by Jack
California’s Supreme Dear Leader, Gavin Newsom, is leading the charge to procure hotels and motels to give to the bums and junkies that have flooded our state. These are the people who are coming from all over the USA demanding free stuff.
Many came in on buses known as the “Great Greyhound Movement”. Many states gladly chipped in for a $100 ticket to send their chronic problems to CA. And California soon wound up with half the nations most costly tramps and junkies.
It seems to me that the bleeding heart liberals of CA are only too happy to receive them too. This makes sense, since it’s really about money, your money, from the taxes you pay and the fat bureaucrats that get to choose how those billions are spent.
The homeless population industry has been a real pain in the wallet for hard working residents and small businesses. However, for democrats it’s a golden opportunity to increase their power and control. There’s big money to be made running a bureaucracy and great power to wield; this is a perfect fit for our liberals and we’re just weak enough to let them.
If our founding fathers could only see what these criminals are doing to their grand republic. This nation and especially CA has been entrusted to modern day Benedict Arnolds. What an insult to the founders.
Turning hotels into homeless shelters is not a new concept for leftists in the city of Sacramento. A homeless shelter with services is currently open in the Capitol Park Hotel, a single-room occupancy hotel downtown, where more than 100 homeless men and women are currently living. City Councilman Jeff Harris has previously proposed converting the Motel 6 on Alhambra Boulevard into a temporary homeless shelter by October. I’m sure San Francisco will be doing the same at the Mark Hopkins, Marriott and others. Question…who pays to resupply the little booze fridge found in each room?
Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg, who co-chairs Commissar-governor Newsom’s homelessness task force, said the occasion illustrated the importance of a statewide mandate to require cities meet aggressive goals to house the homeless or face court action. The task force is asking for the mandate to be placed on the November ballot.
“Everyone needs to be indoors,” Steinberg said with a straight face Sunday during a City Hall press conference. Paraphrasing Steinberg, “And if we can use exploit this self made terrible crisis…. to actually take from the rich enough permanent supportive housing, soon to become trashed, we’ve won a great victory over the working people! We can fake the public into thinking we are reducing the homeless population, yet without expecting any rehabilitation…this is a dream come true for us! We’re hiding the problem and spending money by the billions-it doesn’t get any better than this!,” said Mayor Steinberg, more or less.
In addition, the state is sending 450 expensive new FEMA travel trailers to locations around the state to help shelter many of the 108,000 bums and junkies living in California, Newsom said.
We could also send them new Cadillacs too, but it will still not fix the problem. The problem is a burned out brain from drugs and alcohol and a million bad choices made over decades by people who were not to bright to start with. They should be institutionalized because they need 24 hour supervision to function, not a room at the Top of the Mark. For others we jokingly call homeless, well, they live outside the norm, beyond the rules and are there by their own choice. Sure, they will take whatever they’re given and spit in your face at the same time. Why do you think so many states gave them the boot and paid their way to migrate to California?
“Becoming a bureaucratic state is my top priority now. In fact, it ranks right up there with me getting elected as president some day. That shows you how important this is to me and my future!” said California governor Newsom, more or less. He announced these outrageous and idiotic measures along with the latest overblown figures on the spread of COVID-19 to scare people and get his way at a press conference today.
I wonder, what would be your choice, fight the plague of liberalism that is infecting America or wait a few more years and let the Chinese do it when they take the lead?
Geez. A few posts back I kidded around about using communal apartments to solve the homeless problem. Some liberal must have been reading the same history book. What’s next? Gulags for us deplorables?
Hi Jack, I’ve been wondering whether there’s been reporting on Covid-19 cases in the homeless population. Have you heard any statistics? I have not. It seems odd to me that it hasn’t struck this vulnerable segment of society. It would only take one person being exposed to create a pandemic within the various camps. Any thoughts?
No one is collecting stats on COVID-19 in the homeless population.
“As communities across the country are grappling with the spread of COVID-19, people experiencing homelessness (in shelters and the unsheltered) face serious threats where the virus is spreading through the community. Those experiencing homelessness have higher rates of acute primary health care needs, including respiratory disease, and homeless individuals can be at much greater risk of infection and complications from infection.”
— National Alliance to End Homelessness
Homelessness Statistics by State
At an estimated 151,728 (my guess it is much higher than that) California has more than 5 times the homeless population than the next most numerous state, Florida
The “Great Greyhound Movement” has been quite effective, no?
The little booze fridge will be replaced with a cupboard full of free syringes.
Good luck to those property owners whose hotels or apartments were confiscated by Taxifornia – without payment – to house indigents!
That sounds a lot like what we had an American Revolution for . . . . . . . . .
Isn’t it better to have them off the streets right now than on them?
Wouldn’t that always be better?
Institutionalizing them against their will feeds into a “bureaucracy” just as much as this solution…we would need to invest far more into mental health facilities than we do now to make that effective. From the tone of this piece, I find it hard to believe you’d complain any less about your tax dollars going to such facilities than you are now.
Chris we’ve tried institutionalizing, we’ve tried putting them on the street, we’ve tried wet shelters and tiny houses or just letting them setup shanty camps anywhere that suited them. And there was only one place that kept them off the booze, drugs, out of trouble and away from endangering the public. Now I’m sorry that’s the only viable choice left to them, but they made thousands of bad choices their entire lives and now they can’t function like a normal human beings.
They’re no different than a mental patient that is a danger to themselves and others, they need to be institutionalized for our safety and then theirs.
You show me how keeping them on the street, doing needle giveaways or building wet shelters is going to help and maybe I will support it? But, nobody can because those programs are not about protecting the public or even about rehab, its about pie-in-the-sky codependency for bums and junkies and it gets us nowhere. It gets us worse than nowhere, the problem only grows. It gets us more car break-ins, more shoplifting, more stabbings, more muggings, more street crimes and more filth. That kind of problem takes a serious toll on any society and we see that right in this little town of Chico or in Sacramento, San Francisco or wherever the transients have migrated by the thousands. We’re talking about an army of bums coming from all over the USA – this is not CA’s fight, it’s too much for one state. Yes, the bums need to be given a choice clean up their act if they can or be institutionalized for our good first and theirs second. We’re the most important element in this problem and yet the most overlooked.
The bums and junkies come second, but the democrats keep forgetting that. They keep treating the bums to our money and resources like there is no end of the taxpayers money and we are falling behind as a healthy society.
We can live without the bums/junkies, but can government live without a society of working people who pay taxes? Democrats keep undervaluing us! We’re the people who don’t rob, don’t steal and don’t cheat. We deserve to be respected and not held hostage by government and forced into paying for the privilege of cleaning up after the bums and druggies. We’ve had it, enough is enough.
Jack you are wasting your breath appealing to reason.
You show me how keeping them on the street
Huh? I specifically said we shouldn’t keep them on the street.
I am not against institutionalization; my point was that your previous objections to putting them in abandoned hotels would also apply to institutionalizing them. It would require massive government action and bureaucracy. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do. Right now I don’t think such a program is practical; the priority needs to be getting them off the streets and putting them anywhere they can go, to avoid spread of disease. I agree with you that our state has ignored this problem for too long. If we can get the homeless off the street now, we could have done it years ago if the will had been there. Only now are some realizing that their fate affects our own.
I don’t agree that Democrats undervalue working people. We’ve been calling for minimum wage increases for some time while Republicans have opposed this. Aside from healthcare workers, “low-skilled workers” are the ones keeping us alive right now, risking their own health to serve the public in stores and restaurants. They deserve more than just a pat on the back for that, wouldn’t you agree? Democrats have also worked hard to get working people better access to healthcare. I’ve long called for the capital gains tax to be higher income tax, to show that our country values work above investments. This isn’t to say that Democrats are always on the side of working people or that Republicans never are, but I think the situation is more nuanced than you’re portraying it. As a hard worker myself, I don’t feel undervalued when the government helps a homeless person or someone in a lower financial strata than me. I know that their success affects my success. And right now, their health affects my health.
Well said Jack. A permanent solution that also keeps people safe and healthy is far superior to applying bandaids of various colors.
We needn’t dump all into such facilities anyway. Sort through them and watch how suddenly rehab through an established shelter sounds better than being committed.
The California National Guard has a total strength of 23,387 with 18,450 serving in the The California Army National Guard and 4,937 serving in the California Air National Guard.
There is an estimated 151,728 homeless in California. (As noted above I think the actual number is much higher.) This means the number of homeless is at least 6.5 times the number of people serving in the CNG.
Yep, that is quite an army.
California’s liberal politicians lack the practical wisdom of whats is best for the society in general, and especially law abiding people, instead we have, (as Jack points out) a growing population of people that usurp funding desperately needed for other issues within California.
I feel if the homeless took a more responsible approach of what has been provided for them, they would, if nothing else, stop causing crimes. However that is not the case, they routinely add to California’s burden with criminal activity.
Unfortunately they seem to understand Liberal politicians are providing more and more safe harbors from prosecution, even to the extent they can shoplift to a certain degree without more than a ticket.
With the apparent lack of practical wisdom or ideas combined with the absence of a “moral will” to do the right thing. The lack of resolve is apparent as politicians repeatedly try, fail, and refuse to learn from their past mistake. Currently dealing with homelessness, California’s elected just appear to be on a pony ride, going in circles instead of breaking the bucking horse.
A good place for voters to start is replacing the stodgy elected with well-meaning politicians. There is a strong need for creative thinking that is unwilling to trust the judgment of prior elected and put rules/laws in place that have meaning and designed to reduce and protect against this growing homeless disaster, which obviously past elected facilitated.
To date, California’s current liberal politicians appear to be the champions in creating a breed of chronic homelessness, more so than solving the problem.
So next time you spot a hypodermic needle in a park setting, or dodge a pile of excrement on a sidewalk, consider this, you as a voter need to install people that are intent in solving the problem, not increase it.
Re “To date, California’s current liberal politicians appear to be the champions in creating a breed of chronic homelessness, more so than solving the problem.
“So next time you spot a hypodermic needle in a park setting, or dodge a pile of excrement on a sidewalk, consider this, you as a voter need to install people that are intent in solving the problem, not increase it.”
Harold cuts right to the heart of it.
Even Chico’s city council, in possible violation of the Brown Act, passed an ordinance allowing the homeless to set up camps and gather in groups of 10 or less, yet won’t allow any of our small businesses to open their doors and allow limited number of customers in. Proof once again the Dems want everyone on welfare/public aid instead of earning a paycheck.
Sean Morgan pointed out this act will also extend the red carpet to more homeless finding their way to our community.
A Chico resident posted this comment on Facebook.
“April 7, 2020 was the strangest City Council Meeting yet, where many of the staff and council looked like they were about to rob a bank, the barest of majorities did something so unethical that it reminded me of the time they voted to screw Sean Morgan out of his council seat.
For those of you who don’t know what the Brown New Deal is: Brown and Stone had earlier proposed amending our public safety ordinances 9.20 to allow all manner of campling, parking and storage of personal property in all waterways, creeks and other public spaces. Because Brown is also the proponent of Chico’s Green New Deal, we began to refer to this plan as the Brown New Deal, given the increase in the poop factor thanks to Brown. It was derailed by the Corona virus, and that same emergency served as the pretense to get it through under highly suspicious circumstances.
During the City Manager’s Report, which focused predominantly on homelessness, the hiring of Joy Amaro, and the balancing of competing interests as we navigate this damn Covid-19 fiasco, Vice Mayor Alex Brown, supported by Stone, Huber and Ory once again proved that they have no conscience, no shame, and no intention of changing their course just because the city has nearly come to a grinding halt.
In a convoluted maneuver, coached by the City Attorney who bent the Brown Act over backwards to give Alex Brown the recipe for this disastrous display of partisan selfishness, Brown got her Brown New Deal by trampling the Brown Act. Brown enough for you?
Under the “Staff Report” item, we heard a plan from Mr. Orme and Ms. Amaro, and how because of the virus crisis, “we” can now do things that we have long been trying to do anyway. But the crisis just “brings everyone together.” They will do more outreach, more education, provide more food and provisioning of all sorts to “our most vulnerable population.” This is a Homeless Industry dream come true.
To be sure, it is a difficult situation. Because we have failed to manage, or even acknowledge the true nature of “those experiencing homelessness,” (the most passive aggressive terminology yet), drugs and mental illness, when the virus crisis hit, we are left with only bad choices and worse choices. But remember, there is no bad situation that inept government can’t make much worse. That could serve as a goal statement for this crew.
Never one to admit failure or submit to a little self-awareness, some see the virus as a great opportunity to move their agenda forward. As we have learned in oh so many ways, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
Seizing the opportunity to move her agenda along, Alex Brown surprised everyone (well she surprised me) by making a motion to direct the Chief of Police to desist from breaking up any encampments in the parks or waterways, or anywhere else for that matter. You might recognize this as a key element of the BROWN NEW DEAL.
A little law review: The Brown Act-Transparency in Government. First, no action can be taken on items not on the agenda except in extraordinary circumstances. Those extraordinary circumstances are spelled out in the statute, which is supposed to protect the public interest by setting rules about how the public must be informed about the monkey business local governments are up to.
Someone (I forget who, I’m so livid…) called BS, and turned to the City Attorney. Jared puts words in Brown’s mouth about what he thought she was trying to do. Then he gives bad counsel on what the Act actually allows, and all this to allow illegal campers to park themselves anywhere and anyway the choose, as long as they keep their parties to less than 9 people at a time. Even “move along” is now forbidden. I see tag team partying in our future. Hey , if shoplifters can bring calculators to the victim stores to stay under the $950 felony limit, why not party management? Um, how far apart to campers have to be from one another to start a new encampment? Don’t worry…Ory promises that can all be worked out in next month’s meeting.
Brown tries to say back to what the City attorney just told her to say. That took a few tries, but she sincerely wanted to follow Jared’s lead. Then Scott Huber jumped on board and tried to help her. Morgan and Reynolds, and yes even Ann Schwab tried to object with fundamental observations like “why do we need to encode something that is already happening according to the Chief of Police,” “We are going to tell businesses they have to close, but encampments, which were illegal before the virus, are OK? How much hypocrisy are we talking about here? ” “Why are we telling our Chief that we don’t trust his judgment?” Didn’t even penetrate Huber or Brown’s consciousness. The others were holding back for now. Brown and Huber pressed boldly on.
First the attorney said they needed to find the existence of an “emergency”. Then it would be on the agenda and then they could make a motion. Not only was it wrong ethically, but it was wrong legally too.
Bottom line, on a vote of 4-3, Brown, Huber, Stone and Ory voting in favor, they passed a new law in the form of “policy” which prevents the police or any other city staff from breaking up any encampment that is occupied by less than 10 people, no matter what.
Think about that. Now our parks are open season for all comers, just like Brown wanted to do before with the full blown BROWN NEW DEAL. They way this was done only makes it seem worse than already very, very bad policy. To put a cherry on top, it is also illegal.
The City Attorney cited to two obscure sections of the Brown Act that define the extraordinary circumstances for when the Council can break the rules. He cited two ways that Brown could do what she wanted, which was to make a motion on something not on the agenda, and vote on it without any advanced notice to the public for what was about to happen.
Gov. Code 54954.1(b), the council may take action on items not on the agenda ONLY under special conditions.
First, a majority must vote that an “emergency situation exists”. That is defined by §54956.5. Section (1) uses terms like “crippling activity” that “severely impairs public health, safety or both”. Are allowing encampments causing or preventing such impairment of public health? No one asked. For sure no one offered.
Section (2) uses terms like “mass destruction” “terrorist act” so dire that even giving 1 hour notice is too slow.
The media are supposed to be given notice. No such notice was given and no one even tried to explain just how keeping encampments constituted an “emergency situation” as defined. Nonetheless, on a vote of 4-3, the council found an emergency exists. That took care of Section 54954.1(b)(1).
Section (2) requires a determination by 2/3 vote (i.e. 5 to 2) that immediate action must be taken, and only if the need came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted. Did we just learn that there were people camping in our parks?
Jared misread the statute and seemed confused, so he told the council that a simple majority could act. I think he combined the two steps into one, but that was wrong! They would not have had the 5 votes necessary to act, had they followed the statute.
This maneuver put the item on the agenda, and Brown quickly made a motion, seconded by Huber, to bar enforcement of illegal encampments of less than 10 people.
Based on the “discussion” that followed, confusion and ambiguity prevailed. After all, “This City intends to act!” Act they did. In violation of the Brown Act, under a local public health emergency, under circumstances where no members of the public was in attendance (people were yelling at their screens all over the city!), the progressive majority had their way.
I will be filing a formal complaint tomorrow under the Brown Act. To say these actors are shameless doesn’t begin to cover it. How did they think we would react to this kind of Politburo governance?
The only thing that would have made the comparison more perfect would have been for the live stream to be interrupted while the acted. If you wonder what it’s like to live in a totalitarian state, just tune in and you’ll see the handwriting on the wall. There is nothing more dangerous than tyrants with power. Witness our City Council in action. I’m out of adjectives.”