Skip to content
 
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.

(Guardian)   L.A. businesses' strategy for discouraging the homeless: DE FENCE, DE FENCE, DE FENCE   (theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Sad, Homelessness, Skid Row, Deinstitutionalisation, Poverty, Fences, Property, Sidewalk, Homeless dumping  
•       •       •

1238 clicks; posted to Business » on 24 Aug 2018 at 10:14 PM (51 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2018-08-24 05:27:42 PM  
sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.
 
2018-08-24 05:39:27 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


Just six more years till this...
 
2018-08-24 05:46:38 PM  
If I saw a fence obstructing the sidewalk without a permit, I might be tempted to treat it as abandoned property blocking the public right of way, and deal with it accordingly.  An angle grinder with a cutting wheel would do it nicely.
 
2018-08-24 06:18:01 PM  

blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.


But they're being poor near me!
 
2018-08-24 06:40:47 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.

But they're being poor near me!


You're on to a bit more than you may realize if your not from L.A.

Skid Row is being highly gentrified.  The process started about ten years ago.  Big silent money came in and bought up cheap property. They didn't develop. Instead they boarded up and left them vacant so the area could continue to side down hill and property was even cheaper. All while buying anything and everything they could.
Now that they have enough control over the area, they are starting to make a real move.

Both the L.A. Weekly and the Times did multi-part stories about this.
 
2018-08-24 06:46:39 PM  
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2018-08-24 07:00:15 PM  
AirBnb.
 
2018-08-24 07:59:50 PM  
Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californ​i​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html
 
2018-08-24 08:23:58 PM  

AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html


You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.
 
2018-08-24 10:16:11 PM  
Liberal paradise.
 
2018-08-24 10:28:53 PM  
cdn.shopify.comView Full Size
 
2018-08-24 11:17:23 PM  

revrendjim: AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html

You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.


Part is climate, when it comes to California. Another part is the ridiculous housing costs. It's got to hit a tipping point eventually. There's too many employed homeless, much less the unemployed homeless.
 
2018-08-24 11:21:53 PM  
Fences are just walls with air holes.  Walls are bad, and therefore fences are bad.

I suggest eating the homeless.  When aphids are a problem, you release ladybugs to eat them.  When starlings are a problem, farmers bring in falcons to eat some of them and scare the rest.  One of the proposed solutions to lionfish in the gulf are to eat them.  Asian carp, eat them.

Eating pangolins to get raging hard ons is making them go extinct.  Rhino horn for raging hard ons made them extinct (functionally).  Just tell the ancient chinese doctors that LA homeless dongs will give their customers a humongous, throbbing, jizz bombing, hard on.

problem solved.
 
2018-08-25 12:02:06 AM  

revrendjim: You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them..


one letter removed from one word and placed in another can make all the difference.."t"

/just dump the apostrophe on skid row.
 
2018-08-25 12:10:39 AM  

inglixthemad: revrendjim: AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html

You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.

Part is climate, when it comes to California. Another part is the ridiculous housing costs. It's got to hit a tipping point eventually. There's too many employed homeless, much less the unemployed homeless.


I haven't dealt with California-levels of homeless, but those I have dealt with fall into two major camps: 1) Those who have hit a bad skid and don't have the resources to get stable. Give them a hand, give them a place to stay as they work and don't have to have security deposits and the like for a few months (as mentioned above, there are plenty in this group who are employed), and they will be just fine. This camp is about 2/5 of the whole. The other 3/5, camp 2), is pretty much going to be on the edge, at best, most of the time, even with the offer of stability. What can be done for people who are either unable or unwilling to take advantage of a shot at stability? A good chunk of the problem could be taken care of if cities would provide good year-length apartments (time to get things in order) for those who have work/want to have work, but there would still be plenty of trouble left.

Side note: I spent a chunk of time in China some time back, and there were homeless folks there, but not of the shopping-cart variety. They tended to be men and women who wandered from here to there, had something resembling the old hobo-style bag-on-a-stick, and were simply invisible to their countrymen and -women they passed by on the street. They tended to be greatly tanned (the men almost never wore shirts), barefoot, and had the longest hair I saw on Chinese men, other than some artists. They floated through the crowds like ghosts, and would use planters and the like as handy public facilities, but no one shooed them away. Is this a particular class in Chinese society, or is this what happens when there is a strongly organized society and some people find open spots in the culture's zone defense? The like has not crossed my path here in the US.
 
2018-08-25 12:20:16 AM  

blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.


Unless they are homeless.
 
2018-08-25 12:35:58 AM  

blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.


Mostly. If you've  been to Chicago you may have noticed the markers in the sidewalk that show where the property line is. Several feet out from the side of the building is private property.
 
2018-08-25 01:20:42 AM  
So how's the prototype for Trump's wall working out? Oooooo, poorly. What a shame
 
TWX
2018-08-25 03:50:19 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.

Mostly. If you've  been to Chicago you may have noticed the markers in the sidewalk that show where the property line is. Several feet out from the side of the building is private property.


Yep. The sidewalk occupies space in the public right-of-way. At some point that public right-of-way yields to private property. This isn't a whole lot different than the unmarked point where the sidewalk in front of one's house gives way to private property for one's front yard.

Where I live, basically there are periodic survey markers which were placed in the center of the public right-of-way, and surveyors measure from these markers so many feet either side to determine where the right-of-way ends, based on the zoning for the area. For my particular parcel, it's about two feet further into my yard than the concrete sidewalk, which happens to also be where the city's water meter sits, and the structure that contains the mailbox is just inside the property from that line.

Businesses in this city's fairly popular downtown have had their own issues with homelessness and beggars asking for money. In a nutshell, these property lines were determined, and begging for money and other loitering on the private property results in being trespassed-out by the cops and given an official warning, and occasionally results in tickets or arrest. For the most part homeless people don't enter these areas. My guess is that this part of skid row has been the same for a long time, there's a point where it's not public property, and if a private property owner wants to fence-off his property, he can do that.
 
2018-08-25 06:05:41 AM  

feanorn: inglixthemad: revrendjim: AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html

You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.

Part is climate, when it comes to California. Another part is the ridiculous housing costs. It's got to hit a tipping point eventually. There's too many employed homeless, much less the unemployed homeless.

I haven't dealt with California-levels of homeless, but those I have dealt with fall into two major camps: 1) Those who have hit a bad skid and don't have the resources to get stable. Give them a hand, give them a place to stay as they work and don't have to have security deposits and the like for a few months (as mentioned above, there are plenty in this group who are employed), and they will be just fine. This camp is about 2/5 of the whole. The other 3/5, camp 2), is pretty much going to be on the edge, at best, most of the time, even with the offer of stability. What can be done for people who are either unable or unwilling to take advantage of a shot at stability? A good chunk of the problem could be taken care of if cities would provide good year-length apartments (time to get things in order) for those who have work/want to have work, but there would still be plenty of trouble left.

Side note: I spent a chunk of time in China some time back, and there were homeless folks there, but not of the shopping-cart variety. They tended to be men and women who wandered from here to there, had something resembling the old hobo-style bag-on-a-stick, and were simply invisible to their countrymen and -women they passed by on the street. They tended to be greatly tanned (the men almost never wore shirts), barefoot, and had the longest hair I saw on Chinese men, other than some artists. They floated through the crowds like ghosts, and would use planters and the like as handy public facilities, but no one shooed them away. Is this a particular class in Chinese society, or is this what happens when there is a strongly organized society and some people find open spots in the culture's zone defense? The like has not crossed my path here in the US.


There are people in California working average (Nursing, construction, et al.) jobs full-time that are homeless. When you hit that, average workers living in cars, a new equilibrium needs to be set.
 
2018-08-25 10:56:07 AM  
FTA: Wesley Willis.
 
2018-08-25 12:56:40 PM  
It's easy, we run a soup kitchen that serves the homeless to the homeless. Eventually one problem solves the other.
 
2018-08-25 01:30:55 PM  

inglixthemad: feanorn: inglixthemad: revrendjim: AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html

You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.

Part is climate, when it comes to California. Another part is the ridiculous housing costs. It's got to hit a tipping point eventually. There's too many employed homeless, much less the unemployed homeless.

I haven't dealt with California-levels of homeless, but those I have dealt with fall into two major camps: 1) Those who have hit a bad skid and don't have the resources to get stable. Give them a hand, give them a place to stay as they work and don't have to have security deposits and the like for a few months (as mentioned above, there are plenty in this group who are employed), and they will be just fine. This camp is about 2/5 of the whole. The other 3/5, camp 2), is pretty much going to be on the edge, at best, most of the time, even with the offer of stability. What can be done for people who are either unable or unwilling to take advantage of a shot at stability? A good chunk of the problem could be taken care of if cities would provide good year-length apartments (time to get things in order) for those who have work/want to have work, but there would still be plenty of trouble left.

Side note: I spent a chunk of time in China some time back, and there were homeless folks there, but not of the shopping-cart variety. They tended to be men and women who wandered from here to there, had something resembling the old hobo-style bag-on-a-stick, and were simply invisible to their countrymen and -women they passed by on the street. They tended to be greatly tanned (the men almost never wore shirts), barefoot, and had the longest hair I saw on Chinese men, other than some artists. They floated through the crowds like ghosts, and would use planters and the like as handy public facilities, but no one shooed them away. Is this a particular class in Chinese society, or is this what happens when there is a strongly organized society and some people find open spots in the culture's zone defense? The like has not crossed my path here in the US.

There are people in California working average (Nursing, construction, et al.) jobs full-time that are homeless. When you hit that, average workers living in cars, a new equilibrium needs to be set.


I have a friend who literally owns a successful small business with several employees. The only reason she's not homeless is because she stays in a loveless dead end relationship with a guy who would ALSO be homeless if he had to depend on his beverage sales route alone.
 
2018-08-25 01:49:15 PM  
And yet another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that in a theater setting the singers on stage usually can't see the musicians because they're in the pit and the sound can take a while to go around so you really really really need a conductor there.
 
2018-08-25 02:20:31 PM  

blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.


And the law is so rigorously enforced.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-08-25 07:09:18 PM  

inglixthemad: feanorn: inglixthemad: revrendjim: AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html

You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.

Part is climate, when it comes to California. Another part is the ridiculous housing costs. It's got to hit a tipping point eventually. There's too many employed homeless, much less the unemployed homeless.

I haven't dealt with California-levels of homeless, but those I have dealt with fall into two major camps: 1) Those who have hit a bad skid and don't have the resources to get stable. Give them a hand, give them a place to stay as they work and don't have to have security deposits and the like for a few months (as mentioned above, there are plenty in this group who are employed), and they will be just fine. This camp is about 2/5 of the whole. The other 3/5, camp 2), is pretty much going to be on the edge, at best, most of the time, even with the offer of stability. What can be done for people who are either unable or unwilling to take advantage of a shot at stability? A good chunk of the problem could be taken care of if cities would provide good year-length apartments (time to get things in order) for those who have work/want to have work, but there would still be plenty of trouble left.

Side note: I spent a chunk of time in China some time back, and there were homeless folks there, but not of the shopping-cart variety. They tended to be men and women who wandered from here to there, had something resembling the old hobo-style bag-on-a-stick, and were simply invisible to their countrymen and -women they passed by on the street. They tended to be greatly tanned (the men almost never wore shirts), b ...


Another group are those with disabilities, either physical or mental, that make it where they can not work. It takes over 2 years to get disability payments to start through social security. Other than those who do not need it, no one can afford to be without income for 2-3 years while waiting for a broken system to grind out a positive decision. It needs an overhaul.

We also have the complete lack of funding for pretty much every federal and state housing program that needs to be addressed. As has been pointed out here, the homeless are not going to go away, they have to go somewhere.
 
2018-08-25 07:11:40 PM  

jjorsett: blender61: sidewalks are public property. It is against the law for private individuals to block or obstruct them.

And the law is so rigorously enforced.

[img.fark.net image 400x269]


I'm well aware of the issues. They are many.  They are complex and not easily solvable. Add competing interest groups, legal and financial issues and it's a real mess.

We know.
 
2018-08-25 07:48:21 PM  
Sounds like we need a discussion of the legal concept of an "easement" here on Fark. They can't obstruct the sidewalk regardless of whether or not it is on their property.

As for the homeless, well, maybe we could try that old public housing thing? Maybe with a twist like in Singapore. The market will never build low income housing, as it isn't the most profitable use of the land. Low income housing, especially in cities, became low income as the neighborhoods declined. It is old housing stock.
 
2018-08-26 09:29:00 AM  

feanorn: inglixthemad: revrendjim: AlwaysRightBoy: Cities in California are putting bolders under bridges to keep them out. These clowns are just following it through.
http://www.latimes.com/local/californi​a/la-me-jagged-rocks-homeless-20160428​-story.html

You can't solve the homeless problem by shooing them away. They have to go somewhere. Maybe we should start addressing the problem by asking why the wealthiest country that has ever existed has homeless people.

Part is climate, when it comes to California. Another part is the ridiculous housing costs. It's got to hit a tipping point eventually. There's too many employed homeless, much less the unemployed homeless.

I haven't dealt with California-levels of homeless, but those I have dealt with fall into two major camps: 1) Those who have hit a bad skid and don't have the resources to get stable. Give them a hand, give them a place to stay as they work and don't have to have security deposits and the like for a few months (as mentioned above, there are plenty in this group who are employed), and they will be just fine. This camp is about 2/5 of the whole. The other 3/5, camp 2), is pretty much going to be on the edge, at best, most of the time, even with the offer of stability. What can be done for people who are either unable or unwilling to take advantage of a shot at stability? A good chunk of the problem could be taken care of if cities would provide good year-length apartments (time to get things in order) for those who have work/want to have work, but there would still be plenty of trouble left.

Side note: I spent a chunk of time in China some time back, and there were homeless folks there, but not of the shopping-cart variety. They tended to be men and women who wandered from here to there, had something resembling the old hobo-style bag-on-a-stick, and were simply invisible to their countrymen and -women they passed by on the street. They tended to be greatly tanned (the men almost never wore shirts), barefoot, and had the longest hair I saw on Chinese men, other than some artists. They floated through the crowds like ghosts, and would use planters and the like as handy public facilities, but no one shooed them away. Is this a particular class in Chinese society, or is this what happens when there is a strongly organized society and some people find open spots in the culture's zone defense? The like has not crossed my path here in the US.


It's both.

It's not much talked about, but China has a caste system. At the low end, the state doesn't even really bother tracking you.
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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