Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

postalley.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#11

Post by adamsvystun »

> Carter ordered the City and County to provide offers of shelter within 90 days to all unaccompanied women and children in Skid Row; within 120 days shelter for all families there; and within 180 days shelter for everyone there. Further, he required them to offer housing and treatment services to all individuals within Skid Row who are in need of services from the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Public Health. He also required them to offer support services to all who accept shelter offers.

> Judge Carter ordered the city to place $1 billion in escrow; ordered the cessation of all sales or transfers of public lands;

Does the judge have the power to order such things?

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#12

Post by bifrost »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9
bifrost wrote: post #7

Interesting how the article completely leaves out the Heroin/Fentanyl/Meth epidemic. SF is another example of what happens when public policy gets it wrong, our false compassion is killing people and city leaders are doing less than nothing about it.

Opioids are at most a companion to the homeless epidemic. If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

In SF our homelessness is driven by drug abuse and the lack of ability to put addicts and the mentally ill into conservatorship, its well documented.

> If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

Could you clarify what you mean by that?

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#13

Post by disgrunt »

> To enable that, Judge Carter ordered the city to place $1 billion in escrow; ordered the cessation of all sales or transfers of public lands; ...

While I agree that Skid Row is a disaster. If I were a Californian, I don't think I'd be comfortable with this degree of legislating from the bench.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#14

Post by staticautomatic »

bifrost wrote: post #7

Interesting how the article completely leaves out the Heroin/Fentanyl/Meth epidemic. SF is another example of what happens when public policy gets it wrong, our false compassion is killing people and city leaders are doing less than nothing about it.

What is the nature of this “false compassion”?

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#16

Post by temp8964 »

troydavis wrote: post #2

Before commenting, please read the entire article, not just the headline or first paragraph. The interesting part is the details of the decision and next steps. Whatever one’s views on how to address homelessness, this decision is interesting. The article links to the full decision as well.

Read through and it seems to be a crazy plan for me. The judge appears to be extremely ideology driven and a believer of the critical race theory to his core.

It is also laughable to think a judge has a grand plan to solve a societal issue. So a judge appointed himself to be the supreme planner of the city? The idea that a judge thinks himself can solve the homeless problem with a big plan is by itself pathetic.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#18

Post by celticninja »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9
bifrost wrote: post #7

Interesting how the article completely leaves out the Heroin/Fentanyl/Meth epidemic. SF is another example of what happens when public policy gets it wrong, our false compassion is killing people and city leaders are doing less than nothing about it.

Opioids are at most a companion to the homeless epidemic. If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

You have legalised cannabis in the states, that's a better pain relief option.

Re: “No Defense of the Indefensible”: L.A. Judge Makes Landmark Homelessness Ruling

#19

Post by olliej »

bifrost wrote: post #12
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opioids are at most a companion to the homeless epidemic. If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some.

In SF our homelessness is driven by drug abuse and the lack of ability to put addicts and the mentally ill into conservatorship, its well documented. > If we're on the subject of compassion, millions who are no longer able to acquire effective pain relief could use some. Could you clarify what you mean by that?

What on earth? In SF homelessness is caused by the lack of housing. Mental illness is courtesy the Reagan era dismantling of mental health services in CA, and is over-represented for sure.

However, the driving factor for homelessness in SF, is the fact that there is no where for people to live. Thats part of why eviction is so stupidly hard in SF. Once you become homeless it is functionally impossible to get out.

Post reply on HN