The polticians have destroyed California. This is your case study for social programs, socialism, unlimited immigration, social justice policy and now they are testing UBI?
California should be our wake up call to change, instead, we double down on the same policies.
Cool story bro. Except that the real reason for most problems California is facing are of Republican making, it's called Proposition 13 and it's been an unmitigated disaster on the state.
Step one would be acknowledging that a proactive solution is ok. the current policy seems to be almost 100% reactive damage control, i.e. providing food, shelter, medical care to the homeless and attempting to clean up after them without displacing them at all.
Hopefully a moderator pulls (your post) out from under the parent and makes it a top-level reply to the article.
To start with, any policy affecting a population that can move and be moved has to operate at the scope that those people are allowed to move. That means the taxing and funding distribution HAS to be on a national level. It probably also means that per-recipient funding needs to be proportional to the cost of living in a given area. (which SHOULD also be calculated realistically.)
This would at least stop "poor" communities from dumping a national problem on bigger cities that try to be more kind. It would also encourage longer term solutions over broken window / temporary bandaids.
It would also need to be systemic. There are a number of failures in society contributing to the issue.
* Single payer healthcare - everyone's covered.
* Actual mental healthcare (not just asylums)
* Everyone is a worthy being
* New New Deal - A job for all, with meaning and value.
* Identify and correct market failures.
One such market failure is 'housing', where there are jobs, where there is opportunity to build a new and better life, that's where people want to live. However rent-seeking is destroying the ability to build a life, a community, an actual home, family, or future.
So I agree in principle, but I also think our culture fails on imposing ownership of one's choices in nearly equal and opposite proportion to how much Asian countries overemphasize it.
And this came to a boiling point when a Chinese friend insisted the homeless situation was better in China. So I looked up the numbers. Adjusted for population, it isn't, and in fact it's slightly worse. That was a surprise to me. But it's less visible there because it's considered shameful.
I personally think everyone deserves a fully belly and a roof over their head. I think the rest is up to them. And I could go with medicare for all as an improvement over the current inequitable situation, but I think we could do better than that, yet I doubt we ever will. And that saddens me.
In what way do you think choices reflect on any of the points I was trying to make as changes in social support?
I can only see two that are well within the range that might be covered if all the other safety nets fixed individuals that had become injured or otherwise unable to work (this is assuming we have MUCH better tech, like Star Trek / Orville level tech, to actually repair all types of damage).
Housing: This is more a choice made by the irrational market, not so much by individual humans. Yes there is less expensive housing, but it's usually not located near jobs or has a high externality / transaction cost of somekind. Referencing the source article, Japan does have a fantastically run transit system that is also reasonably priced. That does extend the range of available locations.
Jobs themselves; do you think that job placement systems are not a better idea instead of being "hired" to "look" for a job (which should not be ANYONE's primary life skill!)? If an aptitude test shows that there is untrained area that skill could be acquired in, getting that skill might be the assigned 'job' instead. (retraining/education)
Points 3 and 4 personally. Feel free to disagree, but some of the homeless are bums IMO (note IMO). I'm willing to help them if it helps everyone else because it's cheaper than any other alternative, but I'm not going to pretend I don't know what they're up to. If I knew a way to reliably isolate the cheaters, I would. I don't, and I'd rather see everyone housed and fed than stay up at night worrying about freeloaders in this age of plenty if only we didn't consistently squander our surplus.
I don't tell people what to do with their lives and the thought of a well-intentioned bureaucracy doing so doesn't thrill me (perhaps from being placed in all the slow classes against my will as a child I am biased here). I like the free market for jobs. Empower people to make their own choices. Give them free community college even. But let them make their own minds up.
California could turn a lot of its secondary cities into job markets as well as suburbs for the major cities if they could build cost-effective mass transit. It seems incapable of getting that job done though so it seems like the only alternative is remote work, and without a cultural shift, that is piecemeal solution. Also look at what happened to SB50, shot down by effectively friendly fire from NIMBYs, not the conservatives.
I genuinely don’t see the homelessness problem as being caused by policy, but by lack of it: California has perhaps one of the largest safety nets of any state in the US, and it is saving a lot of people who have fallen on their luck — by design.
The problem is that California, at all levels of government, refuses to fix its core issue: Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High. Ever notice how California is willing to try anything and everything to fix its homelessness crisis except intervene in the housing market in a meaningful way? In my view, California’s legislation in its current state is a band-aid, not a cure. But a band-aid is (temporarily) better than nothing.
Ultimately the free market (* I’ll concede an argument may be made that housing is not a truly free market, since municipalities have created strict zoning legislation to favor homeowners, but my point still stands), directly and indirectly, has failed everyone looking to build a permanent home and life in California (unless your definition of “success” includes a large population unable to afford a home where they live).
I’d imagine that without these “social programs, socialism, ... social justice policy” there would be many more homeless people than there currently are.
Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High
But 99.7% of CA has less expensive housing (mostly far less expensive) housing than the 17 square miles that are SF, so using SF as your metric for statewide policy is silly. If you aren't working or going to school in SF, you don't need to be housed there specifically at public expense. Housing and care dollars go much farther elsewhere.
SF and San Jose metros are crazy, but the entire state has a median housing price well above the national average. In fact, it is 2nd only to Hawaii, at >$500k. It is absolutely fair to say that there is a systemic housing affordability issue in California.
I drove cross country a few years ago. When I hit Barstow, I was struck by how many seemingly homeless were being sheltered in its motels and I spoke with a few of them. They were sent there from Los Angeles. There was trash everywhere as well. California is weird. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.
Sure, but take Santa Cruz: $66K median wage or so, but $900K or so median house price. Incredibly unaffordable despite being far cheaper than SF or San Jose, unless you clog its NIMBY constrained highway driving 25+ miles each way to your tech job in the valley. On the bright side, Amazon opened up a small office downtown, but that's nowhere near enough, and the weird local government does a lot to make the place unappealing to prospective businesses.
Merced OTOH is probably more of what you're thinking, and it has some really nice houses priced competitively with the suburbs of Dallas, but other than a new UC campus, there's not much else to recommend the place and it has a huge meth issue. But I do think the future of California is in places like this (and there are many more), but I have no idea how to make that future happen.
There's an ongoing campaign against governance by Democrats which cites homelessness and failure to keep clean streets. Los Angeles has to own its failure and follow the lesson of New York in the 1990s.
If you allow your city to be a shitbox, crime and chaos follow.
There's this fun thing now where American conservatives - popping up in the comments here - want to paint the dangers of unbounded capitalistic success - more high paying jobs! more high paying workers imported! more increases in rent and property values! more low paying workers displaced! more people with nowhere to go but the street! - as outcomes caused by left-leaning policies.
Cause, you know, less regulation and more indulgence of those of us who are pushing out existing residents and effecting negative change is obviously the answer. Obviously California isn't ruined for the economically successful class, or the prices would stop going up as the people with the means wouldn't pay them. So if you want these side effects fixed, don't look at what that group of people - myself included - would benefit directly from!
Housing is a policy where you can see this agenda hit bipartisanship. The solutions pushed the most - top-of-market new development - favor the wealthy, higher-income, and incoming-new-residents the most, and help the already-there, low-income, at-risk-of-being-kicked-to-the-street the least. This is acknowledged, but handwaved as "eventually top of market housing becomes cheaper housing," ignoring the lack of much help from that today. Rent control? Fuck that, that will make it harder for new people to move in to help fuel the hypergrowth and growing top-of-the-strata class!
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar or generic tangents. Such discussions get more repetitive as they get more intense, leading to the worst combination for discussion here: indignation plus predictability.
I talk with the homeless in my neighborhood all the time. I've not met one over 30 who didn't have severe mental or physical illness. Those who call it a housing problem are confusing you. This is a public health crisis in the states where the authorities have no authority to help those who can't help themselves
There are several studies and pilot programs that show that reliable housing is a key component in recovery of homeless people with mental health issues. Conveniently, providing it also solves the homeless problem.
Yes, but the housing problem still isn't the homeless problem. Affordable housing won't prevent or cure mental illness, housing support is just a requirement for recovery. They aren't directly related.
There's no way to fix housing sufficiently to make it affordable to someone dealing with mental illness and living on the street: that problem has to be addressed separately, and directly.
In San Francisco state supported affordable houses are around 500k. This is a mansion in most states. Anyone who thinks that the people on the street are helped by this program are confused
It can be both. Unsupported disability is a major cause of homelessness, but simply not being able to pay your bills can happen to anyone.
People who live on the streets are more likely to become sick or traumatized, and sick people are more likely to recover if they've got somewhere safe and warm to sleep. It's not as simple as a single root cause.
Long-term use of hard drugs causes physical and mental disabilities. Until that problem is solved, all other problems in their life will just get worse.
The natural reflex in the US is to scream "Democrat" or "Republican" as the supposed root cause of every problem.
This is just rooting for your favorite team and it doesn't illuminate what policies work or don't work.
A better way would be to survey the cities of the world, measure crime and homelessness, and systematically identify the policies that consistently deliver better results.
I wish the problematic policies weren't perpetuated almost exclusively by one party, because then I wouldn't sound so partisan.
Opposition to laws and policies that set boundaries on the behaviour of drug addicts, like anti-vagrancy laws and forced rebab, comes only from Democrats.
Empowering public sector unions that make public servants less accountable and government less effective is promoted primarily by Democrats.
The creation of clusters of social housing that creates crime-ridden neighbourhoods that perpetuate anti-social and lawless behaviour, as well as government dependency, is done exclusively by registered Democrats.
Look at major cities with severe trash/homelessness problems, and how many of them are run by Democrats. In the short-term, a lot of Democrat policies help the people they set out to help. In the long run, they create government dependency and ghettos, and that harms far more people.
If you want law and order, Republicans are the party to vote for. The longer this reality is denied for political correctness reasons, the stronger the populist right-wing political backlash will be when it comes.
So, in this country, the Democrats tend to do better (electorally) in the big cities, and the Republicans find more success in small towns or rural. So, when a big city is run by Republicans, there is always a very real and ever-present chance of Democrats taking it away at the next election.
On the other hand, there are many big cities where Democrats think they will never lose to Republicans, and in some cases (e.g. Chicago) they're right. So there is less of a check on their power.
So, the better comparison to Democrats running a big city, would be Republicans running a state where Democrats haven't won state-wide elections in a long time.
It goes back and forth, and the Democrats grabbed an early lead in Big Data to insure Obama's victory in 2012, but I think they seriously underestimate the ability of republican operators to catch up and game the existing system. They've been at this for decades and they play a very long game.
That's how Republican candidates can lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college. I see no sign of the Democrats playing catch-up for 2020 and I think they are in for a rude awakening despite our current leader's seemingly low numbers because that guy brings out his base.
The electoral college is, by original design, intended to keep the few large (population-wise) states from dominating the federal government. In other words, not much about it works as originally designed, but the one thing that does is what it did in 2016, which was to guarantee that you cannot dominate federal government if you ignore rural and small states.
Which, given the Democrats urban emphasis, means it is biased against them, not as an accident or via a loophole, but by original design. I don't know that the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for seeing this, it was no secret, it was the original stated intention of giving each state 2 senators, and making electoral college votes equal senators plus representatives.
One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
>One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
Nailed it. I lost almost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she refused to campaign there whilst Trump, all of my dislike for him and his ideology aside, campaigned there and truly earned every vote he got. Doubly so when her own husband, all of his failings aside someone insanely great on the campaign trail himself, urged her to do so.
>?The natural reflex in the US is to scream "Democrat" or "Republican" as the supposed root cause of every problem.
This is just rooting for your favorite team...
I can attest to this. Long time ago, I lived in Minneapolis for a while and thought the place got worked over by liberals. Now I live in small town Wisconsin, and we got bent over by conservatives so bad that we're a regular feature in the national news and the butt of late night comedy jokes.
I was foolish when I was younger, and thought the liberal-conservative thing made a difference in politicians. It doesn't. You can get reamed by either one. In fact, you're most likely to get reamed when you're thinking in terms of the liberal-conservative dichotomy.
At least, that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary I guess.
As a gay person, I definitely get less reamed by Democrats... Can we please stop with the false equivalences? The entire system might be garbage, but I can tell you who is and is not trying to take away my rights.
Hilary Clinton was quoted as saying a marriage is always between a man and a woman and did not support gay marriage until like 2013.
Supposedly liberal California overturned the courts ruling on this issue with prop 8 in 2008.
I think Republicans, being conservatives, definitely took longer to move on this issue than Democrats, but I think this is an area where the country as a whole shifted a lot over the recent past.
Not that I like either party particularly much (and I might even hate the democrats more for being supposedly aligned with my views, but mostly seemingly into disagreeing with each other No True Scotsman style), but even as a straight dude, the Democrats are unambiguously better than the republicans on gay rights IMO.
What is funny (at least to me) though is the huge peak in activity on Grindr during republican conventions. To be fair, the republicans as a group are way better on nuclear power despite denying climate change.
Yeah, but then she did end up actually supporting it (and that statement was a pathetic triangulation on her part, which is part of why I never liked her all that much anyway). Most of today's Republicans never supported it and just went along with it begrudgingly after the Supreme Court case was lost. Some are still fighting it.
It's very clear that the modern Democratic party overall was in favor of legalizing gay marriage and that the modern Republican party overall was against it. And that, to this day, Democrats are still much better on LGBT issues than Republicans.
Yes, but Civil Rights were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and opposed by Democrats. (Just slightly outside my living memory.)
Once the tide turns (on almost any issue) both parties are pretty similar. It went that way with Civil Rights (when LBJ embraced it) and seems to be that way with gay issues today. Just this week President Trump tweeted a pro-gay message.
I think this one is over. There's not a big difference in what the parties are offering, as far as I can tell. It's not a big platform issue for either side.
What he says doesn't matter what he does matters. And so far his administration has been removing transgender rights everywhere it can. What makes anyone think he's going to stop with one minority group?
Make no mistake - LGBT rights are under direct attack by the Trump administration. We are likely to see major setbacks in the near future under the guise of “religious freedom.”
Take it from someone with a vested interest in the subject (I’m quite gay): this one isn’t over.
The parties have changed a lot over the years. You can't look back at something that happened half a century ago and make sense of it within today's political framework. Many of the people whose morals lead them to vote for the Democrats today would be voting for the Republicans half a century ago. You're hearkening back to before the entire southern strategy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
This one isn't over, unfortunately. Many Republican elected officials are still very hostile to LGBT rights, including continued pushes to discriminate against transgender people. Sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT protected classes in most states, and many Republicans are calling to protect discrimination against LGBT individuals under the guise of freedom of religion.
The gay people I know are very afraid of what today's Republicans are doing. It's simply not true that it's over.
Well jail for drug/alcohol abusers doesn't work. It's just another weak wristed attempt to paper over the problem. Like throwing mentally ill people in jail. I mean, I get it. There's no place else to put them. But it only makes the problem worse. You could have users, potentially anyway, be in the same jail as their dealer. (Even in the same cell.) It's just lunacy.
What you really need are real mental health facilities that police, families and courts can call on. You need real drug rehab facilities that police, families and courts can call on. We've tried to turn jails into mental health and rehab facilities and we're wondering why it doesn't work.
Well, that's not what a jail is for.
Incentivizing owner occupied housing is a no brainer I suppose. It certainly can't hurt in any way I can think of?
Free food is ok. Needles and cash could potentially be used to simply feed addictions. Shouldn't be giving out needles and cash.
Food is a necessity though. It's the canary in the coal mine. You'll know something's going wrong when the amount of food consumed at kitchens or taken from food banks starts going up. These are the metrics municipalities should be tracking.
If you want a rational discussion, it helps to state your beliefs in a way that can be discussed usefully. For example, saying “unchecked illegal immigration” is a non-working policy makes quite a few assumptions. Are many of LA’s homeless illegal immigrants? Does homelessness have anything to do with immigration, legal or otherwise? If so, what? In what respect is illegal immigration “unchecked”? [0]
For that matter, why do free food, etc incentivize homelessness?
Do you want a rational discussion in which your own assumptions might be challenged or do you just consider anyone who disagrees to be irrational?
[0] Estimates of the recent net illegal immigration rate vary from negative to positive but quite low. Illegal immigration may or may not be “unchecked”, but the rate seems quite low.
I wouldn’t say it’s entirely obvious. I think the argument goes that illegal immigrants take jobs and thus displace legal residents, making them homeless.
I find this implausible in SF. Housing is so insanely expensive that, even if illegal immigrants displace legal residents 1:1 and the legal residents can’t find any other work at all, the jobs in question wouldn’t pay living wages in SF regardless.
(To me, it seems that the US economy is actually rather dependent on illegal immigrants and there would be a crash if we somehow managed to deport all illegal immigrants. A genuinely good immigration reform would need to take this into account.)
Umm.. this article is about illegal dumping. That has nothing to do with politics.
What LA needs to do is setup cameras in those areas with license plate readers. Also LA has also always had a problem with illegal dumping. Maybe offer a tip line as well with cash rewards.
I don’t know which city is worse, SF or LA, but at least in recent weeks/months SF OK’d construction of a new shelter along the Embarcadero despite money and outcries from nearby condo owners.
I still don’t know what the solution is to address the mental health aspect of homelessness. It’s disturbing seeing disheveled people scream at the top of their lungs in the middle of FiDi after work and no one batting an eye.
Article describes many more problems than the homeless, such as rampant illegal street dumping done by businesses and residents, unchecked rodent population and used needles littered everywhere which are definitely things a city mayor could do something about.
Is there a state in the US that is more diverse (geography, economy, etc)? I wonder how much that complicates things.
You can drive north for nearly 8 hours from San Diego and still be in the state. You’ll go from inner city to cow pastures and onion fields and back again.
"The bags, some of which were split open, contained spoiled fruit and trimmings from pineapples and mangoes. That part of town has a lot of produce wholesalers, and it’s no secret that some of the illegal dumping is done by local merchants and customers."
The City of Los Angeles doesn't have a composting program?
Illegal dumping happens because enforcement is low and it's easier than the alternatives. It doesn't require alternatives not existing.
And in this case, the reason you'd illegally dump is because it's free, whereas commercial trash collection and composting services aren't (which is generally true in most cities).
Steve Lopez wrote a similar column about the trash dumping problem a few day prior to the one discussed here. I'll give him credit for actually looking at what is going on instead of being a mindless Trumpist hack.
It seems that the city granted monopolies to waste collection-recycling companies, who tripled fees charged to downtown businesses. Instead of paying the high prices for waste disposal, the business dump trash in places no one cares to defend: skid row and the like.
Solutions: clean up, monitor, enforce trash dosposal regulations. Also, homelessness, with its complex causes, needs to be dealt with. It is not as simple as calling in cops and bulldozers to sweep away shanties, as it is an economic and social problem mostly treated as a crime problem.
68 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadCalifornia should be our wake up call to change, instead, we double down on the same policies.
To start with, any policy affecting a population that can move and be moved has to operate at the scope that those people are allowed to move. That means the taxing and funding distribution HAS to be on a national level. It probably also means that per-recipient funding needs to be proportional to the cost of living in a given area. (which SHOULD also be calculated realistically.)
This would at least stop "poor" communities from dumping a national problem on bigger cities that try to be more kind. It would also encourage longer term solutions over broken window / temporary bandaids.
It would also need to be systemic. There are a number of failures in society contributing to the issue.
One such market failure is 'housing', where there are jobs, where there is opportunity to build a new and better life, that's where people want to live. However rent-seeking is destroying the ability to build a life, a community, an actual home, family, or future.And this came to a boiling point when a Chinese friend insisted the homeless situation was better in China. So I looked up the numbers. Adjusted for population, it isn't, and in fact it's slightly worse. That was a surprise to me. But it's less visible there because it's considered shameful.
I personally think everyone deserves a fully belly and a roof over their head. I think the rest is up to them. And I could go with medicare for all as an improvement over the current inequitable situation, but I think we could do better than that, yet I doubt we ever will. And that saddens me.
I can only see two that are well within the range that might be covered if all the other safety nets fixed individuals that had become injured or otherwise unable to work (this is assuming we have MUCH better tech, like Star Trek / Orville level tech, to actually repair all types of damage).
Housing: This is more a choice made by the irrational market, not so much by individual humans. Yes there is less expensive housing, but it's usually not located near jobs or has a high externality / transaction cost of somekind. Referencing the source article, Japan does have a fantastically run transit system that is also reasonably priced. That does extend the range of available locations.
Jobs themselves; do you think that job placement systems are not a better idea instead of being "hired" to "look" for a job (which should not be ANYONE's primary life skill!)? If an aptitude test shows that there is untrained area that skill could be acquired in, getting that skill might be the assigned 'job' instead. (retraining/education)
I don't tell people what to do with their lives and the thought of a well-intentioned bureaucracy doing so doesn't thrill me (perhaps from being placed in all the slow classes against my will as a child I am biased here). I like the free market for jobs. Empower people to make their own choices. Give them free community college even. But let them make their own minds up.
California could turn a lot of its secondary cities into job markets as well as suburbs for the major cities if they could build cost-effective mass transit. It seems incapable of getting that job done though so it seems like the only alternative is remote work, and without a cultural shift, that is piecemeal solution. Also look at what happened to SB50, shot down by effectively friendly fire from NIMBYs, not the conservatives.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/california-sb50...
The problem is that California, at all levels of government, refuses to fix its core issue: Housing, and the cost of living at a level to hold onto that house, is Too High. Ever notice how California is willing to try anything and everything to fix its homelessness crisis except intervene in the housing market in a meaningful way? In my view, California’s legislation in its current state is a band-aid, not a cure. But a band-aid is (temporarily) better than nothing.
Ultimately the free market (* I’ll concede an argument may be made that housing is not a truly free market, since municipalities have created strict zoning legislation to favor homeowners, but my point still stands), directly and indirectly, has failed everyone looking to build a permanent home and life in California (unless your definition of “success” includes a large population unable to afford a home where they live).
I’d imagine that without these “social programs, socialism, ... social justice policy” there would be many more homeless people than there currently are.
Merced OTOH is probably more of what you're thinking, and it has some really nice houses priced competitively with the suburbs of Dallas, but other than a new UC campus, there's not much else to recommend the place and it has a huge meth issue. But I do think the future of California is in places like this (and there are many more), but I have no idea how to make that future happen.
If you allow your city to be a shitbox, crime and chaos follow.
Cause, you know, less regulation and more indulgence of those of us who are pushing out existing residents and effecting negative change is obviously the answer. Obviously California isn't ruined for the economically successful class, or the prices would stop going up as the people with the means wouldn't pay them. So if you want these side effects fixed, don't look at what that group of people - myself included - would benefit directly from!
Housing is a policy where you can see this agenda hit bipartisanship. The solutions pushed the most - top-of-market new development - favor the wealthy, higher-income, and incoming-new-residents the most, and help the already-there, low-income, at-risk-of-being-kicked-to-the-street the least. This is acknowledged, but handwaved as "eventually top of market housing becomes cheaper housing," ignoring the lack of much help from that today. Rent control? Fuck that, that will make it harder for new people to move in to help fuel the hypergrowth and growing top-of-the-strata class!
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-homelessness-housing/...
There's no way to fix housing sufficiently to make it affordable to someone dealing with mental illness and living on the street: that problem has to be addressed separately, and directly.
People who live on the streets are more likely to become sick or traumatized, and sick people are more likely to recover if they've got somewhere safe and warm to sleep. It's not as simple as a single root cause.
This is just rooting for your favorite team and it doesn't illuminate what policies work or don't work.
A better way would be to survey the cities of the world, measure crime and homelessness, and systematically identify the policies that consistently deliver better results.
Opposition to laws and policies that set boundaries on the behaviour of drug addicts, like anti-vagrancy laws and forced rebab, comes only from Democrats.
Empowering public sector unions that make public servants less accountable and government less effective is promoted primarily by Democrats.
The creation of clusters of social housing that creates crime-ridden neighbourhoods that perpetuate anti-social and lawless behaviour, as well as government dependency, is done exclusively by registered Democrats.
Look at major cities with severe trash/homelessness problems, and how many of them are run by Democrats. In the short-term, a lot of Democrat policies help the people they set out to help. In the long run, they create government dependency and ghettos, and that harms far more people.
If you want law and order, Republicans are the party to vote for. The longer this reality is denied for political correctness reasons, the stronger the populist right-wing political backlash will be when it comes.
On the other hand, there are many big cities where Democrats think they will never lose to Republicans, and in some cases (e.g. Chicago) they're right. So there is less of a check on their power.
So, the better comparison to Democrats running a big city, would be Republicans running a state where Democrats haven't won state-wide elections in a long time.
That's how Republican candidates can lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college. I see no sign of the Democrats playing catch-up for 2020 and I think they are in for a rude awakening despite our current leader's seemingly low numbers because that guy brings out his base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Which, given the Democrats urban emphasis, means it is biased against them, not as an accident or via a loophole, but by original design. I don't know that the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for seeing this, it was no secret, it was the original stated intention of giving each state 2 senators, and making electoral college votes equal senators plus representatives.
One does have to ask, though, why the Democrats have resolutely refused to acknowledge that this is how the electoral college works, and pay more attention to winning in rural and small states.
Nailed it. I lost almost all respect for Hillary Clinton when she refused to campaign there whilst Trump, all of my dislike for him and his ideology aside, campaigned there and truly earned every vote he got. Doubly so when her own husband, all of his failings aside someone insanely great on the campaign trail himself, urged her to do so.
https://wtvr.com/2016/11/11/bill-clinton-strategy/
This is just rooting for your favorite team...
I can attest to this. Long time ago, I lived in Minneapolis for a while and thought the place got worked over by liberals. Now I live in small town Wisconsin, and we got bent over by conservatives so bad that we're a regular feature in the national news and the butt of late night comedy jokes.
I was foolish when I was younger, and thought the liberal-conservative thing made a difference in politicians. It doesn't. You can get reamed by either one. In fact, you're most likely to get reamed when you're thinking in terms of the liberal-conservative dichotomy.
At least, that's been my experience. Your mileage may vary I guess.
Guess which party was in favor of it, and which was against it. This happened recently, within your living memory.
Supposedly liberal California overturned the courts ruling on this issue with prop 8 in 2008.
I think Republicans, being conservatives, definitely took longer to move on this issue than Democrats, but I think this is an area where the country as a whole shifted a lot over the recent past.
What is funny (at least to me) though is the huge peak in activity on Grindr during republican conventions. To be fair, the republicans as a group are way better on nuclear power despite denying climate change.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/9aeen8/cleveland-was-bomb...
It's very clear that the modern Democratic party overall was in favor of legalizing gay marriage and that the modern Republican party overall was against it. And that, to this day, Democrats are still much better on LGBT issues than Republicans.
Once the tide turns (on almost any issue) both parties are pretty similar. It went that way with Civil Rights (when LBJ embraced it) and seems to be that way with gay issues today. Just this week President Trump tweeted a pro-gay message.
I think this one is over. There's not a big difference in what the parties are offering, as far as I can tell. It's not a big platform issue for either side.
Ye shall know them by their fruits: https://mobile.twitter.com/cmclymer/status/11345548023299153...
Make no mistake - LGBT rights are under direct attack by the Trump administration. We are likely to see major setbacks in the near future under the guise of “religious freedom.”
Take it from someone with a vested interest in the subject (I’m quite gay): this one isn’t over.
This one isn't over, unfortunately. Many Republican elected officials are still very hostile to LGBT rights, including continued pushes to discriminate against transgender people. Sexual orientation and gender identity are NOT protected classes in most states, and many Republicans are calling to protect discrimination against LGBT individuals under the guise of freedom of religion.
The gay people I know are very afraid of what today's Republicans are doing. It's simply not true that it's over.
What you really need are real mental health facilities that police, families and courts can call on. You need real drug rehab facilities that police, families and courts can call on. We've tried to turn jails into mental health and rehab facilities and we're wondering why it doesn't work.
Well, that's not what a jail is for.
Incentivizing owner occupied housing is a no brainer I suppose. It certainly can't hurt in any way I can think of?
Free food is ok. Needles and cash could potentially be used to simply feed addictions. Shouldn't be giving out needles and cash.
Food is a necessity though. It's the canary in the coal mine. You'll know something's going wrong when the amount of food consumed at kitchens or taken from food banks starts going up. These are the metrics municipalities should be tracking.
For that matter, why do free food, etc incentivize homelessness?
Do you want a rational discussion in which your own assumptions might be challenged or do you just consider anyone who disagrees to be irrational?
[0] Estimates of the recent net illegal immigration rate vary from negative to positive but quite low. Illegal immigration may or may not be “unchecked”, but the rate seems quite low.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I find this implausible in SF. Housing is so insanely expensive that, even if illegal immigrants displace legal residents 1:1 and the legal residents can’t find any other work at all, the jobs in question wouldn’t pay living wages in SF regardless.
(To me, it seems that the US economy is actually rather dependent on illegal immigrants and there would be a crash if we somehow managed to deport all illegal immigrants. A genuinely good immigration reform would need to take this into account.)
What LA needs to do is setup cameras in those areas with license plate readers. Also LA has also always had a problem with illegal dumping. Maybe offer a tip line as well with cash rewards.
Cruise through the comments on this thread to see this "natural reflex" on display.
I still don’t know what the solution is to address the mental health aspect of homelessness. It’s disturbing seeing disheveled people scream at the top of their lungs in the middle of FiDi after work and no one batting an eye.
You can drive north for nearly 8 hours from San Diego and still be in the state. You’ll go from inner city to cow pastures and onion fields and back again.
The City of Los Angeles doesn't have a composting program?
And in this case, the reason you'd illegally dump is because it's free, whereas commercial trash collection and composting services aren't (which is generally true in most cities).
It seems that the city granted monopolies to waste collection-recycling companies, who tripled fees charged to downtown businesses. Instead of paying the high prices for waste disposal, the business dump trash in places no one cares to defend: skid row and the like.
Solutions: clean up, monitor, enforce trash dosposal regulations. Also, homelessness, with its complex causes, needs to be dealt with. It is not as simple as calling in cops and bulldozers to sweep away shanties, as it is an economic and social problem mostly treated as a crime problem.