5 ms·

Todd said she had gone to the overpass to distribute sandwiches, potato chips and water to people living at the freeway encampment. Todd’s lawsuit accuses the

• whymauri 5y ago
  >Why is she distributing supplies to a group of people she wants the city to throw out? Article is paywalled, but presumably she doesn't want them thrown out. There are, in fact, other solutions to homeless encampments...
  • tigertigerbb 5y ago
    > There are, in fact, other solutions to homeless encampments... Seriously, every time I read something like this I wish I was truly rich. I'd hand whymauri a billion dollars and let them loose on the homeless problem. The postmortem on the crash 'n burn would be a priceless thing to listen to down at the men's club.
  • rhacker 5y ago
    I seriously don't know what the solution is. Enlighten us?
    • oblio 5y ago
      Social housing.
    • xeromal 5y ago
      This is just a personal take but * House the ones that are functional/capable of taking care of themselves to an extent * Mandatory rehab for the ones are strung out pm debilitating opiates * Asylum for the ones are mentally disabled.
      • SrslyJosh 5y ago
        > * Mandatory rehab for the ones are strung out pm debilitating opiates > * Asylum for the ones are mentally disabled. Wow. You've got some opinions about homeless people, don't you?
        • thatguy0900 5y ago
          Are you saying the homeless don't have these issues?
        • xeromal 5y ago
          There is a subset, no matter how small, that has lost control due to their drug habits and they need to get on their feet. Drug habits can grow beyond anyone's strength to beat and the best way to combat that is through a rehab program that prevents you from stopping the process. Drug addiction runs in my family and we had to do the same for my uncle. Several weeks of keeping him on a short leash impacted the rest of his life and he was able to take care of his family unlike before. It's not pleasant and it requires a tremendous amount of willpower and people under that spell need every bit of help that can get.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • AngryData 5y ago
      Providing a better and safer living environment?
• lwansbrough 5y ago
  Believe it or not you can feed the homeless and also want the city to do more for them without turning your streets into a slum.
  • scoofy 5y ago
    Beyond that, it is arguable that allowing people to live in squalor yield the worse welfare outcomes these people than limiting their agency. Thus, you can both want to provide them with fresh, clean food and prevent them from living in areas that spread diseases like typhus. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/typhus-tuberculosis-medieval-diseases-spreading-homeless/584380/ https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/typhus-tu...
  • SrslyJosh 5y ago
    Hard to see how the net impact of this lawsuit is going to be anything other than more state violence directed at homeless people.
    • the_optimist 5y ago
      Perhaps it’s hard for you to envision. You may not have seen this before. It has not always been the case that losing your way in life consigns you to living under a tarp on the overpass, while the $1B borrowed by the city to care for you disappears to cronies. Let me paint a picture of a different world where people engage with their local organizations, neighbors, and their colleagues to provide and care for those who are unable to care for themselves.
      • stickfigure 5y ago
        > It has not always been the case that losing your way in life consigns you to... I really want to know whose history you studied. From what I've read, "losing your way in life" usually resulted in starvation and death. Maybe if you're lucky you get drafted into war, and extra lucky you come back alive and intact. Seems like it's only been the last hundred years or so that we've made any real progress here.
  • 5y ago
• function_seven 5y ago
  I think it’s consistent to both not want encampments in a particular location, and to also care about those who occupy them. I agree it’s a bit weird though. She’s definitely not a pedestrian who just happened to be inconvenienced by the tents, but actually sought them out. Should make for some interesting legal arguments.
  • aeternum 5y ago
    It seems very consistent. Many people are also pro-bike but generally agree it is not in the public interest to allow bikes to be ridden on crowded city streets.
    • colinmhayes 5y ago
      I think it's not in the public interest to allow cars on crowded city streets. After all, sometimes there isn't room on the sidewalk and cars send people to the hospital.
      • aeternum 5y ago
        Agreed, I checked back and was like why is my previous comment so downvoted, then realized that I said streets rather than sidewalks.
• hbosch 5y ago
  >Why is she distributing supplies to a group of people she wants the city to throw out? She would probably prefer them to be housed, not "thrown out".
  • standardUser 5y ago
    Or just offered a designated area where they can set up encampments without blocking sidewalks or disrupting people's homes. It seems like a no-brainer and also the least the city can do.
• the_optimist 5y ago
  Very few people want to “throw out” homeless people. The reductionist vitriol is common, but unhelpful for a productive discussion.
  • smhost 5y ago
    > Very few people want to “throw out” homeless people. you clearly haven't met californians
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • thinkcontext 5y ago
    Really? I'd say a large percentage of people would want that if an encampment appeared next to their house. In fact, that's probably the reason the homeless were living by a freeway. Anywhere near where people live would see them hassled by police or exposed to violence and harassment.
    • quacked 5y ago
      It would see them exposed to violence and harassment?
• octopoc 5y ago
  That would be weird if that's what she was wanting, but I don't think that's a fair assumption. Nowhere in the article does it say she's trying to force the city to throw the homeless out. It does say: > Todd’s lawsuit accuses the city of allowing the encampment at the 101 overpass on Gower to remain for a “substantial amount of time,” creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians and drivers. The city also did not post signs warning drivers that there would be “excessive foot traffic” in the street due to the encampments, the lawsuit said. She might be hoping that the city will move the homeless people elsewhere, put up signage, or possibly even come up with their own solution.
  • arenaninja 5y ago
    Maybe they would move elsewhere if people stop catering their food? I agree the city has a problem, but to me she exacerbates it (and OP on this thread seems to agree) ahh the downvotes with no reply have begun, is this reddit now?
    • JadeNB 5y ago
      > Maybe they would move elsewhere if people stop catering their food? I agree the city has a problem, but to me she exacerbates it (and OP on this thread seems to agree) What is an appropriate response? As an individual who cares about the homeless, you can want, and seek to force, the city to address the problem, but the large-scale remedies that can be pursued by local government are not available to you personally. Do you really think one would occupy a moral high ground by doing nothing, compared to trying at least to alleviate the suffering of the people who are stuck in this position that they don't want either? (To put it differently, do you think that the homeless are there because it's the best possible place?)
      • arenaninja 5y ago
        > What is an appropriate response? I like that you're asking this question and we should all be asking it but I'm no expert and my opinion on the matter is uneducated at best. We should be demanding this of elected officials > Do you really think one would occupy a moral high ground by doing nothing, compared to trying at least to alleviate the suffering of the people who are stuck in this position that they don't want either? Thinking that ALL of these people don't want to be in this position is a dangerous assumption. To me there's different kinds of homeless people form those who have serious mental issues (thank you Reagan!) to those who are undergoing economic hardship (who should make their way to a shelter), drug addicts who will rob you for their next fix, etc. If you can't stand walking by and do nothing consider becoming a social worker and address the problem expertly > (To put it differently, do you think that the homeless are there because it's the best possible place?) I have moved around plenty but at every city I've lived in homeless shelters are available. The conditions were usually a curfew and no drugs; it seems fair to me I hope my message isn't heartless, I just think there's nuance to helping people
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• metric10 5y ago
  Presumably the City of Los Angles isn't confronting the problem due to an unwillingness to spend funds. If she is successful, the cost of doing nothing will increase. So her goal isn't to throw them out, it's to force the city's hand.
  • the_optimist 5y ago
    They “spent” a $1B bond issuance that somehow simply disappeared. The bezel in the homeless industry is probably 80-90%.
• mark242 5y ago
  The encampment underneath the 101 on Gower is extremely dangerous. There is a stop sign at the end of the exit from the highway, and cross-traffic does not stop. When you want to go south on Gower and there is any amount of traffic, you need to hustle to make the left. The encampment has taken over one of the lanes of southbound traffic, and when you hustle to make that left, unless you overcorrect on the turn and slow down, you are going to run into the encampment. It was a very difficult turn to make pre-pandemic when there was maybe 1 or 2 tents on the sidewalk underneath the highway; now that it's the sidewalk plus a lane of traffic, it is only a matter of time before someone gets run over. As a very-short-term fix, the city needs to move some of those people to the encampment on El Centro, a couple of blocks away. On edit: Google streetview from February, you can almost see how the encampment takes over a lane of traffic -- https://goo.gl/maps/dySMxTxFmgx43uNj7 https://goo.gl/maps/dySMxTxFmgx43uNj7
  • Causality1 5y ago
    Strange. If that popped up here they'd be arrested for illegally blocking traffic.
    • blindmute 5y ago
      These cities have a policy to not arrest or prosecute homeless for anything short of violent crime. Quite literally.
• code_duck 5y ago
  I thought it seemed odd or hypocritical at first but I believe she is actually attempting to force the city to improve conditions for the homeless, more than seeking to enforce clear sidewalks for the sake of accessibility. Whatever the motivation of the lawsuit, the blocking of sidewalks is a legitimate complaint that has come up in other cities such as Portland. Disabled people can’t easily just go around a blocked sidewalk, and anyone else blocking a sidewalk like a homeowner or construction firm would be fined a great deal (like the city did to the federal government last year over fences by the courthouse, up to $500 a day).
• emodendroket 5y ago
  I would imagine she wants the city to provide them shelter rather than just "throw them out" (to where? Eventually the game of musical chairs has to stop somewhere).
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• jimmygrapes 5y ago
  Regardless of noble intent, "don't feed the wildlife" signs exist for the primary reason of preventing recurrent gathering. Humans aren't so different.