Doc, Homless in LA

[_Res Ipsa]

Who, exactly, is being flippant? People are perfectly capable of understanding the problem and believing strongly the problem should be addressed without believing Markk’s videos tell us anything about the problem or how to solve it. Or are you just virtue signaling and shaming here?

What's your solution?

- Doc

There's not enough hubris in the world to lead me to claim that I have a "solution" to a complex problem like homelessness in general and the specific problems in L.A. today. There are lots of people who are 1) smarter than me and 2) are more informed than me on the problem, and I generally would look to them for suggestions on how to address the problem. Based on the reading I have done, and on the similar experiences with homelessness we've experienced in Seattle, I have some opinions on what is likely to be effective and what is not. But, in my opinion, homelessness is a result of a whole bunch of different factors, and I don't pretend to have a solution that addresses all of those factors.

Markk linked upthread to an article in the L.A. Times. It's actually one of a whole series of articles the paper ran on the homelessness crisis in L.A. It shows how complex the problem is, including the impact of political infighting, zoning, and NIMBYISM. It also provides a broad picture of the main factors that led to the current situation in L.A. One is the bidding up of the price of housing by wealthier citizens. That has pushed significant numbers of folks onto the streets because they simply can't afford to pay rent. The other, somewhat related, is gentrification. Gentrifcation converts what would otherwise be run-down housing available to the poor and converts it into housing they can't afford.

Both of these factors combined to push a relatively large number of folks out onto the street in a relatively short period of time, leading to the recent spike in the homeless population in L.A. But these factors aren't unique to L.A. -- just the speed with which they've recently propelled folks into the streets. The same factors have been at work here in Seattle, with results similar to but not as dramatic as L.A.

Complicating matters further, people are homeless for different reasons, which means there is no one size fits all solution to the problem. People forced out of their homes by rising prices may simply need housing that is affordable. Those who are there because of domestic abuse may need job training and other services. Those who are there because of addiction need still other services. And those who simply are incapable to taking care of themselves have other needs.

In my opinion, the single most important step needed to address the problem is to create a single entity that spans the relevant geographical area and give it the power necessary to implement solutions. Cities and counties have cooperated to create these kinds of entities to address regional problems like sewage disposal and transportation that can't be addressed by a single city or county. Ours is Metro. It looks like the L.A. area did the former but not the latter -- it has an agency, but not the power or independence needed to implement solutions.

As far as what that agency does, I think we know quite a bit about what does and doesn't work. What doesn't work is concentrating the poor into ghettos. See Pruitt-Igoe. When the poor are concentrated in the same area, gangs and other forms of organized crime move in. What seems to work is relatively small, dispersed housing units integrated with support services. The primary obstacle to this is NIMBYism.

LA county has a 130 page report that outlines specific strategies to address the problem. I suspect that's what a "solution" to homelessness would look like. But I think it has to start with something like: 1) Create an entity responsible for addressing the problem; 2) Give that entity the authority and resources needed to address the problem; 3) Hold that entity accountable. It looks to me like LA has taken the first step, but not the next two.

[_Bach]

If a pharmaceutical company could develop a class of drugs that work as well as opiates in the same medical contexts, they'd make a fortune. You make it seem like it is an issue of will. The endogenous opiod system controls pain. It also is involved in reward/motivation. Therein lies the problem of finding something equally effective as opiates. It's not as though that's a biologically easy thing to do that is simply ignored because researchers don't see money in it.

This would be akin to: If progressives could ever produce economic policies that that would create a strong job producing economy, where the engine of job creators and private capital would continue to invest, flourish and not be socialized and again leave this country- they would be in charge today. But they don’t see, or actually know, the money in it or where to find it!!

The only long term and real pain of addiction starts with socialism and entitlements. Just look at the homeless problem across this nation. Most are a product and grew up in our liberal education policies of the past 30 years.

We are willing to loan students an infinite amount of money for 4-7 years to become experts in a field that will never provide a and wonder why our student debt is out of control. Why not provide the same credit card terms to the homeless?

[_EAllusion]

There's not enough hubris in the world to lead me to claim that I have a "solution" to a complex problem like homelessness in general and the specific problems in L.A. today.

To this, I'd add that you have to be really clear about the difference between "solution" in the sense of reducing the number of homeless and the amount of harm homelessness causes and "solution" in the sense of making sure not one person goes homeless for any amount of time ever. You can believe there are effective approaches aimed at driving down the rate of homelessness and providing harm reduction while also not believing that this has solved homelessness as a phenomenon.

In the parallel thread on this topic, Markk incredulously asked how the intellectually disabled (who are homeless) could ever be cared for. Who is going to do that?! he rhetorically asks. (Only he choose a much more offensive way to express this.) Once you get past him not understanding that most intellectually disabled people who need services involving people caring for them are, in fact, receiving that in a residential setting, you are still left with a small homeless population of people with intellectual disabilities. As a north star goal, I think, "yeah, we can help every last person who needs it." As a practical matter, I recognize that making the number as small as possible is also a form of success and something that reduces it further should be regarded as an attractive solution. Can't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[_Markk]

There's not enough hubris in the world to lead me to claim that I have a "solution" to a complex problem like homelessness in general and the specific problems in L.A. today.

To this, I'd add that you have to be really clear about the difference between "solution" in the sense of reducing the number of homeless and the amount of harm homelessness causes and "solution" in the sense of making sure not one person goes homeless for any amount of time ever. You can believe there are effective approaches aimed at driving down the rate of homelessness and providing harm reduction while also not believing that this has solved homelessness as a phenomenon.

In the parallel thread on this topic, Markk incredulously asked how the intellectually disabled (who are homeless) could ever be cared for. Who is going to do that?! he rhetorically asks. (Only he choose a much more offensive way to express this.) Once you get past him not understanding that most intellectually disabled people who need services involving people caring for them are, in fact, receiving that in a residential setting, you are still left with a small homeless population of people with intellectual disabilities. As a north star goal, I think, "yeah, we can help every last person who needs it." As a practical matter, I recognize that making the number as small as possible is also a form of success and something that reduces it further should be regarded as an attractive solution. Can't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

That is not what I said...at all, I said who are going to follow these folks around that can't even wash their own hands and faces and make sure they take their meds and do what they need to do everyday. These folks are spread out over hundreds of square miles across So Cal...these are tens of thousands of people. These people just plop down on sidewalks when they are tired. Some speed in riverbeds. Some under overpasses or freeway bushes, or along the train tracks.

You just don't get how bad it is here and you think you can understand it with studies and by comparison to your little town of around 25OK. Just from 2016 to 2017 LA homelessness rose 23% to over 50k...and I bet that is low

Please be honest in what I wrote and what my question was to you.

[_karl61]

I was homeless in L.A for a while. It's not fun. I lived in south central for 16 months in a "transition housing" type situation. That was from January 2013 to May 2014 To keep what little sanity I had I use to walk a lot through south central and also the downtown area. I had real problems sleeping so I was pretty much always awake. I use to take the Broadway bus at 5am to downtown and then walk the five to six miles back to the house at Slauson. Sometimes I would do it twice in the morning. I needed to keep busy. I use to walk pass the people who were sleeping in the downtown shops area at 5:30AM. They would be sleeping on a piece of cardboard to insulate themselves from the concrete; some had a blanket, others didn't. Many homeless people actually prefer not having to deal with the rules and regulations that most people put up with. Many have lost critical reasoning skills. They don't want to be told what to do. They have their own rules. If they have their "medication" and a spot where no one will bother them then they are content. A shot of heroin, or some good weed and booze and a safe place to sleep is a temporary Garden of Eden for them. Most of the ones in my house were eventually evicted. They would pay 125 dollars for a week and then tell the manager that more money was coming and never pay; once they were there for 30 days they had to be formally evicted through the courts. It took months to get them out. Some were nice, others made the place a living hell. I always had a good roommate. I was lucky. My best friend there was a guy called Essie. He was funnier than hell. I really didn't know his situation that well but he new the system perfectly. He knew all the eviction rules. During the day he worked some type of agreement with a local auto mechanic for some easy type of work. He use to bring cars home that the owners never picked up after they were fixed. He had three or four in the back parking area. He also had an old van with a custom interior. He had a medical marijuana card and use to get a forty and some weed and on the weekend he would be in his van for 48 to 72 hours, never coming out. He had no drivers license and was stopped one time while driving and arrested. He went to court and told the judge he didn't need a license because he had a constitutional right to travel from one point to another point. He said he won his case. One time I was walking and saw a police helicopter circling about a mile away. When I finally got to the point I saw Essie in his van looking back in the side view mirror and a couple of motorcycle cops and a few patrol cars parked behind him. I'm sure he gave the first officer a lesson on the constitution. I could talk for hours about him, he was so funny. He had been in the house renting a room for a long time before they made the house into a transitional housing home so he was under and old contract and had his own private room and only had to pay a very small amount, something like 50 dollars a month for rent but stopped paying his rent and challenged his eviction and lost and was gone, although he use to call me to see if he got any mail. Eventually I got my financial problems worked out, got my vintage Honda interceptor out of storage, and rode to Cedar City, then the next day to Salt Lake, the next day to South East Idaho to live closer to some family members. My first apartment was 550 for two bedrooms. I paid 500 a month in the transitional housing for either the top or bottom section of a bunk bed. When I knew I was going to be homeless, I knew I needed to sleep at least four hours a day somewhere, and that meant I was not going to be aware of anything that was going on around me like the people that were sleeping on the cardboard in the store fronts. Someone could just walk up and hit them on the head with a piece of concrete. I had to do anything to avoid that situation. I could lock my room at night at transitional housing place and had access to a bathroom so although I was close, I hadn't hit the bottom.

[_Res Ipsa]

EA, yeah, I don’t think preventing anyone from becoming homeless ever would be a realistic goal. I think it’s more a matter of accepting that our economic system is going to result in urban poverty and figuring how to minimize the resuming harm.

[_Markk]

I was homeless in L.A for a while. It's not fun. I lived in south central for 16 months in a "transition housing" type situation. That was from January 2013 to May 2014 To keep what little sanity I had I use to walk a lot through south central and also the downtown area. I had real problems sleeping so I was pretty much always awake. I use to take the Broadway bus at 5am to downtown and then walk the five to six miles back to the house at Slauson. Sometimes I would do it twice in the morning. I needed to keep busy. I use to walk pass the people who were sleeping in the downtown shops area at 5:30AM. They would be sleeping on a piece of cardboard to insulate themselves from the concrete; some had a blanket, others didn't. Many homeless people actually prefer not having to deal with the rules and regulations that most people put up with. Many have lost critical reasoning skills. They don't want to be told what to do. They have their own rules. If they have their "medication" and a spot where no one will bother them then they are content. A shot of heroin, or some good weed and booze and a safe place to sleep is a temporary Garden of Eden for them. Most of the ones in my house were eventually evicted. They would pay 125 dollars for a week and then tell the manager that more money was coming and never pay; once they were there for 30 days they had to be formally evicted through the courts. It took months to get them out. Some were nice, others made the place a living hell. I always had a good roommate. I was lucky. My best friend there was a guy called Essie. He was funnier than hell. I really didn't know his situation that well but he new the system perfectly. He knew all the eviction rules. During the day he worked some type of agreement with a local auto mechanic for some easy type of work. He use to bring cars home that the owners never picked up after they were fixed. He had three or four in the back parking area. He also had an old van with a custom interior. He had a medical marijuana card and use to get a forty and some weed and on the weekend he would be in his van for 48 to 72 hours, never coming out. He had no drivers license and was stopped one time while driving and arrested. He went to court and told the judge he didn't need a license because he had a constitutional right to travel from one point to another point. He said he won his case. One time I was walking and saw a police helicopter circling about a mile away. When I finally got to the point I saw Essie in his van looking back in the side view mirror and a couple of motorcycle cops and a few patrol cars parked behind him. I'm sure he gave the first officer a lesson on the constitution. I could talk for hours about him, he was so funny. He had been in the house renting a room for a long time before they made the house into a transitional housing home so he was under and old contract and had his own private room and only had to pay a very small amount, something like 50 dollars a month for rent but stopped paying his rent and challenged his eviction and lost and was gone, although he use to call me to see if he got any mail. Eventually I got my financial problems worked out, got my vintage Honda interceptor out of storage, and rode to Cedar City, then the next day to Salt Lake, the next day to South East Idaho to live closer to some family members. My first apartment was 550 for two bedrooms. I paid 500 a month in the transitional housing for either the top or bottom section of a bunk bed. When I knew I was going to be homeless, I knew I needed to sleep at least four hours a day somewhere, and that meant I was not going to be aware of anything that was going on around me like the people that were sleeping on the cardboard in the store fronts. Someone could just walk up and hit them on the head with a piece of concrete. I had to do anything to avoid that situation. I could lock my room at night at transitional housing place and had access to a bathroom so although I was close, I hadn't hit the bottom.

South Central is a tough place. I am doing a project in Culver City and I stopped to get a bite to eat and was verbally abused by a guy in a wheel chair for not pushing him through the door. He was harmless but it was weird.

I would love to hear more of your experience their. I worked with the homeless for years in San Bernardino, And over the coarse of the years I helped in a ministry, I found that the only ones that made it out, for the very most part...were the ones that wanted to work at it. It was basically up to them no matter what kind of services they received.

I also found that some wanted out...and were not bad people, but just did not have the “tools” to make it out. Those were the ones that I was there for...those were the ones that deserved the help.

I found a lot of scamming, a lot of hustling, and a lot of people with no moral upbringing...and it may not be their fault, but it was just the fruit of how they were raised and what they were dealt.


Are these fair statments.

[_Analytics]

In theory that sounds great. The empirical evidence of this incentive actually motivating drug companies to create non-addictive pain killers can be summarized in two words: aspirin and Tylenol.

There are lots of other types of pain meds developed that are not addictive. Do you want a list of non-narcotic analgesics?

Gabapentin isn't addictive.

It's just that opiates happen to be very good at pain management. But the specific neuron signaling they work on also affects the reward/motivation circuit in the limbic system. Drat.

If a pharmaceutical company could develop a class of drugs that work as well as opiates in the same medical contexts, they'd make a fortune. You make it seem like it is an issue of will. The endogenous opiod system controls pain. It also is involved in reward/motivation. Therein lies the problem of finding something equally effective as opiates. It's not as though that's a biologically easy thing to do that is simply ignored because researchers don't see money in it.

Non-narcotic analgesics fall into two broad categories: NSAIDs like aspirin, and Tylenol. Yes, other things like muscle relaxers, alcohol, anti-depresents, etc. can have pain relief properties for some people in some circumstances. However, these other things aren't primarily analgesics.

In any case, my main point is that while yes, there is a theoretical profit motive for pharmaceuticals to solve the problem of pain without opioids, there is also a profit motive to maintain the status quo.

My hypothesis is that the profit motive to keep selling opioids to adicts and future adicts outweighs the profit motive for a new drug that could be used for pain but wouldn't have the additional pecuniary benefit of creating a market for addicts and future addicts.

Am I wrong? How much money did the pharmaceutical industry make last year selling opioids to addicts? How does thar compare to their research costs looking for non-addictive analgestics?

[_EAllusion]

[
You just don't get how bad it is here and you think you can understand it with studies and by comparison to your little town of around 25OK. Just from 2016 to 2017 LA homelessness rose 23% to over 50k...and I bet that is low

Please be honest in what I wrote and what my question was to you.

The continuous Madison metro area including Monona, Fitchburg, Middleton, and Sun Prairie is somewhere in the neighborhood of 320k. In that same area, there's a few thousand homeless people at any given time with a significant uptick just recently. Our mayor is not great on the homeless issue, never has been, and it certainly could be better. This is a large enough homelesss population that you see the full range of problems that you keep describing like the very thought of it has never occurred to anyone before. You never quite articulate why a no one can possibly understand homelessness unless they live in an LA sized city with a larger homeless population. You just assert it, like a teenager explaiming "You just don't understand!" before running up to your room to cry in your pillow.

[Guest]

I was homeless in L.A for a while.

That was a really interesting read. What led to your homeless situation, and what are you doing these days? Is it possible, iyo, that chronic homeless types can ever get on their feet?

- Doc