If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   California deliberately lets homes sit empty rather then let homeless veterans use them   (openchannel.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 64
    More: Sick, West Los Angeles, American Legion, you know  
•       •       •

12616 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2012 at 10:57 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-07 11:11:51 PM  
5 votes:
"than", idiot.
2012-07-07 10:02:07 PM  
5 votes:
They're not homes for homeless veterans, they're NURSING homes for veterans!
2012-07-07 09:02:38 PM  
5 votes:
California doesn't have the money to do anything more right now. Maybe they could ask Lockheed and the other companies that manufacture WMDs in Cali for help.

Please read the articles before writing headlines.
2012-07-08 01:00:12 AM  
3 votes:

Clemkadidlefark: California

California Assembly of Baboons votes to spend $48 billion to build high speed rail connecting L.A. and San Francisco. Which are already connected by air travel.

California asks, Why we so broke?


That rail line should create thousands of jobs to construct, run, and maintain. Air travel is expensive and a major hassle, as long as the price of rail tickets is considerably less than a plane ticket and you don't have to go through a TSA grope session to get on it will increase tourism and business activity between the cities. The plan seems like it's full of win.
2012-07-07 11:34:09 PM  
3 votes:
Can those veterans pay for the service of living in those homes? Didn't think so.

As I've said before:

If someone can't afford to stay competitive, why do they deserve to compete?

If someone can't afford to keep working, why do they deserve to work?

If someone can't afford to stay healthy, why do they deserve health?

If someone can't afford to stay alive, why do they deserve to live?

You get what you pay for. If you can't afford to pay, well... I suppose it's polite to pretend that it was nice knowing you, but you aren't much use anymore, are you?

And if you disagree with all of the above statements, great! Politics takes money. If someone can't afford a lobbyist or a campaign, why do they deserve to have their opinion heard?

Like it or not, these are the values your masters have chosen for you, and every time you buy a product or earn a paycheck, you're buying into those values. But hey, at least you got yours, right?
2012-07-07 10:00:45 PM  
3 votes:
But though it finished building the 300-bed facility in April, the California Department of Veterans Affairs said this week the state budget crunch means no veterans will be able to move into the Fresno veterans home until October 2013

Subby you're an asshole.


Better headline: Why won't California let people move into the VA nursing homes it's just built?
2012-07-07 09:45:25 PM  
3 votes:
Wow, TFA's headline is fooked.

They aren't new homes for veterans, as in single-family homes. They are new veterans homes, as in high-occupancy facilities.
2012-07-07 09:32:15 PM  
3 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss


These were my first thoughts as well. From there I strayed into where the line should be drawn on who's worthy of the charity; for how long; and at what price to deed holders?

Also I immediately consider what it means to me, a mortgage holder, who has been responsible, living within my means, making house payments. I would feel almost punished and certainly taken advantage of for not defaulting on my loan -doing the right thing.

Makes me feel foolish for not getting a much bigger, much newer home and damn the cost.
2012-07-07 09:13:19 PM  
3 votes:
Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss
2012-07-08 01:48:15 AM  
2 votes:

some_beer_drinker: the financial elite (1%) would rather see us all starve to death than forgive our debts. we need to escape this cycle or that's exactly what will happen.


historically speaking, once a society voids the social contract, that society tends to crumble. in our case, I think we're gonna be pretty messy about our break up into regional geo-political states.
2012-07-08 01:17:02 AM  
2 votes:

Quantum Apostrophe: "than", idiot.


AMEN!
2012-07-08 12:46:05 AM  
2 votes:

Clemkadidlefark: California Assembly of Baboons votes to spend $48 billion to build high speed rail connecting L.A. and San Francisco. Which are already connected by air travel.


Cause infrastructure spending is such a bad thing. And California shouldn't be paying for the Veterans, the DoD should be. And California should try like hell to make the people responsible for those veterans being veterans to pay for them which is their ethical duty.
2012-07-07 11:59:45 PM  
2 votes:

Guuberre: Securitywyrm: MATH TIME!
$280,000 a month for two buildings, capable of housing 450 people total, to sit vacant.
That's $9333 a DAY.
Just what the hell is in these buildings that is costing over nine thousand dollars a day to maintain? Maintenance/security personnel makes $20 an hour(generously), times eight hours a day, $160. Let's say there's... a dozen staff for EMPTY BUILDINGS, 8 at one location and 4 at the other. $1920 per day on maintenance. Where is the other six thousand dollars going?

This is why we can't have nice things, because nobody in the government has ANY incentive to cut spending. You spend all the money you can get your hands on, and then just blame the budget when money runs out. It's like in the military: You have to use every single consumable resource you're authorized to use, even if you're just wasting it. If you're authorized 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and you use 9,000, then next year you're only authorized 9,000. Better go down to the range and just blow through the ammo for no purpose.

This kind of waste makes me angry. You look at how much money they spend to build these things, that would have paid RENT MONEY for every one of the people it could have possibly housed, for as long as the facility would have been open.

Playing Devil's Advocate here:
You have to consider utilities. A building large enough to house 450 veterans is going to be quite large. Consider that each veteran will probably have a small apartment. From what the article described, this would appear to be a retirement home. Even if the building is unoccupied, you'll want to maintain environmental control (re: air conditioning). Allowing a facility that large to go without such controls will contribute to a rapid decline in the overall state of the building. It sucks, but they're probably spending several thousand a month just to maintain temperature and humidity control. It's a necessary evil to make sure the building and fixtures don't deteriorate.


I live near San Francisco, within 50 miles of the two locations in the story, so let's try that math. My electricity bill is, on average, $75 a month, and that's because I'm a heavy power user (Air conditioning, computer, giant TV, home 90% of the time). Times 45 people : $33,750 for the power bills of 450 people if they were there (This is assuming that an empty room is going to use as much as an occupied room). Considering they're saying it costs $280,000 a month, neither grounds maintenance, security or services (power and water) can account for that.

Here's the question we have to ask: Who is making millions of dollars from the facility NOT being open?
2012-07-07 11:48:05 PM  
2 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss


Veterans are especially likely to be homeless. They make up about 10% of the general population, but about 1/3 of the homeless population. This disparity suggests that veterans are a group especially in need of help, and it would be appropriate to expend additional resources targeting them specifically.
2012-07-07 11:08:48 PM  
2 votes:
MATH TIME!
$280,000 a month for two buildings, capable of housing 450 people total, to sit vacant.
That's $9333 a DAY.
Just what the hell is in these buildings that is costing over nine thousand dollars a day to maintain? Maintenance/security personnel makes $20 an hour(generously), times eight hours a day, $160. Let's say there's... a dozen staff for EMPTY BUILDINGS, 8 at one location and 4 at the other. $1920 per day on maintenance. Where is the other six thousand dollars going?

This is why we can't have nice things, because nobody in the government has ANY incentive to cut spending. You spend all the money you can get your hands on, and then just blame the budget when money runs out. It's like in the military: You have to use every single consumable resource you're authorized to use, even if you're just wasting it. If you're authorized 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and you use 9,000, then next year you're only authorized 9,000. Better go down to the range and just blow through the ammo for no purpose.

This kind of waste makes me angry. You look at how much money they spend to build these things, that would have paid RENT MONEY for every one of the people it could have possibly housed, for as long as the facility would have been open.
2012-07-07 11:04:38 PM  
2 votes:
Who do these vets think they are trying to get something for nothing? Wall St big shots? Bankers? The CEO of GM? They should be happy that they were given the opportunity to get their legs blown off for the US of 'Merica.
2012-07-07 10:18:25 PM  
2 votes:

BronyMedic: In before we get all the lighters telling us how supporting veterans is wrong, and we shouldn't be such jingoistic farkwads as to help them when they get back from murdering babies for oil and at the whim of America's Israeli masters.

/This is what some frequent FARK posters actually believe.


WTF was that?
2012-07-07 10:04:59 PM  
2 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: They're not homes for homeless veterans, they're NURSING homes for veterans!


I was under the impression that California was building these useless old farts McMansions with large teevees and refrigerators and stuff. That's what the headline says. Are you saying subby is illiterate?
2012-07-08 01:50:07 PM  
1 votes:

Clemkadidlefark:
Posters who took exception to my post, riddle me this, factually, if you please ... explain to the rest of us how California rationalizes spending taxpayer monies to build the building, pay the staff, maintain the infrastructure but balk at appropriating enough budget to actually use the facility for homeless veterans ...


It's quite simple, my dear boy. Building the facility allowed us to pay $37 million dollars out of the state's coffers to my good nephew Archibald's brand new construction company. Fine lad, just out of UC Davis don't you know, and he just needed a good contract to get started and prove his mettle. Staffing allows us to pay $800,000 a month - a month, my good sir, to the esteemed Ronald Simmons, my college compatriot - and a fine game of football he played, let me tell you - who runs a staffing office here in Sacramento with branches all over our fine state! And maintaining the infrastructure puts hundreds of worthy individuals to work, day in and day out, keeping the lights on and the tap running, don't you know?

But compared to them, what have a few slovenly, drunkard vets ever done for us? Hmm? What possible good does it do me to have these people's needs taken care of? The work's already been done; the money's already been paid! There's just no profit in it, don't you see?
2012-07-08 01:44:16 PM  
1 votes:

Aikidogamer: Weaver95: technically, that would be everyone on the north american continent who isn't native american. you're gonna have to narrow it down a bit.

Natives are technically foreign invaders too...crossed a land bridge. They get good and pissed when you remind them of that fact.


Just like white supremacists when you remind them that everyone's originally from Africa.
2012-07-08 10:15:52 AM  
1 votes:
Veteran = Ex-Merc

Why not let the corporations whose "interests" they are protecting pick up the tab?
2012-07-08 09:31:52 AM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss


I'll play your silly game!

Why should the government provide nursing homes to the veterans who were guaranteed healthcare in exchange for serving their country in a time of war?

FTFA:

"These are Vietnam, Korean and World War II veterans," she said. "We signed on the dotted line to do anything for our country including giving up our life, and they promised us health care for the rest of our lives, but they don't take care of us."

In the early 1930's veterans had to march, en masse, on Washington for the pay that was promised them. If I recall correctly, they camped across from DC until the government capitulated. It cost Hoover the election and is how Roosevelt won in 1932. Eisenhower,then an aide to MacArthur, called MacArthur a "dumb son of a biatch" for leading the Army against the veterans. Eighty years later, many veterans are reaching a point again where we're willing to march on the White House because, no, we're not getting the benefits we were promised. In this case, neither are these veterans - who've sacrificed far more for this nation than any of the rest of us (including those of us who are younger disabled vets).

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " Hubert Humphrey, 38th Vice President of the United States, 1 November 1977
2012-07-08 08:57:05 AM  
1 votes:
TFA states that Cali spends over 280k/month to prevent these unoccupied buildings from "falling into disrepair"..... That's a hell of a lot of money for what should be minimal work. Start evaluating your budget there, dummies.
2012-07-08 08:17:39 AM  
1 votes:
But 2.3 billion on a high speed rail is A-OK.
2012-07-08 05:47:56 AM  
1 votes:
Quick recipe for fake outrage:

Step 1: Build multi-unit housing facilities for veterans.

Step 2: Hold off on opening said facilities until you have the money available to hire the needed staff to maintain these facilities.

Step 3: Submit a Fark headline making it sound like homes are sitting vacant in the desert just waiting for single families to move into them

Step 4: Blame it on the Democrats/Federal government/Obama/Socialists/Obamacare, etc...
2012-07-08 05:08:50 AM  
1 votes:
Veterans have been getting shafted since the Vietnam war.

The government starts a fight, sends over millions of troops and trillions of dollars of ordinance and the ones who come home all shot to hell and back find themselves eligible for sub par care.

Vietnam vets had to fight like heck to get war benefits -- because congress never declared Vietnam to be a 'war' but a police action. So when thousands of Vets returned with vital chunks shot off, congress refused to take care of them properly since they had not been in a 'real' war.

Back as long as 40 years ago I was reading about the horrors that were veterans hospitals, under funded, under staffed, bug and rodent infested, with whole sections falling down because there was no funding for repair. I recall several investigations to 'set things right for those willing to die for us' but eventually, it all drifted back to shiat.

In the meantime, billions were being spent on new parks, baseball and football stadiums, beautification programs for cities and highways and major tax incentives were handed out to draw in businesses.

I also recall the 'Big Switch' to a 'Peace Time' military, where seasoned military leaders could be sued and thrown out if they 'offended' a recruit while trying to teach them to stay alive when enemy soldiers -- whose instructors offended them a lot -- were determined to poke holes in them with hot bits of metal.

On a similar front, I just had my elderly Mother stay in the local hospital for a time and it took her 10 hours after arriving in the ER to get taken to a room. I assumed the place was busy and backed up. Once in her room, for the next several days, she received what I'd consider a bit sub rate care.

I noticed the construction of an impressive new Intensive Care Facility on the grounds. Elsewhere, something else impressive was in the process of being built.

I was impressed.

Then I found out that the 10 hours she waited was not because the place was packed, but because they didn't have enough staff working the floors. In subsequent days, I saw many an empty room and staff running about like mad trying to get work done.

The hospital had cut it's budgets and laid off around 1/3 of it's employees. The administrator/CEO though lived in a new home, built by the hospital, worth a few mill, drove top of the line cars, bought by the hospital and his kids all went to private schools, paid for by the hospital. He and his family had full coverage health insurance -- paid by the hospital and full coverage auto insurance, paid for by the hospital. His salary started at nearly a million a year and no matter what, if he gets fired or quits, he gets two million in severance pay, stock options in the hospital, takes his medical coverage with him and gets a fat bonus.

At the same time, I noticed highway construction along the 'rich' area. What really caught my attention was the median strip, planted with over 500 medium growth Palm Trees, which run an average of $250 each. In-between them were more flowering plants.

I calculated that over four million was spent on 'beautification' on that short stretch of road.

Between the over paid CEO and the highway, there were more than enough funds to not only fully staff the hospital, but to keep them working for years.

It all comes down to priorities. Health care and homes verses the rich and their images.

I figure the same thing is happening in California.
2012-07-08 02:45:45 AM  
1 votes:

Novart: This is the same state that used 9/11 victim funds to patch holes in their budget.

But yea let's get a tax increase! We can trust them with our money.



Gotta love Republicans

Arnold Schwarzenegger, borrowed $3 million of memorial license plate money to help plug the state's budget deficit.
2012-07-08 02:30:21 AM  
1 votes:

crispyone: If these were homeless drug addicts and ex-convicts you farktard liberals would be all about helping them but since they are veterans it's, "Fark them! Why should they get help?"


Go to hell. I'm in favor of helping everyone, no matter what their job is or was. I know one liberal who is against veterans aide, and he's a widely known whack job jerk. This is out of the hundreds of liberals I hang out with. Hundreds. Most liberals are in favor of providing a social safety net to whomever needs it. Once again, go to hell.
2012-07-08 02:16:50 AM  
1 votes:

some_beer_drinker: the financial elite (1%) would rather see us all starve to death than forgive our debts. we need to escape this cycle or that's exactly what will happen.


The 1% has always been a problem. Every 100 years or so we fix the problem and then forget. US and French revolution got rid of the royalty and we were ok for awhile.
Anti-trust laws a 100 years later to try and control the robber barons. We did ok until about another 100 years had passed ....

Reagan (and his followers) came in and undid most of the controls on 1%. Death Tax, upper bracket tax rate (which no one really paid ...), capital gains tax tax. Toss in glass steagall repeal and TADA, we got our royalty back.

The question which remains is when does something happen to fix this?
The GOP "caused" this. But the dems are terrified of doing that is needed to fix these problems.

We have had 30 years of this experiment. I vote for putting everything back for 10 years and then reviewing how things have improved or not.

/LOL - utopia for the 99%

All
2012-07-08 01:19:32 AM  
1 votes:

farkin_Gary: Weaver95: Pincy: farkin_Gary: Again I say; The single thing holding this country back from complete anarchy and destruction, is the massive volume of conflicting agendas.

Unfortunately, the scales are beginning to tip as more of the little guys are slipping off the edge.

But they'll still vote Republican because the socialist Black guy is scary.

i'm not so sure. I think the GOP is starting to fragment. did you watch the slow cascade of derp that's been flowing through the right wing blogosphere since the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare? its been going some interesting places.

If there's any shred of sanity left on the right, it had damn well better fragment.


the problem for the GOP is that the leadership is trying to throw Justice Roberts under the bus and it's proving to be more difficult than expected. see - they HAVE to disavow him. Roberts betrayed the cause. he HAS to be punished...but they still need him. the conflict is making life difficult for the GOP. they literally do not know what to think about the recent SCOTUS ruling.
2012-07-08 12:51:52 AM  
1 votes:

angryjd: Every time they fail to do a job they wind up getting rewarded with more money. This is why they intentionally fail halfway through every job.


It shouldn't be the state's job to cover costs for veterans, ever. The military should be making sure they have proper housing and medical care for as long as they need it. Also making sure disabled veterans get proper pensions from day one. It's the DoD that makes the veterans, it can damn well take care of them afterwards. No state should be tasked with providing basic services and items to veterans. If they want to go above and beyond, no problem, but it should never ever fall to a state to provide basic care for veterans.
2012-07-08 12:48:53 AM  
1 votes:
But critics say those facilities are just the latest example of waste at the agency, which has asked voters and the state legislature for money to build veterans homes but then fails to staff them once they are built.

Bingo. They build the facilities with no money allocated for running them. They then leak stories like this to imply the politicians don't care about veterans. All of a sudden, the bureaucrats get their staff and funding increased.

Every time they fail to do a job they wind up getting rewarded with more money. This is why they intentionally fail halfway through every job.
2012-07-08 12:34:09 AM  
1 votes:

SgtArkie: Hey foreign invader get on this bus and go the fark home



And yet you still signed up for military service to go to Iraq... and expect to be called a hero for it.
2012-07-08 12:19:55 AM  
1 votes:

Krieghund: Securitywyrm:
This kind of waste makes me angry. You look at how much money they spend to build these things, that would have paid RENT MONEY for every one of the people it could have possibly housed, for as long as the facility would have been open.

Read TFA again. These are nursing homes. The veterans don't need RENT MONEY, they need ASSISTED LIVING.

I don't understand why this is a state thing though. Do other states run nursing homes for veterans?


You see we used to have these things called State Hospitals, they were used for psychiatric care, medical needs, long term care. We used to have a lot of them. And people who were homeless (the majority of homeless people have severe medical, emotional, and psychiatric problems that keep them homeless) would be kept there where in the best of times they would receive the care they needed, and at worst at least they were being kept out of the general population to whom they were either a danger to or in danger of.

But then Reagan came along those programs were destroyed so that he could give rich people tax breaks (sound familiar) and rack up the dept on needless military projects (boy am I the only one getting deja vu?)

So all those people that needed assistance were thrown out on the street to fend for themselves. And a lot of them just died, but the ones that didn't, well there's a big part of our homeless problem.
2012-07-08 12:13:11 AM  
1 votes:
welfare and inexpensive health care for veterans is a difficult issue for Republicans. their taught to HATE the weak, and that all welfare and all inexpensive health care is 'socialisms'. But they're also taught that veterans are godz and that they should 'support the troops' at all costs. So when a vet needs welfare or access to decent medical care...the average GOP voter has a brain lock. I think most Republicans honestly do not know what to do when they see a veteran on welfare or taking food stamps. they want to hate them for being weak and socialist but at the same time they want to help.
2012-07-08 12:12:22 AM  
1 votes:
Everybody knows who is getting screwed and who is doing the screwing.

And as long as we all sit around and negotiate over who gets to move up to the screwer queue from the screwee queue, *nothing* is going to change.

When an entire culture turns it's back on the obvious aspects of honesty, decency and humanity before hubris, lest you want to wait for a higher ledge in the septic tank and pronouce that "normal", you have to find out what making people behave that way and shut it off. You don't try and mitigate or excuse the results by degrees.

That's called treating the illness, not the symptom.
2012-07-08 12:08:33 AM  
1 votes:

Securitywyrm: I live near San Francisco, within 50 miles of the two locations in the story, so let's try that math. My electricity bill is, on average, $75 a month, and that's because I'm a heavy power user (Air conditioning, computer, giant TV, home 90% of the time). Times 45 people


*cue Morbo*

UTILITIES DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT!
2012-07-08 12:05:05 AM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: malaktaus: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss

Veterans are especially likely to be homeless. They make up about 10% of the general population, but about 1/3 of the homeless population. This disparity suggests that veterans are a group especially in need of help, and it would be appropriate to expend additional resources targeting them specifically.

Ok, I agree. But WHY are they homeless?

/we're going for something here...


They were probably poor to begin with- not all of them were, but compared to the general population they certainly tend to be less wealthy. Now they quite possibly have mental health problems, in some cases even brain damage, on top of poverty. On top of that, if you spend enough time in the military you get institutionalized, much like a guy who spends time in prison. When you get out it can be hard to readjust even if you aren't going crazy at the same time; it can be hard acting like a normal, sane human being through an entire job interview, and it can be hard figuring out what to do when you no longer have someone screaming it at you. If you have nothing to fall back on it's very easy to end up homeless.
2012-07-08 12:03:50 AM  
1 votes:

The My Little Pony Killer: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer:

Oh good, either all or nothing. Somebody here is an idiot, and it's not the progressive liberals.

I honestly don't understand how someone could have such an 'all or nothing' mindset. how do people like that manage to avoid walking into walls and doors? they can't live on their own, they lack the mental ability to care for themselves.

It escapes me too, but somehow they manage to log into Fark and spread their wharrgarble here too.


a lot of the standard issue boiler plate rhetoric doesn't travel well outside of the right wing blogosphere. Freeper logic and talking points tend to wither when they hit the fark politics tab.
2012-07-07 11:59:03 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: SgtArkie: Weaver95: SgtArkie:

I am partial to. Hey foreign invader get on this bus and go the fark home

why do you hate brown people?

They can be white honkies from Russia too

i'm a little confused on who you want to deport.


Everyone except descendants of the original Native Americans. Duh.
2012-07-07 11:57:34 PM  
1 votes:

SgtArkie:
Or take all the rich's money. That works one time. Seriously I don't know where you progressive libs plan on stealing money from when everyone is broke


1. i'm not a 'progressive lib'. only a sith thinks in absolutes like that. get yer head outta yer ass.
2. we have quite a lot of options when it comes to funding. its just that the GOP blocks everything and the Democrats are desperately trying to hold it all together. third parties don't get a seat at the table either, so don't even think about trying 'em.


say - you aren't one of those Norquist blood cultists are you? one of those 'taxes are theft' people I mean.
2012-07-07 11:52:30 PM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon:
My dad calls them "Old Soldiers' Homes," which is essentially what they are. Look up what the American Legion does; this is what this nursing home is for.


ah yes, but according to some radicals (one of which is in this very thread) we need to completely cut ALL funding to those places because there MIGHT be someone there who isn't a veteran.
2012-07-07 11:43:55 PM  
1 votes:

SgtArkie: Most of these "homeless veterans" are not veterans at all


so because there MIGHT be ONE non-veteran who could somehow maybe possibly slip through the cracks...the entire program should be scrapped?

that's a rather insane worldview.
2012-07-07 11:39:24 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss


The veterans in question aren't homeless, these facilities are nursing homes and they can't be opened because the state can't afford the required staff.

You don't just stick random people incapable of self-care in an empty building, if you're gonna do that just man up and kill them yourselves instead of starving them to death.
2012-07-07 11:37:27 PM  
1 votes:

Securitywyrm: MATH TIME!
$280,000 a month for two buildings, capable of housing 450 people total, to sit vacant.
That's $9333 a DAY.
Just what the hell is in these buildings that is costing over nine thousand dollars a day to maintain? Maintenance/security personnel makes $20 an hour(generously), times eight hours a day, $160. Let's say there's... a dozen staff for EMPTY BUILDINGS, 8 at one location and 4 at the other. $1920 per day on maintenance. Where is the other six thousand dollars going?

This is why we can't have nice things, because nobody in the government has ANY incentive to cut spending. You spend all the money you can get your hands on, and then just blame the budget when money runs out. It's like in the military: You have to use every single consumable resource you're authorized to use, even if you're just wasting it. If you're authorized 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and you use 9,000, then next year you're only authorized 9,000. Better go down to the range and just blow through the ammo for no purpose.

This kind of waste makes me angry. You look at how much money they spend to build these things, that would have paid RENT MONEY for every one of the people it could have possibly housed, for as long as the facility would have been open.


Playing Devil's Advocate here:
You have to consider utilities. A building large enough to house 450 veterans is going to be quite large. Consider that each veteran will probably have a small apartment. From what the article described, this would appear to be a retirement home. Even if the building is unoccupied, you'll want to maintain environmental control (re: air conditioning). Allowing a facility that large to go without such controls will contribute to a rapid decline in the overall state of the building. It sucks, but they're probably spending several thousand a month just to maintain temperature and humidity control. It's a necessary evil to make sure the building and fixtures don't deteriorate.
2012-07-07 11:35:29 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: kmmontandon: Be specific

There are usually a handful of comments from either known trolls or users who post so infrequently they don't even matter.


there's been a noticeable increase in that last one. i'm seeing extremely hostile and/or asinine comments from accounts that have been dormant for years.

I suspect that some of our more prolific trolls are using their fallback fark accounts for their more vile partisan dickery.
2012-07-07 11:34:47 PM  
1 votes:
Only 49 comments in and this thread has gone almost full derp already. Good jerb, guys.

*off to make popcorn*
2012-07-07 11:32:59 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss


It's not "homes", it's "nursing homes." Which was set aside for veterans who need skilled nursing facilities. (Thanks, subby for the entirely misleading headline) My father would be the kind of person who needs these homes: He's 78, early stages of Parkinson's, Korean War veteran. (Tho he's not homeless at the moment, so he wouldn't qualify anyway.)

My first question to the state where I reside is: Why not move in the vets who are able to take care of the facilities FIRST, instead of paying groundskeepers, etc. to "keep them operational." There are plenty of younger men who need care and homes but could do the janitorial work and would be glad to have both.
2012-07-07 11:28:28 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic: In before we get all the lighters telling us how supporting veterans is wrong, and we shouldn't be such jingoistic farkwads as to help them when they get back from murdering babies for oil and at the whim of America's Israeli masters.

/This is what some frequent FARK posters actually believe.


Ah, so you really are stupid. Well, bye.
2012-07-07 11:19:29 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA: "The state budget signed last week by Gov. Jerry Brown sets aside $4.2 million to operate the homes over the next year, enough money to "ramp up" staffing, Arteaga said, but not enough to serve any residents."

Why does that sound familiar?

Oh, and the followup.
2012-07-07 11:17:09 PM  
1 votes:
California has an immigration problem. California also has a budget problem. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

California: "Hey there, illegal immigrant, why don't you agree to work for minimum wage doing something we need like changing bedpans, supervising homeless people in a home to make sure they don't flip out, or helping to maintain our infrastructure? If you do a good job and keep your nose clean we'll even throw in citizenship after five years, and give you on the job training so you can have a legitimate career afterwards!"

Illegal Immigrant: "That sounds better than picking tomatoes for 50 cents a bushel, where do I sign up?"

/yeah, yeah, states aren't in charge of immigration policy
//maybe they should be so something like this could be worked out
2012-07-07 11:14:49 PM  
1 votes:

crispyone: If these were homeless drug addicts and ex-convicts you farktard liberals would be all about helping them but since they are veterans it's, "Fark them! Why should they get help?"


Texas. Where stupid is in the water.
2012-07-07 11:11:24 PM  
1 votes:
California would only care about illegal immigrants. fark everyone else.
2012-07-07 11:11:23 PM  
1 votes:
The answer is simple, the government has been doing it for years. If you give banks and billionaires a billion dollars of poor and middle class peoples money, this helps poor people not be poor.

Trinkle down economics at its finest.
2012-07-07 11:03:23 PM  
1 votes:
Last I heard there are a million unoccupied homes across America. It's not just California.
2012-07-07 11:02:12 PM  
1 votes:
What happened to not making people dependent on handouts and forcing them to lift themselves by their own bootstraps?
2012-07-07 10:54:06 PM  
1 votes:

RodneyToady: MaudlinMutantMollusk: And also, why should states be responsible for rewarding federal service without reimbursement?

That was actually something I was wondering. I kinda figured all VA stuff was federally funded. I've worked for the VA Hospital System before... we were federal employees, not state ones.


I'm not certain, but I suspect the whole state veteran's home establishment was set up after "the war to end all wars" (WW I) when people were actually optimistic enough to believe there would never be another conflict of that scale. In that context, it makes sense because there was never an envisioning of having a continuous supply of wounded veterans, and states felt obliged to their residents who volunteered.

/little did they know...
2012-07-07 10:40:11 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: And also, why should states be responsible for rewarding federal service without reimbursement?


That was actually something I was wondering. I kinda figured all VA stuff was federally funded. I've worked for the VA Hospital System before... we were federal employees, not state ones.
2012-07-07 10:34:52 PM  
1 votes:
kmmontandon: Which ones?

Be specific ... or be a pre-emptively defensive thread sh*tting Fark Independent, who's ready to nail himself up.

I'm guessing the latter.


I'm pretty sure that naming people before they've made an appearance in the thread is a reason to get my succinct Poe's law post deleted, and earn me a three day time out.
2012-07-07 10:28:21 PM  
1 votes:

BronyMedic:

/This is what some frequent FARK posters actually believe.



Which ones?

Be specific ... or be a pre-emptively defensive thread sh*tting Fark Independent, who's ready to nail himself up.

I'm guessing the latter.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-07 10:04:01 PM  
1 votes:
enough money to "ramp up" staffing, Arteaga said, but not enough to serve any residents

How about leaving staffing at one custodian to check for plumbing leaks and trespassers? Hire a real staff when money is available for residents (which will be sooner if you aren't paying people to ramp).
2012-07-07 09:30:42 PM  
1 votes:

nekom: I'll play along. Possible reasons:

1. Perhaps they are homeless in part BECAUSE they are veterans who never properly adjusted to civilian life.
2. Voters like veterans?


I'm not sure of the actual numbers, but it would be interesting to put this in the context of what percentage of homeless people in California are veterans?
And also, why should states be responsible for rewarding federal service without reimbursement?

/voters seem to like veterans, their former employers, not so much
2012-07-07 09:28:50 PM  
1 votes:
Wait so they're waiting on government handouts for living space instead of doing it as an individual?
2012-07-07 09:21:07 PM  
1 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ok, I'll play Devil's advocate... why should homeless veterans get preference over other homeless people?

/and having been one of them, I can assure California has a lot of them
//discuss


I'll play along. Possible reasons:

1. Perhaps they are homeless in part BECAUSE they are veterans who never properly adjusted to civilian life.
2. Voters like veterans?
 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report