8 comments on “A New Approach to the Problem of Homelessness

  1. The BOS is pathetic and beholden to the local bourgeoisie and developers. We don’t need a group pushing for more property rights, we need to push for human rights including shelter, food and health care.

  2. A shelter crisis declaration DOES NOT RESOLVE HOMELESSNESS…..but it does offer more bad weather shelters being declared…..

    BOS does not like complaints from community…..

    Community complains about homeless, scuzzy folk….

    BOS creates a pan handling ordinance…..

    Facts/Data show transients relocate after ordinance…

    BOS brings back transients using service programs….

    Housing units exist, but plenty owners not renting……

    Cost lots to keep up rental units, tenants damage……

    Of course, being attacked by gubbamint don’t help…..

    Does anyone really believe those seeking shelter care about how new the unit is? Units don’t rent because gubbamint threats scare off would be rentals…..

    Consider this:

    Read about what the city of Eureka continues to do…….create a municipal housing crisis……..condemning another Squires building, claiming electrical violations……

    City could have spent less 💰 on the repairs than kicking out, relocating tenants……but they didn’t want to….they have a hard on for Squires and other low income private sector rental owners……the city is involved in a political racket – to destroy as many buildings as possible in order to redevelop through DANCO and others using grant funds, tax dollars……running out of land, time to steal it like back in the day from the natives……..talk about full circle culture……..

    City likes money, inspired by private sector profits

    City can’t appear arbitrary and capricious in attacking who they view for a kill…..

    City creates a cover process called “complaint driven”

    City can now claim they are not arbitrary or capricious…..

    City says complainer is arbitrary and capricious……

    City says it’s just doing it’s job, not being arbitrary……

    City never did its job before complaints…….

    City enabled and fostered conditions so people would complain…..

    City arbitrarily avoided its duties in order to get others to take the bait to allow city to attack under the guise of not being arbitrary and capricious…….

    City never wanted to agree, come to terms, resolve Squires issues……

    City desires money, by letting Squires go forward legally means city allows private sector to profit going forward, eliminating any opportunity for city to build clientele for grant funded low income housing…..

    City wants the money and control over the meek, the vulnerable…..and in brand new buildings…….

    City hated Squires operation because the buildings serve low income folks who care far less about paying more 💰 to live in a mansion-like looking structure……even with all repairs, the buildings would still appear ghettoish because of “the land use”, not because of the building itself……..hell, banks let their buildings go unrepaired constantly……which shows what a bank values……and it ain’t buildings…….its profit…….no different than RENTING.

    The City looks ugly, the buildings look delapidated……the city wants new buildings while claiming it keeps it’s Victorian seaport image…..

    The City can’t have new if it allows older buildings to live on to be rented to low-income folks, taking away any need for “new”…….

    Let these facts sink in folks, you are being lied to by bad people pulling faces as grass roots types, but are really con artists in local groups and within gubbamint employed positions…..

  3. I’m going to assume that you are being somewhat facetious, John. Often when I argue for non violence people react as though I am some harmless wimpy hippie but that’s not it. The reason I advocate non violence is that, when the impoverished oppressed masses of people take up the gun or rocks or whatever, the rulers always have more, better weapons and, more importantly, they are not branded as criminals for using them. The people of Viet Nam seemed to defeat the forces of colonialism but only at a tremendous loss of life and resources and also only by becoming enough like their oppressors that it was difficult to tell the difference. The problem of homelessness is a different sort of problem to those who own the board of supervisors than it is to the homeless themselves or to we fools who advocate for them. The problem for them is scraping them off the streets and hiding their misery from tourists. They have no interest in relieving anyone’s pain as long as they can get people who are just above their level to kick their asses. That’s what Measure Z was really all about.

    • That’s non-violence for tactical reasons, not out of principle. I don’t believe in non-violence as a principle either. Why do homeless people need to be better than the violent scum who oppress them? They are already being denied health care and a place to live. They are already dying on the street with nothing. What do they have to lose?

  4. True, but the little guys win battles…….. ambushing too……those weapons change hands quickly….. But what you explain is exactly the reason why government creates more services in order to hire more public employees……Building an army of support

    • Yes, government provides services specifically to prevent revolutions, and only the threat of revolution inspires government to respond to the needs of the people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.