Downtown Los Angeles
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
Correct. I'll stick with the current event right now. We need to get those mental institutions back up and running (as already stated).
christiefan915
Catalyst
This article from BI says CA has nearly a quarter of the nation's homeless population. You say Cali has the most wealth yet housing is unaffordable in cities like LA or SF.
"The crisis in San Francisco is by far the most acute, with United Nations Special Rapporteur Leilani Farha calling it a "human rights violation" and "a cruelty that is unsurpassed."
The situation in Los Angeles is close behind: On any given night, around 1,800 people congregate in Skid Row, a dilapidated homeless encampment that's riddled with drugs, crime, and disease.
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-homelessness-states-worst-crises-2018-11#california-4
christiefan915
Catalyst
Absolutely. Because no matter who's running the cities, counties or states, mentally-ill people are still disproportionately represented in homelessness stats.
The image you have in your mind when it comes to Hispanic people is of uncivilized barbarians who poop on your porch?
But, we have a catastrophe out west right now unlike what is seen in other areas........
Peace
Grow up, We're talking about major diseases entering our country joining the ones already here out west. It's a perfect storm and you're nit picking over involving race. I'm not taking the bait. Shove off.
I was talking about your friend in the OP and his obvious phobia of brown people. Especially with reference to LA.
You may not be aware of this, but brown people have been a very substantial part of the Los Angeles human landscape for over a century.
White male privilege allows all those white homeless guys to live rent free on the streets of LA.
"L.A. spent $619 million on homelessness last year. Has it made a difference?"
https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-homeless-housing-count-20190511-story.html
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
You think it makes a difference?
It made a big difference with Giuliani .https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?119613-Downtown-Los-Angeles&p=3063855#post3063855
christiefan915
Catalyst
IIRC brown people were settled in Cali long before white people came along.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
isn't that where the three million extra Hilliary voters are from?......
christiefan915
Catalyst
Please cite proof that laws against "vagrancy, drug possession, disorderly conduct, etc." are not enforced. And as for violent crime...
"For the first time in five years, violent crime was down in Los Angeles in 2018, with the number of homicides on track to be among the lowest in more than 50 years.
The data mirror an overall drop in crime this year in the parts of L.A. County patrolled by the Sheriff’s Department, as well as in San Francisco and Oakland...
...Overall, crime was down in all categories in 2018, except personal theft, which rose 3%. Property crime decreased by 2%, after increasing each year since 2015. Moore attributed the decline to strategies the department implemented several years ago to combat violent crime, including stepped-up analysis of data and an expansion of the elite Metropolitan Division."
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-lapd-crime-stats-20181229-story.html
Too right you are.
I doubt teabaggers are aware that California was at one time part of the sovereign nation of Mexico, and consequently brown people have been part of the Los Angeles landscape long before Hollywood moguls, movie stars, and Disneyland.
You're really OCD about this. I'm talking about events on the west coast. Go rant elsewhere with somebody who's mentioned "BROWN PEOPLE."
You don't know how to use YouTube?
Click on 'SHOW MORE' and it gives you more info on the video. Good grief.
America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals.
The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.
To live in California at this time is to experience every day the cryptic phrase that George W. Bush once used to describe the invasion of Iraq: “Catastrophic success.” The economy here is booming, but no one feels especially good about it. When the cost of living is taken into account, billionaire-brimming California ranks as the most poverty-stricken state, with a fifth of the population struggling to get by. Since 2010, migration out of California has surged.
The basic problem is the steady collapse of livability. Across my home state, traffic and transportation is a developing-world nightmare. Child care and education seem impossible for all but the wealthiest. The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all superlatives — what was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a dystopian showcase of American inequality.
Just look at San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi’s city. One of every 11,600 residents is a billionaire, and the annual household income necessary to buy a median-priced home now tops $320,000. Yet the streets there are a plague of garbage and needles and feces, and every morning brings fresh horror stories from a “Black Mirror” hellscape: Homeless veterans are surviving on an economy of trash from billionaires’ mansions. Wealthy homeowners are crowdfunding a legal effort arguing that a proposed homeless shelter is an environmental hazard. A public-school teacher suffering from cancer is forced to pay for her own substitute.
And there is no end in sight to such crushing success. At every level of government, our representatives, nearly all of them Democrats, prove inadequate and unresponsive to the challenges at hand. Witness last week’s embarrassment, when California lawmakers used a sketchy parliamentary maneuver to knife Senate Bill 50, an ambitious effort to undo restrictive local zoning rules and increase the supply of housing.
It was another chapter in a dismal saga of Nimbyist urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities. Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats — many in states under complete Democratic control — this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.
There are many threads in the story of America’s increasingly unlivable cities. One continuing tragedy is the decimation of local media and the rise of nationalized politics in its place. In America the “local” problems plaguing cities are systematically sidelined by the structure of the national media and government, in which the presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court are all constitutionally tilted in favor of places where no one lives. (There are more than twice as many people in my midsize suburban county, Santa Clara, as there are in the entire state of North Dakota, with its two United States senators.)
That’s why, aside from Elizabeth Warren — who has a plan for housing, as she has a plan for everything — Democrats on the 2020 presidential trail rarely mention their ideas for housing affordability, an issue eating American cities alive. I watched Joe Biden’s campaign kick off the other day; the only house he mentioned was the White House.
Then there is the refusal on the part of wealthy progressives to live by the values they profess to support at the national level. Creating dense, economically and socially diverse urban environments ought to be a paramount goal of progressivism. Cities are the standard geographical unit of the global economy. Dense urban areas are quite literally the “real America” — the cities are where two-thirds of Americans live, and they account for almost all national economic output. Urban areas are the most environmentally friendly way we know of housing lots of people. We can’t solve the climate crisis without vastly improving public transportation and increasing urban density. More than that, metropolises are good for the psyche and the soul; density fosters tolerance, diversity, creativity and progress.
Yet where progressives argue for openness and inclusion as a cudgel against President Trump, they abandon it on Nob Hill and in Beverly Hills. This explains the opposition to SB 50, which aimed to address the housing shortage in a very straightforward way: by building more housing. The bill would have erased single-family zoning in populous areas near transit locations. Areas zoned for homes housing a handful of people could have been redeveloped to include duplexes and apartment buildings that housed hundreds.
State Senator Scott Wiener, center, introduced a bill, later shelved, that would have allowed higher-density housing in areas close to transit and jobs.
The bill had garnered support from a diverse coalition of business and advocacy groups, and its sponsor, State Senator Scott Wiener, had negotiated a series of compromises with some of its fiercest opponents. Polls showed the measure to be widely popular. For the first time, something extraordinary looked possible: California’s wealthy homeowners would abandon their restrictionist attitudes and let us build some new housing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.
To live in California at this time is to experience every day the cryptic phrase that George W. Bush once used to describe the invasion of Iraq: “Catastrophic success.” The economy here is booming, but no one feels especially good about it. When the cost of living is taken into account, billionaire-brimming California ranks as the most poverty-stricken state, with a fifth of the population struggling to get by. Since 2010, migration out of California has surged.
The basic problem is the steady collapse of livability. Across my home state, traffic and transportation is a developing-world nightmare. Child care and education seem impossible for all but the wealthiest. The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all superlatives — what was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a dystopian showcase of American inequality.
Just look at San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi’s city. One of every 11,600 residents is a billionaire, and the annual household income necessary to buy a median-priced home now tops $320,000. Yet the streets there are a plague of garbage and needles and feces, and every morning brings fresh horror stories from a “Black Mirror” hellscape: Homeless veterans are surviving on an economy of trash from billionaires’ mansions. Wealthy homeowners are crowdfunding a legal effort arguing that a proposed homeless shelter is an environmental hazard. A public-school teacher suffering from cancer is forced to pay for her own substitute.
And there is no end in sight to such crushing success. At every level of government, our representatives, nearly all of them Democrats, prove inadequate and unresponsive to the challenges at hand. Witness last week’s embarrassment, when California lawmakers used a sketchy parliamentary maneuver to knife Senate Bill 50, an ambitious effort to undo restrictive local zoning rules and increase the supply of housing.
It was another chapter in a dismal saga of Nimbyist urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities. Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats — many in states under complete Democratic control — this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.
There are many threads in the story of America’s increasingly unlivable cities. One continuing tragedy is the decimation of local media and the rise of nationalized politics in its place. In America the “local” problems plaguing cities are systematically sidelined by the structure of the national media and government, in which the presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court are all constitutionally tilted in favor of places where no one lives. (There are more than twice as many people in my midsize suburban county, Santa Clara, as there are in the entire state of North Dakota, with its two United States senators.)
That’s why, aside from Elizabeth Warren — who has a plan for housing, as she has a plan for everything — Democrats on the 2020 presidential trail rarely mention their ideas for housing affordability, an issue eating American cities alive. I watched Joe Biden’s campaign kick off the other day; the only house he mentioned was the White House.
Then there is the refusal on the part of wealthy progressives to live by the values they profess to support at the national level. Creating dense, economically and socially diverse urban environments ought to be a paramount goal of progressivism. Cities are the standard geographical unit of the global economy. Dense urban areas are quite literally the “real America” — the cities are where two-thirds of Americans live, and they account for almost all national economic output. Urban areas are the most environmentally friendly way we know of housing lots of people. We can’t solve the climate crisis without vastly improving public transportation and increasing urban density. More than that, metropolises are good for the psyche and the soul; density fosters tolerance, diversity, creativity and progress.
Yet where progressives argue for openness and inclusion as a cudgel against President Trump, they abandon it on Nob Hill and in Beverly Hills. This explains the opposition to SB 50, which aimed to address the housing shortage in a very straightforward way: by building more housing. The bill would have erased single-family zoning in populous areas near transit locations. Areas zoned for homes housing a handful of people could have been redeveloped to include duplexes and apartment buildings that housed hundreds.
State Senator Scott Wiener, center, introduced a bill, later shelved, that would have allowed higher-density housing in areas close to transit and jobs.
The bill had garnered support from a diverse coalition of business and advocacy groups, and its sponsor, State Senator Scott Wiener, had negotiated a series of compromises with some of its fiercest opponents. Polls showed the measure to be widely popular. For the first time, something extraordinary looked possible: California’s wealthy homeowners would abandon their restrictionist attitudes and let us build some new housing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
cawacko
Well-known member
It’s the same in SF. More money is being spent and yet the problem keeps getting worse.
cawacko
Well-known member
We severely limit new development in major metro areas of California. Big part of why our housing costs are by far the highest in the nation and we have the highest poverty rate and the homeless we do. This state has the ultimate F you I’ve got mine attitude when it comes to housing.