DiscussMormonism.com

Here are the raw numbers for 2015 - 2016:

https://www.lahsa.org/dashboards?id=18- ... ic-summary

The numbers for 2017:

https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=1353 ... esults.pdf

For base reference, there were 41,174 homeless in 2015, 43,854 in 2016, and 57794 in 2016. Pretty big jump in 2017 according to this data.

Let's look at Markk's favorite: drugs.

"substance abuse" (unsheltered) -- those out in the open for Markk to see: 8,034 in 2015; 8978 in 2016; and 8380 in 2017. So there was a 31% increase in homelessness from 2016 to 2017 and substance abuse down by 7%.

Markk's next favorite: foster drop-outs at 18

The 18-24 increase was the most dramatic percentage increase in an age class, broadly consistent -- meaning we can't directly rule it out like drug use -- with the numbers, but even if 18-19 year olds accounted for over half of this group and we assume they are all fosters, in raw numbers compared to the total increase in homeless, it's less than 10% of the newly homeless population.

Mental illness is about the same from previous years.

Perusing the articles on the first 10 pages of "causes of Homelessness in LA", the dramatic increases are universally considered to be thanks to housing costs/housing shortage. The only factor mentioned in the first 10 pages of articles that agrees with Mark, is one (speculative) reference to goals to release more prisoners. Yep, the increase is mostly about housing costs.

Here's an interesting one:

http://www.lamag.com/culturefiles/long- ... opulation/

Long Beach apparently is two years ahead of the game with doubling their housing available and experiments with homeless liaisons (what EA talks about extensively that Mark thinks can't work) and so while the rest of LA has increased 30% + in the last two years, Long Beach has reduced it's problem by 21%.

Now go through sites like this

https://www.samhsa.gov/homelessness-housing

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, approximately 30% of people experiencing chronic homelessness have a serious mental illness, and around two-thirds have a primary substance use disorder or other chronic health condition. These health problems may create difficulties in accessing and maintaining stable, affordable, and appropriate housing.

And you can do the same for veterans...a high percentage of veterans are addicts and mentally ill.

9,285 is the number of substance use disorder...which includes all drugs, including pot, and alcohol. It says 18%.

yet you read articles like this...it is over 60%? 18% is not even close Glad...do you really believe that

Substance Abuse Frequently Accompanies Homelessness

Research indicates that substance abuse is more common among the homeless than with the general population. It is estimated that:

About 38% of the homeless abuse alcohol.
Alcohol abuse is more common among the older set within the homeless population.
About 26%of the homeless abuse drugs other than alcohol.
Drug abuse is more common among younger homeless people.

A survey conducted by the United States Conference of Mayors asked 25 cities to share the top reasons for homelessness in their region. 68% reported that substance abuse was the number one reason among single adults. According to a separate research survey, two-thirds of the homeless who were interviewed reported that abuse of drugs and/or alcohol was a major cause of their homelessness. Very similar numbers are reported for homeless military veterans suffering from a substance use disorder.

https://www.michaelshouse.com/drug-abus ... addiction/

Well, Gad. Two responders thus far have said they basically got out of homelessness through personal choices. Are you suggesting personal choices don't land a person into homelessness?

For the second or third time, what would you do if you found yourself homeless in LA county?

- Doc

Mark,

We were discussing the increased homelessness rates for LA Country, remember? Now you're citing stats from non-profits based in Rockville Maryland? Here's what they say, "and around two-thirds have a primary substance use disorder or other chronic health condition."

Fantastic, Mark, again your own source proves you wrong. I'm supposing that stat refers to some kind of national average, but even if it's local for Maryland it's a useful comparison to LA where the latest count for 2017 shows 16% (aggregate) of the homeless having substance abuse issues.

What we've been discussing is the INCREASE in homelessness in LA, Mark. That's what you, specifically, have been ranting and raving about, and uploading youtube videos over. YOU! Not me. Stay on topic.

The drastic INCREASES in LA homelessness reflects a decreasing rate of drug use. 22% of the homeless in LA in 2016 had "substance use disorder" and 16% in 2017.

Keep digging yourself deeper, Mark.

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Well, Gad. Two responders thus far have said they basically got out of homelessness through personal choices. Are you suggesting personal choices don't land a person into homelessness?

obviously not.

Doc wrote:For the second or third time, what would you do if you found yourself homeless in LA county?
- Doc

That depends on why I'm homeless, and it's going to be really difficult to speculate how I'm going to act under conditions I have no experience with. For instance, if you want to make me a drug addict, I have to way of speculating how that would affect my choices. If you just want to take my job and money away, I have a great resume and so I'll quickly get another job if I can get a cellphone and address. Then again, I might get beat up and put in the hospital since I'm not very street wise.

Gadianton wrote:Mark,

We were discussing the increased homelessness rates for LA Country, remember? Now you're citing stats from non-profits based in Rockville Maryland? Here's what they say, "and around two-thirds have a primary substance use disorder or other chronic health condition."

Fantastic, Mark, again your own source proves you wrong. I'm supposing that stat refers to some kind of national average, but even if it's local for Maryland it's a useful comparison to LA where the latest count for 2017 shows 16% (aggregate) of the homeless having substance abuse issues.

What we've been discussing is the INCREASE in homelessness in LA, Mark. That's what you, specifically, have been ranting and raving about, and uploading youtube videos over. YOU! Not me. Stay on topic.

The drastic INCREASES in LA homelessness reflects a decreasing rate of drug use. 22% of the homeless in LA in 2016 had "substance use disorder" and 16% in 2017.

Keep digging yourself deeper, Mark.

Your way off if you think that only 18% of the homeless (in LA) have issues with Alcohol, hard drugs, pot, and even Tobacco. What about AUD...Alcohol Use Disorder as defined Here.

The article I gave you used data from the conference of mayors which LA is a part of.

It is a circular argument Glad. There are reasons that people are put into the position to be homeless. This article says it as best as any, and agrees with my original assertion which you just cherry pick.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who- ... -homeless/

Homelessness can be caused by:

poverty
unemployment
lack of affordable housing
poor physical or mental health
drug and alcohol abuse
gambling
family and relationship breakdown
domestic violence
physical and/or sexual abuse.

All these factors can cause a person to become homeless. They can also be one of the reasons why a person remains homeless. For example, drug and alcohol abuse can be both a cause and a result of

domestic violence
mental illness or addictions
family instability


If you believe that only 18% of the homeless in LA are addicted to drugs or alcohol..or the other reasons induced by alcohol like mental illness and depression..well, all I can say is that we will never agree on that.

Just saying high rent isn't dealing with the issue.

Mlarky wrote:Your way off if you think that only 18% of the homeless (in LA) have issues with Alcohol, hard drugs, pot, and even Tobacco. What about AUD...Alcohol Use Disorder as defined Here.

You mean the statistic provided by the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority is way off?!

By whose authority is it off Mark, your iPhone's authority?

The article I gave you used data from the conference of mayors which LA is a part of.

I seriously have to ask: did you make it past the fifth grade? What "article" (out of the many) had any specific LA homelessness statistics at all, except for the very general 23% and 75% numbers? If there was a conference, and LA was part of it, and they spoke in general about homelessness (such as appeared to be the case with the Maryland site you liked to) then they are talking about regional or national averages. Our conversation is about LA, specifically, not Maryland, not the US as a whole, and not California as a whole, and specifically, we're talking about the recent couple of years, and the unusual circumstances of the last couple of years.

If there is a natural disaster in an area that leaves a large number of people temporarily homeless in Florida, are you also going to quote the boilerplate from the salvation army or some Maryland service center and say it's a drug epidemic and party culture?

It is a circular argument Glad.

You don't know what a "circular argument" is, Markk, although it's cute to watch you wax intellectual.

There are reasons that people are put into the position to be homeless. This article says it as best as any, and agrees with my original assertion which you just cherry pick.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who- ... -homeless/

Again, sixth grade -- you got to it at some point?

What in God's name does the Salvation Army website speaking about homelessness in general have to do specifically with the crisis in LA, and the statistics provided by the LA Homeless Services Authority?

Nobody disputes the Salvation Army website. None of your links so far make your case for you in any way whatsoever.

If you believe that only 18% of the homeless in LA are addicted to drugs or alcohol..or the other reasons induced by alcohol like mental illness and depression..well, all I can say is that we will never agree on that.

Why would I disagree with the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority? Show me a better statistic and I'll consider it. Nothing you've linked to is actually in conflict with what the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority has published.

Just saying high rent isn't dealing with the issue.

Based on what? I can show you dozens of articles about the LA crisis that says high rent IS the issue, your own sources you originally posted say that high rent is the issue. I'll tell you what: pick your venue, the Salvation Army, the Maryland services center (or whatever it was) and let's email them. I'll bet you they agree with me and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and not you. They will tell you that you don't understand the information they are providing.

Gadianton wrote:

Mlarky wrote:Your way off if you think that only 18% of the homeless (in LA) have issues with Alcohol, hard drugs, pot, and even Tobacco. What about AUD...Alcohol Use Disorder as defined Here.

You mean the statistic provided by the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority is way off?!

By whose authority is it off Mark, your iPhone's authority?

The article I gave you used data from the conference of mayors which LA is a part of.

I seriously have to ask: did you make it past the fifth grade? What "article" (out of the many) had any specific LA homelessness statistics at all, except for the very general 23% and 75% numbers? If there was a conference, and LA was part of it, and they spoke in general about homelessness (such as appeared to be the case with the Maryland site you liked to) then they are talking about regional or national averages. Our conversation is about LA, specifically, not Maryland, not the US as a whole, and not California as a whole, and specifically, we're talking about the recent couple of years, and the unusual circumstances of the last couple of years.

If there is a natural disaster in an area that leaves a large number of people temporarily homeless in Florida, are you also going to quote the boilerplate from the salvation army or some Maryland service center and say it's a drug epidemic and party culture?

It is a circular argument Glad.

You don't know what a "circular argument" is, Markk, although it's cute to watch you wax intellectual.

There are reasons that people are put into the position to be homeless. This article says it as best as any, and agrees with my original assertion which you just cherry pick.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who- ... -homeless/

Again, sixth grade -- you got to it at some point?

What in God's name does the Salvation Army website speaking about homelessness in general have to do specifically with the crisis in LA, and the statistics provided by the LA Homeless Services Authority?

Nobody disputes the Salvation Army website. None of your links so far make your case for you in any way whatsoever.

If you believe that only 18% of the homeless in LA are addicted to drugs or alcohol..or the other reasons induced by alcohol like mental illness and depression..well, all I can say is that we will never agree on that.

Why would I disagree with the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority? Show me a better statistic and I'll consider it. Nothing you've linked to is actually in conflict with what the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority has published.

Just saying high rent isn't dealing with the issue.

Based on what? I can show you dozens of articles about the LA crisis that says high rent IS the issue, your own sources you originally posted say that high rent is the issue. I'll tell you what: pick your venue, the Salvation Army, the Maryland services center (or whatever it was) and let's email them. I'll bet you they agree with me and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and not you. They will tell you that you don't understand the information they are providing.

It is conflated for one thing..I believe I touched on that? Also the conference of mayors, which was quoted in the Maryland site agree with me.

The study you quoted has groups like veterans and the mentally ill as separate percentages, when their "ranks' have high percentages of alcohol and drug abusers. Also is alcohol included in the study, it is not clear.

You again do not know how much rent these folks were paying or if they were home owners...your just assuming every homeless person on the street was kicked out of some development down town.

People make choices and if these folks were not addicted and mentally ill and it was only becasue of rent...that is even worse in that there is work everywhere...getting a job, if you want one, is not out of reach at all. There is work everywhere in LA if one want to make an effort.

In one breath you want to say these people are capable, and it the next say they are not capable of working and finding another place to live. One more 100's of thousand make it on low paying low skilled jobs in LA...why aren't they homeless...is it because the are trying? Is it becasue they are not mentally ill, or addicts, or alcoholics?

Email away, it will be interesting.

Your friend
Mlarky

Gadianton wrote:

Mlarky wrote:Your way off if you think that only 18% of the homeless (in LA) have issues with Alcohol, hard drugs, pot, and even Tobacco. What about AUD...Alcohol Use Disorder as defined Here.

You mean the statistic provided by the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority is way off?!

By whose authority is it off Mark, your iPhone's authority?

The article I gave you used data from the conference of mayors which LA is a part of.

I seriously have to ask: did you make it past the fifth grade? What "article" (out of the many) had any specific LA homelessness statistics at all, except for the very general 23% and 75% numbers? If there was a conference, and LA was part of it, and they spoke in general about homelessness (such as appeared to be the case with the Maryland site you liked to) then they are talking about regional or national averages. Our conversation is about LA, specifically, not Maryland, not the US as a whole, and not California as a whole, and specifically, we're talking about the recent couple of years, and the unusual circumstances of the last couple of years.

If there is a natural disaster in an area that leaves a large number of people temporarily homeless in Florida, are you also going to quote the boilerplate from the salvation army or some Maryland service center and say it's a drug epidemic and party culture?

It is a circular argument Glad.

You don't know what a "circular argument" is, Markk, although it's cute to watch you wax intellectual.

There are reasons that people are put into the position to be homeless. This article says it as best as any, and agrees with my original assertion which you just cherry pick.

http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who- ... -homeless/

Again, sixth grade -- you got to it at some point?

What in God's name does the Salvation Army website speaking about homelessness in general have to do specifically with the crisis in LA, and the statistics provided by the LA Homeless Services Authority?

Nobody disputes the Salvation Army website. None of your links so far make your case for you in any way whatsoever.

If you believe that only 18% of the homeless in LA are addicted to drugs or alcohol..or the other reasons induced by alcohol like mental illness and depression..well, all I can say is that we will never agree on that.

Why would I disagree with the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority? Show me a better statistic and I'll consider it. Nothing you've linked to is actually in conflict with what the Los Angeles Homeless Services authority has published.

Just saying high rent isn't dealing with the issue.

Based on what? I can show you dozens of articles about the LA crisis that says high rent IS the issue, your own sources you originally posted say that high rent is the issue. I'll tell you what: pick your venue, the Salvation Army, the Maryland services center (or whatever it was) and let's email them. I'll bet you they agree with me and the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and not you. They will tell you that you don't understand the information they are providing.

The salvation Army site, who do as much for the homless and mentally ill on the streets as any group...simply states why people become homeless, as i did in th beginning of this thread...you want to ignore these factors, and blame it solely on rent...which is missing the mark.

Look at this study, and tell me how the HUD study and this study compliment each other?

If 26% of homeless people are veterans, and 76% are addicts/alcoholics and mentally ill...how does that fit into the HUD study?

https://losangeles.urbdezine.com/2015/1 ... -homeless/