86 points

Great! About time!

Clear them straight into the countless vacancies that keep rents high.

Oh? You just mean spend resources pushing the unfortunate around until they are unseen? Nevermind.

permalink
report
reply
56 points
*

https://calmatters.org/justice/2024/01/california-prison-cost-per-inmate/

Somehow, spending $11,000 per month to trap vulnerable people into the prison system is better than providing rent for a $2,000/month place, with enough left over for food, clothing, basic medical and mental healthcare and providing college or vocational training for free.

An UBI of just $500/month? Nope, those are handouts for the undeserving. The people that deserve money hand over fist are police unions, prison guard unions, prison goods and services contractors of course.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

All you need to do is look where (to whom) that $11k is going to answer the question.

For-profit businesses are expected to do what they can to turn a profit. A business whose profits are often dictated by public policy are expected to bend that policy toward their profits. Elected officials who are dependent on fundraising to be re-elected have an incentive to listen to the will of those businesses in their constituency.

Which is exactly why for-profit prisons should be absolutely, without exception, banned from any free country. It’s not a conspiracy to say for-profit prisons create more prisoners, it’s an obvious and inevitable consequence.

Edit: before anyone mentions California banning for-profit prisons, the industry still makes plenty of money from the system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Just because the prison is not “for profit” does not mean the prisoners are free from the prison industry. They can still be loaned out to private companies to make things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

“…there is one thing I don’t understand: how could they have let things get so bad?” "That’s a good question. I wish I had an answer.

39 more days!

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

los angeles had the closest thing to the sanctuary districts shown in ds9 thanks to their previous mayor’s recommendation. if the bell riots happen, it’ll be there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

“We must act with urgency to address dangerous encampments, which subject unsheltered individuals living in them to extreme weather, fires, predatory and criminal activity, and widespread substance use, harming their health, safety, and well-being, and which also threaten the safety and viability of nearby businesses and neighborhoods, and undermine the cleanliness and usability of parks, water supplies, and other public resources.”

I don’t even know where to begin.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

“The order requires state agencies to adopt policies modeled after a California Department of Transportation policy directive that “prioritizes removal of encampments that pose threats to life, health, and safety, while partnering with local governments and nonprofit providers to facilitate offers of shelter and supportive services in advance of removal.””

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Unless they’re setting people up with homes, this sounds like an excuse.

If the shelters were safer and had space, the people in encampments would be using them already.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Thanks for making me ashamed of my state, asshole. Then again, my love is actually for the Bay Area and specifically Oakland, so little change there. Fuck off, Gavinator.

permalink
report
reply
-23 points

You blame the govenor for the Supreme Court ruling?

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Nobody’s forcing Newsom to embrace the ruling.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

The growing homeless problem is forcing him to embrace the ruling. Why would he ignore the problem?

“prioritizes removal of encampments that pose threats to life, health, and safety, while partnering with local governments and nonprofit providers to facilitate offers of shelter and supportive services in advance of removal.””

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

he used to be the mayor of san francisco.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Really disappointed in Newsom here. He’s done a lot to try and improve the housing situation here (though not nearly enough, it’s a lot more movement than this issue has seen in years), so I really expected better than this of him. The camp sweeps are just the biggest fucking waste of money. The state spends millions of dollars playing whack-a-mole, tormenting the people in our society who need the most help and just wallpapering over the problem, and it does absolutely nothing to help. Arguably, it makes things worse. That money could be better spent on direct action, building affordable housing, funding rehabilitation, etc. But we gotta blow it out our ass just tormenting people because whiny wealthier people want them moved now.

And we have the audacity to mock communist regimes for fake grocery stores, as if this is any better. You can’t fix homelessness by making these people miserable. The extra frustrating part is that the real fixes are far, far cheaper than this stupid fucking band-aid system we’ve developed.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Really disappointed in Newsom here.

same here.

i liked him before because he was the only democrat to force the issue of gay marriage by providing marriage certificates to same sex couples while he was mayor of san francisco.

cynically: it’s san francisco so he knew he wouldn’t receive any political blow back for the stunt; but it came at a time where even obama publicly espoused anti-gay marriage views; so it felt like there was hope that my life partner wouldn’t be deported because i couldn’t sponsor him for citizenship due to doma.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

no longer any barrier to local governments utilizing the substantial resources provided by the State, in tandem with federal and local resources, to address encampments with both urgency and humanity

With those “substantial resources” and a sense of “humanity”, you’d think they’d build housing for those in need.

Nope! It just means shuffling people experiencing homelessness to another place. What an absolute asshole!

permalink
report
reply
6 points

Shuffling them to other places is how many arrived in California to begin with. But an eye for an eye is bullshit. The la times has no love for newsome

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

San Diego did a study and found that most homeless people there were natives who had been fully employed and watched over years as rent got worse and worse until they were evicted.

The idea that all the homeless are from red states who gave them a bus ticket is a myth meant to relieve us of any feeling of responsibility or empathy for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

rent got worse and worse until they were evicted

Renting in California is like being expected to run forever on a treadmill with an ever increasing rate of speed.

It wouldn’t surprise me if most of the people in new California rentals were new arrivals, as other areas continue to get worse every year making the idea of escaping to California increasingly attractive. I wonder how often people from other markets move in with savings from other areas, pay the overpriced rents for a couple of years and do their part to help justify the rising rents, and then go back to where they were from after their savings are exhausted. Anecdotally, I know quite a few people who did something very similar to the above.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 206K

    Comments