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

71–80 of 126 posts

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

#71

Post by kgin »

temp8964 wrote: post #16
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.

Putting aside what the judge may or may not think of himself, the ruling is that actions taken by the Los Angeles government led to this specific situation and because of that, the city is responsible for remedying that situation, at least temporarily, in the near term.

The city does not need to be 100% responsible for every contributing factor to have a responsibility here just as a drunk driver is not off the hook because it was also raining when he crashed into someone.

Nowhere in the ruling does it claim to solve the broader issue of homelessness or dictate a long-term plan for the city. But it does say that the city can't simply let the situation fester while they noodle for decades on initiatives and broader plans.

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

#72

Post by SauciestGNU »

lupire wrote: post #59
temp8964 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you claiming the government of Los Angeles has not discriminated on the basis of race?

I have found with a high degree of correlation that people who refer to critical race theory in contexts like the above do so as a shibboleth, and they almost always deny even the existence of structural racism.

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

#73

Post by falcolas »

insert_coin wrote: post #65
damau wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Truly beautiful, glad I read it. The judge really stuck their neck out. Hope it all comes to fruition and a lot of things are learnt from it.

The main thing we'll learn? homelessness is not a money problem and 1 billion can't solve it.

Well, the things purchased with the $1B just might.

Money can't solve anything on its own, but you can't solve a problem without it either.

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

#74

Post by true_religion »

temp8964 wrote: post #16
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.

The judge literally said that it’s up to the government to both solve it and deliver a report as to why it happened.

This is basically your boss “solving” issues by assigning the task to you.

The bosses lack of expertise is irrelevant so long as you are actually capable of doing what is asked.

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

#75

Post by giantg2 »

bifrost wrote: post #61
giantg2 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget alcohol and other legal drugs.

SF always had a "skid row" area that was mostly alcoholics, but it was a fraction of the size it is now (it was basically a block or two). Now we have an entire neighborhood besieged with people openly using drugs, needles in their arms, smoking fentanyl with anything they can get their hands on. Alcohol and "legal drugs" are not the problem.

I think a block or two is not correct, especially when you correct for population growth and the policy that started shipping them in from other parts of the city. Can you show me population statistics for skid row and overall city homeless compared to the rest of the city/state/country over time?

I don't doubt that opioids have contributed, but alcohol and other legal drugs are a major problem too. If this ruling is based on government caused harm, then it would require investigating the availability of alcohol due to policy too.

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

#76

Post by bifrost »

giantg2 wrote: post #75
bifrost wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SF always had a "skid row" area that was mostly alcoholics, but it was a fraction of the size it is now (it was basically a block or two). Now we have an entire neighborhood besieged with people openly using drugs, needles in their arms, smoking fentanyl with anything they can get their hands on. Alcohol and "legal drugs" are not the problem.

I think a block or two is not correct, especially when you correct for population growth and the policy that started shipping them in from other parts of the city. Can you show me population statistics for skid row and overall city homeless compared to the rest of the city/state/country over time? I don't doubt that opioids have contributed, but alcohol and other legal drugs are a major problem too. If this ruling is…

I'm from SF, I know exactly where "skid row" was, and I also worked there for about a decade. Nobody was shipped in from other parts of the city either unless you count people moving from other counties to where meth/heroin/fentanyl was easily available.

You can count the number of people on the street, maybe 1 in 15 has an alcoholic beverage, the rest are smoking meth/fenty/heroin.

SF's problems are all about drugs.

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

#77

Post by tomnipotent »

bifrost wrote: post #52
tomnipotent wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe do some research. https://www.pacificresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/H... "Roughly 34 percent of the homeless in San Francisco are homeless due to direct economic factors, such as evictions and job losses. Another 12 percent became homeless when they lost the safety net of family or friends." "About 15 percent are due to drug addiction or substance abuse."

I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless, 95% of the people on the street are not from SF, most of them are told to say they're from SF so they can get services. There are tons of fake/stilted reports from special interest groups, they're trying to feed the "Homeless Industrial Complex" which has been growing rapidly since 2003. The City has even had to sue other counties for dumping: https:…

> I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless

And somehow this makes you an expert or informed on the matter?

> 95% of the people on the street are not from SF

This is likely the case for every metro in the world. And?

> well known that SF has drug tourists

Facts and research, please. You seem keen to peddle the homeless as drug-addled perpetrators stereotype.

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

#78

Post by bifrost »

tomnipotent wrote: post #77
bifrost wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless, 95% of the people on the street are not from SF, most of them are told to say they're from SF so they can get services. There are tons of fake/stilted reports from special interest groups, they're trying to feed the "Homeless Industrial Complex" which has been growing rapidly since 2003. The City has even had to sue other counties for dumping: https:…

> I've spoken with several people working directly with the homeless And somehow this makes you an expert or informed on the matter? > 95% of the people on the street are not from SF This is likely the case for every metro in the world. And? > well known that SF has drug tourists Facts and research, please. You seem keen to peddle the homeless as drug-addled perpetrators stereotype.

Yes, speaking with experts makes one informed.

Even the Mayor of SF has talked about how SF has drug tourists and how they need to be prevented from receiving services. You don't seem to be very informed about SF.

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

#79

Post by temp8964 »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #72
lupire wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you claiming the government of Los Angeles has not discriminated on the basis of race?

I have found with a high degree of correlation that people who refer to critical race theory in contexts like the above do so as a shibboleth, and they almost always deny even the existence of structural racism.

Right, I do agree structural racism / systemic racism has no meaning, as the great Thomas Sowell pointed out.

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

#80

Post by temp8964 »

true_religion wrote: post #74
temp8964 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The judge literally said that it’s up to the government to both solve it and deliver a report as to why it happened. This is basically your boss “solving” issues by assigning the task to you. The bosses lack of expertise is irrelevant so long as you are actually capable of doing what is asked.

"so long as you are actually capable of doing what is asked"?
Post reply on HN