9 ms·

California Gov Newsom issues executive order for removal of homeless encampments

35 points by Ozarkian 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rasengan 2y ago
> He pushed and campaigned for a ballot measure earlier this year to allow the state to borrow nearly $6.4 billion to build 4,350 housing units. This is quite a bit of money -- about $1.47m per unit. Anyway and finally, after metropolitan cities in California are now used to visually represent slums, this has been issued. I hope that metropolitan cities in California can become clean and safe again.
- collingreen 2y ago
  If you really mean that you hope California cities can become safe again it might feel encouraging that I live in SF and 99% of my experience here is clean and safe. There are dicey bits for sure but it feels similar to when I lived in other cities like Dallas in frequency and locality. The city is small and there are concentrations of dangerous/dirty that need to change, no question. We also have an organized crime problem with tons of car break ins. There is plenty that needs serious work (but that has been true everywhere I've lived as well). I don't live downtown or in the tenderloin so I have a very different experience from someone living/visiting there but, anecdotally, I consider my experience living in this city both safe and clean.
legitster 2y ago
Direct link to Newsom's tweet: https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1816497533772038507 https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1816497533772038507 Surprised by how brazen the message is.
- mrandish 2y ago
  I think there are two factors at work here: 1. California was ground zero for some of the more supposedly 'enlightened' approaches to the homelessness problem with both substantial, sustained funding and strong local political support for non-enforcement. After nearly a decade of such experiments, the evidence they've made the situation dramatically worse is obvious and undeniable, even to those who were open-minded and supportive of trying these approaches. 2. Newsom clearly has national political ambitions as the next step in his career and much of what he does lately is in service of optics in that direction.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Newsom clearly has national political ambitions as the next step in his career and much of what he does lately is in service of optics in that direction Homelessness has been polling as urgent in California for over a year, particularly among Democrats [1]. It's why Prop 1 narrowly passed despite being a bond measure [2]. [1] https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3868 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3868 [2] https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/03/election-result-proposition-1/ https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/03/election-r...
  - legitster 2y ago
    Also, the homelessness problem in California is actively hurting their tourism revenue and reputation. Most European countries have worse homelessness rates than California but you would never believe it because they heavily police camping in major cities. In comparison, San Francisco used to be an international gem but its reputation is too well known.
    - seadan83 2y ago
      Do you have any data sources to help us quantify either claim? (Revenue loss, and homelessness rate comparisons) I'm particular curious how really large European cities compare to their west coast equivalents and also the midsize equivalents compare.
      - 2y ago
Ozarkian 2y ago
I wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people. Sure, the authorities can force all the people off their "campsites" and send all their belongings to the dump. But you've still obviously got the homeless person there, in a more vulnerable position than they were before.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people Most will hopefully wind up in shelters.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Does California have enough shelter space foe that? I would have assumed there wouldn't be a serious encampment problem if good shelters were available and empty.
    - nytesky 2y ago
      Shelters have reduced privacy than your own tent, don’t allow drugs or alcohol. I’m unsure about how ‘relations’ work for unmarried people. It’s not like they get their own little studio apartment, and even then most would forbid illicit drugs. Given that many homeless are also dealing with addiction, there may be sufficient shelter space yet still they choose the freedom of a tent or street life. That all said, I would be surprised if there is enough capacity, but that is a solvable problem, probably not cheap.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - tracker1 2y ago
        Can't speak for other areas, but the Phoenix area's homeless definitely way too large for current shelter availability, not to mention the aversion most have for all the reasons stated. With most of California and a few other states seeing far worse numbers combined with illegal migrants it's reaching an impossible point. It'd be possible to build tiny/modular complexes, which would be very expensive (but CA spend tens of billions with nothing to show), that could stem some of the tide with a bit of effort. But it needs to be located close to reasonable public transportation to other areas where work can be found if/when people are ready to get off the drugs or otherwise get life together. That doesn't even begin to cover psychological and police needs. The amount of assault, rape and theft in homeless communities is massively disproportionate to the general public. There's also the medical needs, which are significant.
bityard 2y ago
Huh. So as someone who lives in the Midwest and knows next to nothing about the west coast... is Gavin Belson (from the TV show) intended to be a satire caricature of Gavin Newsom? Because the hair and mannerisms are quite spot on.
- tomatotime 2y ago
  Nah, Gavin Belson is a satirical CEO and has a bunch of mannerisms ripped from some other real tech CEOs (I think he was primarily based on Benioff).
  - TheCoelacanth 2y ago
    I assumed Belson = Benioff + Ellison
- theultdev 2y ago
  Yes. Mike Judge regularly mashes real-life personas together, similar how he captures culture. Peter Gregory seems to be the mannerisms of Elon and the outlook/values of Peter Thiel. There's also Action Jack based off of Neutron Jack (Jack Welch) with a bit of Steve Ballmer. Gavin Belson has to be based heavily off of Gavin Newsom's mannerisms and looks, along with being a mashup of other CEOs like Larry Page. Mike Judge barely changes the names, I guess no-one was getting the references :)
  - tapoxi 2y ago
    Action Jack is also a little Eric Schmidt I think, investors wanting to bring in a seasoned CEO to run the company.
trinsic2 2y ago
Great. Where's the companion executive order to provide tools for people that are displaced by rent inflation transitional and other situations that cause hopelessness?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Do the transient homeless tend to encamp? I thought the encamped population tended more permanent.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Two related issues: criminal justice reform and homelessness. There are grave humanitarian concerns in both. But the victims’ advocates have no willingness to compromise. They are also a strong minority, which means they need others’ support to govern. That unyieldingness, in the case of homelessness, has led to ridiculous asks, e.g. treating any law enforcement against anyone homeless as criminalising poverty. Given the bloc is unwilling to compromise, it’s not a surprise that the centre is now shifting to those on the right. Hence, the policy whipsaw from focussing on there being homeless people to the problems that causes.
- devwastaken 2y ago
  Outside the disinformation fantasy of the Internet the story is completely different. A person is defined in effect by someone who has a permanent address, a government issued I.D, birth certificate, social security card, and a bank account with money. If you lack any of those you are "sub citizen" status and you must go through a broken by design process to try to reacquire any of them. If you have lost most of them due to theft or otherwise no direct fault of your own you are now the same as any other "illegal citizen". You are required to prove to your own country you are a citizen. Unconstitutional and fascist it may be, that's what your politicians have done. Combine this with the general socioeconomic failure of large cities, combined with the gamified system of capital held in speculative markets, combined with social media technology that has destroyed culture - you get exactly what you'd expect. It's the system working as intended for the wealthy. There's plenty of solutions but people are comfortable to not bite the hand that feeds them, even if it means living in fear as a slave to their whims. It used to be that people were self employed. They owned their own business's. Until the rules were changed and scale became optimal. The primary solution is to nullify the rules that optimize for scale and make it optimal for individual small domestic business owners. Nullify most taxes, completely remove Medicare and other "old people" funds. The standard stuff every economist has been saying to do but the game players don't like.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    I broadly agree. This is in the US, which is supposed to be a relative wild west where all you need is cash. You're not microchipped into a central database and have to ask for permission to move like in Europe. Any movement into that direction is regrettable because I think the American system is extremely refreshing and dynamic by comparison. Let there be one place on the planet that isn't a dystopic bureaucracy.
xenospn 2y ago
“ The order makes clear that the decision to remove the encampments remains in the hands of local authorities.” Nothing is going to happen.
rurban 2y ago
Still on his presidential campaign, I assume. I thought he was dropped by everyone already
- tracker1 2y ago
  He seems to really be eyeing 2028, the current race is/was too contentious for him (Newsom) to want to be in the thick of it... just my take.
tylervigen 2y ago
Here is the actual executive order: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Encampments-EO-7-24.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Encam...
Teknomancer 2y ago
He maybe should have issued an executive order banning AirB&B instead. That would be just as preposterous, yet may actually have some short term returns that reduce the cost of housing. The high costs make it incredibly difficult to obtain and maintain housing in CA for low and median income earners.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- xenospn 2y ago
  A lot of cities in Los Angeles don’t allow short term Airbnb’s anymore.
theultdev 2y ago
$6.4b for 4,350 housing units? Who is providing those near $1.5m/ea units?
- fragmede 2y ago
  > $2B of this funding will support the conversion of hotels, motels, and other buildings into housing and the construction of new housing for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness and those living with mental health or SUD. This is estimated to lead to 4,350 new housing units, with 2,350 units set aside for veterans Which is $500k/unit, which doesn't seem out of the question, given how expensive the Bay Area is.Though you'd hope with economies of scale you could get it down lower.
tracker1 2y ago
What's the worst that can happen if someone who isn't homeless, but traveling, working, or otherwise just want/needs to take a short nap. Likely in their car in a public parking space? The other side, is even in clearing out parks, and encampments it would help if there were a place to go. There are a lot of issues, and having worked with homeless charity groups, drug addiction is at the center of most of it... you can't really force someone to get and stay clean... The system needs some form of outlet.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  These people aren't going to just die for our convenience. If you want to clear out parks, they're going to go somewhere. If you don't have an idea of where you want that to be, then they're going to go somewhere that you don't want. So, clear out the parks and the streets if you want. Where are they going to go? (But of course it's not that simple, because even if you have an idea of where you want them to go, they may well choose to go somewhere else. So what you really need is to have somewhere for them to go, and for that somewhere to be perceived by them to be better than where they are now.)
  - tracker1 2y ago
    I'm not sure what the intent of your reply is... I pretty much stated as much in that they need to have a place to go in order for clearing to be effective or meaningful. Shelters don't work, generally for a number of reasons that I and others have brought up. I never suggested anyone will/should die for my convenience.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      > I never suggested anyone will/should die for my convenience. And I didn't suggest that you did. What I was trying to say is, if you (some "you", not you username tracker1) advocate for clearing out the encampments but don't have a clear idea of where they're actually going to go, you're going to be unpleasantly surprised by what happens. Note the word "actually". Not what you want them to do in some idealized world. What the actual homeless people we have are going to actually do.
toastercat 2y ago
This is a good thing. Everyone seems to ignore the worst part about homelessness: homeless people, shelters, and their encampments devalue the homes and properties of homeowners in the area. So as soon as a homeless shelter is built on your block, boom your property's value is now cut in half. This is a huge problem and ruins many people's financial investments.
- hrunt 2y ago
  I agree that the governor's efforts to remove homeless encampments is a good thing. But the worst part about homelessness is the quality of life for homeless people -- full stop. Framing the problem of homelessness as a financial burden of much wealthier property owners dehumanizes the people most affected by homelessness and perpetuates the lack of effort to address the problem.
  - toastercat 2y ago
    Sorry but they dehumanize themselves. It's like natural selection except our society has not selected them. They do not fit in, and effort should be put into a systematic way of removing these people. I know it sounds heartless, but we can't keep spending tax dollars on people who can't help themselves.
underseacables 2y ago
The cycle repeats itself. At first I thought the Governor's order was just a lack of leadership - kicking the can down the road. Instead, it's a continuance of the vicious cycle of homelessness. The state is not adequately providing shelter for those who need it. The state lacks the funding for housing first, however many qualify for state benefits. The state is a patchwork of welcoming, and rejecting of the unhoused. Until there's a uniform policy in one direction or the other, the people affected by these policies, are just going to get harassed and chased around the state.

35 points by Ozarkian 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

> He pushed and campaigned for a ballot measure earlier this year to allow the state to borrow nearly $6.4 billion to build 4,350 housing units. This is quite a bit of money -- about $1.47m per unit. Anyway and finally, after metropolitan cities in California are now used to visually represent slums, this has been issued. I hope that metropolitan cities in California can become clean and safe again.

collingreen 2y ago
If you really mean that you hope California cities can become safe again it might feel encouraging that I live in SF and 99% of my experience here is clean and safe. There are dicey bits for sure but it feels similar to when I lived in other cities like Dallas in frequency and locality. The city is small and there are concentrations of dangerous/dirty that need to change, no question. We also have an organized crime problem with tons of car break ins. There is plenty that needs serious work (but that has been true everywhere I've lived as well). I don't live downtown or in the tenderloin so I have a very different experience from someone living/visiting there but, anecdotally, I consider my experience living in this city both safe and clean.

legitster 2y ago

Direct link to Newsom's tweet: https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1816497533772038507 https://x.com/GavinNewsom/status/1816497533772038507 Surprised by how brazen the message is.

mrandish 2y ago
I think there are two factors at work here: 1. California was ground zero for some of the more supposedly 'enlightened' approaches to the homelessness problem with both substantial, sustained funding and strong local political support for non-enforcement. After nearly a decade of such experiments, the evidence they've made the situation dramatically worse is obvious and undeniable, even to those who were open-minded and supportive of trying these approaches. 2. Newsom clearly has national political ambitions as the next step in his career and much of what he does lately is in service of optics in that direction.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Newsom clearly has national political ambitions as the next step in his career and much of what he does lately is in service of optics in that direction Homelessness has been polling as urgent in California for over a year, particularly among Democrats [1]. It's why Prop 1 narrowly passed despite being a bond measure [2]. [1] https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3868 https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3868 [2] https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/03/election-result-proposition-1/ https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2024/03/election-r...
- legitster 2y ago
  Also, the homelessness problem in California is actively hurting their tourism revenue and reputation. Most European countries have worse homelessness rates than California but you would never believe it because they heavily police camping in major cities. In comparison, San Francisco used to be an international gem but its reputation is too well known.
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Do you have any data sources to help us quantify either claim? (Revenue loss, and homelessness rate comparisons) I'm particular curious how really large European cities compare to their west coast equivalents and also the midsize equivalents compare.
    - 2y ago

Ozarkian 2y ago

I wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people. Sure, the authorities can force all the people off their "campsites" and send all their belongings to the dump. But you've still obviously got the homeless person there, in a more vulnerable position than they were before.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> wonder what is going to happen to all the actual people Most will hopefully wind up in shelters.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Does California have enough shelter space foe that? I would have assumed there wouldn't be a serious encampment problem if good shelters were available and empty.
  - nytesky 2y ago
    Shelters have reduced privacy than your own tent, don’t allow drugs or alcohol. I’m unsure about how ‘relations’ work for unmarried people. It’s not like they get their own little studio apartment, and even then most would forbid illicit drugs. Given that many homeless are also dealing with addiction, there may be sufficient shelter space yet still they choose the freedom of a tent or street life. That all said, I would be surprised if there is enough capacity, but that is a solvable problem, probably not cheap.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tracker1 2y ago
      Can't speak for other areas, but the Phoenix area's homeless definitely way too large for current shelter availability, not to mention the aversion most have for all the reasons stated. With most of California and a few other states seeing far worse numbers combined with illegal migrants it's reaching an impossible point. It'd be possible to build tiny/modular complexes, which would be very expensive (but CA spend tens of billions with nothing to show), that could stem some of the tide with a bit of effort. But it needs to be located close to reasonable public transportation to other areas where work can be found if/when people are ready to get off the drugs or otherwise get life together. That doesn't even begin to cover psychological and police needs. The amount of assault, rape and theft in homeless communities is massively disproportionate to the general public. There's also the medical needs, which are significant.

bityard 2y ago

Huh. So as someone who lives in the Midwest and knows next to nothing about the west coast... is Gavin Belson (from the TV show) intended to be a satire caricature of Gavin Newsom? Because the hair and mannerisms are quite spot on.

tomatotime 2y ago
Nah, Gavin Belson is a satirical CEO and has a bunch of mannerisms ripped from some other real tech CEOs (I think he was primarily based on Benioff).
- TheCoelacanth 2y ago
  I assumed Belson = Benioff + Ellison
theultdev 2y ago
Yes. Mike Judge regularly mashes real-life personas together, similar how he captures culture. Peter Gregory seems to be the mannerisms of Elon and the outlook/values of Peter Thiel. There's also Action Jack based off of Neutron Jack (Jack Welch) with a bit of Steve Ballmer. Gavin Belson has to be based heavily off of Gavin Newsom's mannerisms and looks, along with being a mashup of other CEOs like Larry Page. Mike Judge barely changes the names, I guess no-one was getting the references :)
- tapoxi 2y ago
  Action Jack is also a little Eric Schmidt I think, investors wanting to bring in a seasoned CEO to run the company.

trinsic2 2y ago

Great. Where's the companion executive order to provide tools for people that are displaced by rent inflation transitional and other situations that cause hopelessness?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
Do the transient homeless tend to encamp? I thought the encamped population tended more permanent.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

Two related issues: criminal justice reform and homelessness. There are grave humanitarian concerns in both. But the victims’ advocates have no willingness to compromise. They are also a strong minority, which means they need others’ support to govern. That unyieldingness, in the case of homelessness, has led to ridiculous asks, e.g. treating any law enforcement against anyone homeless as criminalising poverty. Given the bloc is unwilling to compromise, it’s not a surprise that the centre is now shifting to those on the right. Hence, the policy whipsaw from focussing on there being homeless people to the problems that causes.

devwastaken 2y ago
Outside the disinformation fantasy of the Internet the story is completely different. A person is defined in effect by someone who has a permanent address, a government issued I.D, birth certificate, social security card, and a bank account with money. If you lack any of those you are "sub citizen" status and you must go through a broken by design process to try to reacquire any of them. If you have lost most of them due to theft or otherwise no direct fault of your own you are now the same as any other "illegal citizen". You are required to prove to your own country you are a citizen. Unconstitutional and fascist it may be, that's what your politicians have done. Combine this with the general socioeconomic failure of large cities, combined with the gamified system of capital held in speculative markets, combined with social media technology that has destroyed culture - you get exactly what you'd expect. It's the system working as intended for the wealthy. There's plenty of solutions but people are comfortable to not bite the hand that feeds them, even if it means living in fear as a slave to their whims. It used to be that people were self employed. They owned their own business's. Until the rules were changed and scale became optimal. The primary solution is to nullify the rules that optimize for scale and make it optimal for individual small domestic business owners. Nullify most taxes, completely remove Medicare and other "old people" funds. The standard stuff every economist has been saying to do but the game players don't like.
- shrimp_emoji 2y ago
  I broadly agree. This is in the US, which is supposed to be a relative wild west where all you need is cash. You're not microchipped into a central database and have to ask for permission to move like in Europe. Any movement into that direction is regrettable because I think the American system is extremely refreshing and dynamic by comparison. Let there be one place on the planet that isn't a dystopic bureaucracy.

xenospn 2y ago

“ The order makes clear that the decision to remove the encampments remains in the hands of local authorities.” Nothing is going to happen.

rurban 2y ago

Still on his presidential campaign, I assume. I thought he was dropped by everyone already

tracker1 2y ago
He seems to really be eyeing 2028, the current race is/was too contentious for him (Newsom) to want to be in the thick of it... just my take.

tylervigen 2y ago

Here is the actual executive order: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Encampments-EO-7-24.pdf https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Encam...

Teknomancer 2y ago

He maybe should have issued an executive order banning AirB&B instead. That would be just as preposterous, yet may actually have some short term returns that reduce the cost of housing. The high costs make it incredibly difficult to obtain and maintain housing in CA for low and median income earners.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
xenospn 2y ago
A lot of cities in Los Angeles don’t allow short term Airbnb’s anymore.

theultdev 2y ago

$6.4b for 4,350 housing units? Who is providing those near $1.5m/ea units?

fragmede 2y ago
> $2B of this funding will support the conversion of hotels, motels, and other buildings into housing and the construction of new housing for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness and those living with mental health or SUD. This is estimated to lead to 4,350 new housing units, with 2,350 units set aside for veterans Which is $500k/unit, which doesn't seem out of the question, given how expensive the Bay Area is.Though you'd hope with economies of scale you could get it down lower.

tracker1 2y ago

What's the worst that can happen if someone who isn't homeless, but traveling, working, or otherwise just want/needs to take a short nap. Likely in their car in a public parking space? The other side, is even in clearing out parks, and encampments it would help if there were a place to go. There are a lot of issues, and having worked with homeless charity groups, drug addiction is at the center of most of it... you can't really force someone to get and stay clean... The system needs some form of outlet.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
These people aren't going to just die for our convenience. If you want to clear out parks, they're going to go somewhere. If you don't have an idea of where you want that to be, then they're going to go somewhere that you don't want. So, clear out the parks and the streets if you want. Where are they going to go? (But of course it's not that simple, because even if you have an idea of where you want them to go, they may well choose to go somewhere else. So what you really need is to have somewhere for them to go, and for that somewhere to be perceived by them to be better than where they are now.)
- tracker1 2y ago
  I'm not sure what the intent of your reply is... I pretty much stated as much in that they need to have a place to go in order for clearing to be effective or meaningful. Shelters don't work, generally for a number of reasons that I and others have brought up. I never suggested anyone will/should die for my convenience.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > I never suggested anyone will/should die for my convenience. And I didn't suggest that you did. What I was trying to say is, if you (some "you", not you username tracker1) advocate for clearing out the encampments but don't have a clear idea of where they're actually going to go, you're going to be unpleasantly surprised by what happens. Note the word "actually". Not what you want them to do in some idealized world. What the actual homeless people we have are going to actually do.

toastercat 2y ago

This is a good thing. Everyone seems to ignore the worst part about homelessness: homeless people, shelters, and their encampments devalue the homes and properties of homeowners in the area. So as soon as a homeless shelter is built on your block, boom your property's value is now cut in half. This is a huge problem and ruins many people's financial investments.

hrunt 2y ago
I agree that the governor's efforts to remove homeless encampments is a good thing. But the worst part about homelessness is the quality of life for homeless people -- full stop. Framing the problem of homelessness as a financial burden of much wealthier property owners dehumanizes the people most affected by homelessness and perpetuates the lack of effort to address the problem.
- toastercat 2y ago
  Sorry but they dehumanize themselves. It's like natural selection except our society has not selected them. They do not fit in, and effort should be put into a systematic way of removing these people. I know it sounds heartless, but we can't keep spending tax dollars on people who can't help themselves.

underseacables 2y ago

The cycle repeats itself. At first I thought the Governor's order was just a lack of leadership - kicking the can down the road. Instead, it's a continuance of the vicious cycle of homelessness. The state is not adequately providing shelter for those who need it. The state lacks the funding for housing first, however many qualify for state benefits. The state is a patchwork of welcoming, and rejecting of the unhoused. Until there's a uniform policy in one direction or the other, the people affected by these policies, are just going to get harassed and chased around the state.