recovery" and they just use it to get food stamps. Then spend the food stamps at Smart and Final on $150.00 worth of Red Bull, sell them, and spend the profit on drugs.

And they're already mostly concentrated in one neighborhood of downtown. The last to be redeveloped part of downtown. High-rises and residential mid-rises have armed security, so they're pushed into certain blocks of East Village. The urban population in the gentrification area (north east of the stadium) are the first ones they are moving. And not very far either. The safe lot is about 6 blocks from where most of them are anyway.

I like this because they drive up prices of every downtown retail location. Homeless Inflation when the store needs to compensate for a 20% product loss. Armed guards at doors are common. This might curb that a little.

It's not SF, but not cool.

"Do you have a dollar or two?"

"I absolutely do"

And then I continue walking. And if something comes of that I say, "No you just asked me if I have a few bucks, which I do. It's all for me, but I do have a few dollars."

And if they're going to approach me for handouts walking into the grocery store, they can deal with the cognitive dissonance of my answer. They can scream that they have to steal because no one will give them money. They're spoiled children that smell like a toilet. I'm not for caste system, but untouchable qualifies.

And it's not on a few occasions, it's almost every time. It's freaking annoying, sometimes threatening. They're combative 'victims' that carry hepatitis A. That's one vaccine I got, both doses too.

IMO there is nothing that will work that doesn't involve moving them and forcing life rehabilitation. A forced lifestyle change with more rule rigidity at a monitored, controlled entry lot. They just have to get past the all important first step of admitting they have a problem and being willing to try. And then use the other 11, or even cut out the God ones, so long as they stay in the environment of recovery. This liberal state will have their back. And they may start spending their foodstamps as intended. And maybe a few of them will stop shoplifting.

If you make that the "freest" option, they'll either use it or leave the city entirely.

Look.

It's simple.

These people are a danger to themselves and others.

They should be arrested.

That's the law.

End of story.

The deranged libs refuse to let the police do their job.

Which means if you own a car, it's public property. That sidewalk there? Public toilet. That park there? Public drug den.

I'm a pretty liberal guy. You do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect me. Not being able to walk down the street out of fear of being assaulted or stepping on a needle or in a pile of human feces in a city I live affects me.

The police have the ability to solve the problem as long as the city allows them to.

First time, you get to spend the night off the street in a hospital bed where they'll replenish your fluids, discuss addiction treatment, offer you options for rehab or whatever...

Second time, guess what? You've been given a second chance already. OK, you get to spend a night off the street in a hospital bed and a few nights off the streets in a jail cell.

Third time, we'll give you a place of residence, 3 square meals a day, access to health care, probably a high school diploma or something, and if you're good, a job. It'll be great. You'll have a toilet, and a shower, and outside time, and the next time you OD, you'll be surrounded by law enforcement officers with medical training.

That seems more than fair, we're already equipped to do it, and guess what? It also falls within the law, even in ass-backwards jurisdictions like San Francisco.

It would be awesome if the libs funded the state hospitals they took federal money for, but what are you gonna do? They control academia and the media, they can rewrite history however they want.

How anyone can believe in God when there are so many evil liberals destroying the lives of everyone around them is beyond me.

So they will concentrate those people into camping areas and provide amenities like showers and kitchens?

Don’t see anything remotely problematic with that. 🙄

a reply to: Degradation33

a reply to: rounda

Danger is an understatement.

They camp. Threy get high. They steal. They fight. They move. They leave behind a biohazard with discarded syringes for the clean-up crews to handle.

Used to be they focused on the dog crap and drunk people related cleanups. Now there's an army of partnership employees forced to be homeless people's campsite maid. I'm sure they'd rather be pissed at inconsiderate dog owners and partied out people too.

It's the skid row of Gotham in places, especially LA and SF. We had largely escaped having a large skid row, but covid evictions pushed it over the top and onto sidewalks that it used to be far away from. Now what were once relatively safe passages from the bar to apartment are now two block detours around the tent blocked sidewalks and rape. Stunguns advised for women and emasculated men.

Forcing them into shelters under penalty of law is long overdue. To rescue back what had been called "America's Finest City" from a Bay Area-like decline these are the steps that need to be taken.

Even the hippies in Portlandia-like Ocean Beach are sick of the dangerous homeless that won't leave their boardwalk and beach jogging/cycling trails.

I swear aversion therapy is the only cure for ineffective or coddling liberal approaches on matters of public well-being. Eventually everyone realizes, "maybe being stubbornly passive to prosecute this isn't working all that well?"

What says a "liberal" city can't pick places to use a more conservative approach.

If this works, San Diego can thank Deadhead Space Cadet Bill Walton, who directly called out our Mayor for ruining the city he loved. Suddenly the mayor got serious.

originally posted by: Dalamax
So they will concentrate those people into camping areas and provide amenities like showers and kitchens?

Don’t see anything remotely problematic with that. 🙄

a reply to: Degradation33

Better there then in between the trolley station and baseball stadium. Or between the high-rises and Gaslamp. Or places people use to walk.

Yeah it's moving the problem, but I love their consideration for my desired object impermanence towards the homeless.

It will be a trial by fire. They will concentrate their population in a new place, but can also watch them closer and provided resources more easily. Makes drug interdiction easier.

After a certain point you will have default probable cause to search people based solely on being homeless and refusing to be in the concentrated campground provided. And likely have something worth arresting them for. It's not an ultimate solution, but its the best one yet.

As nonkosher as that is for some.

originally posted by: crayzeed
When oh when will people learn. You can harass, charge, move as much as you want, it solves nothing. Cure the disease not kick the can down the road. Why are these people living like that and find the "cure", not just turn your back on the problem and pass it on to others.

The 'cure' is to close the drug trade routs, and nobody seems to want to secure the borders.

Spokane, Washington just spent the last few months running the homeless out of the camp they created. They called it Camp Hope, and it totally ruined a large section of the city with the mountains of trash in their camp, the high crime rate and of course the drug use. Rape became a major issue in and around the camp; nobody was safe to even enjoy their own homes that were in close proximity and the drugs brought the usual crowd that solves problems with drive-by shootings and turf wars.

These camps are for a different kind of lifestyle than what is conducive to a functioning society, and as long as drugs are so prevalent the problem doesn't really have much more than a band-aide solution.

Driving from San Diego to Los Angeles this Spring, I passed a multi-mile long line of campers and motorhomes parked alongside a beach highway. I thought they were tourists.

Saw on the news later that week that these are "homeless" people, causing unsanitary conditions by dumping their wastes in the ocean....which washes back up on the beach.

Is living in a motorhome or camper really "homeless"? Lots of people here in the Chicago area live in trailers. Not much difference.

a reply to: Degradation33

With fairness, here is the local conservative news criticism to the plan, it has some good points about the immediate and comprehensive way we need to approach this new ordinance from our former mayor, Kevin Faulconer..

Not necessarily against it, but definitely casting doubt on its implementation or the nature of the beds provided.

www.kusi.com...

a reply to: carewemust

There's a lot of careless behavior with the RV/Van rest area folks as well. They like meth too. More the retro variety of tweeker, but high level of criminality nonetheless. A free lifestyle to be totally reckless and compulsive with, I guess.

Our beaches get shut down most frequently for Mexico. A bunch of cities are asking Biden for money to protect American beaches from the Mexican method of Sewage Treatment, dumping into the ocean. First 20 miles of coast usually.

a reply to: Degradation33

I was stationed in San Diego for a while in the early 70’s, and when off duty would stay with friends in Ocean Beach. Your description of San Diego kinda breaks my heart. Downtown was a little sketchy, because of the people that would prey on the sailors and marines.

Ocean beach was pretty nice though. Nice beach, pretty girls, laid back people. I never felt unsafe there, night or day.

To hear you describe it really saddens me. What they say is true. You can never go back.

I don't think the softly, softly approach works as what's already been said, they just take advantage. 30 years ago I worked for the local authority and they had a process that they put "problem" families in a nice neighbourhood thinking the problem family would behave and fit in. No chance. Every time they would drag the neighbourhood down.
The only way, I'm afraid to say, is segregation. Put them in an area, give them the essentials (food, water, electric etc.) and when they've proved that they want to live like a normal society then give them help to find accommodation and work etc..

BUT, with a big but, with the advancement of modern technology there will be more and more ordinary people (not druggies or meth heads) thrown out of work with no other work available and a society that debases people because they "are not working" with all the time on their hands. For a successful country you must look after the most vulnerable in your society and if that smacks of socialism, suck it up because you might be the next in line for joblessness.

a reply to: BlueJacket Actually, this will fix the problem. Chicago should have done this, but did not. Allowing people to live in poor living conditions is not the answer. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

a reply to: Degradation33
I remember fondly a time when San Diego was a hard core conservative County. I can't believe it's 100% run by scum bag democrats now