Domestic Imperialism: How developers are forcing homeless out of Downtown LA | Hacker News Reader

Domestic Imperialism: How developers are forcing homeless out of Downtown LA

mrjkd.com

9 pointsgruez7 comments

The amount of spin is making me dizzy

A recent report by City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana shows the scale of police oppression, where the homeless, representing less than half a percent of Los Angeles' population, are subject to 14% of arrests

Yes, how strange! They are after all no different from anyone else. Just as with their over representation in fire calls[1], there is clearly a conspiracy at work here. /s

In Utah, which has pioneered a Housing First strategy, homelessness has been reduced 91% by simply giving the homeless housing. If 91% of people can be convinced to accept services by the state of Utah, why do Schatz and others keep insisting that these people are unreachable?

Certainly sounds like at least 9% are rather unreachable. I've always considered the Utah program an interesting failure in that regard- giving the homeless free housing reduced but did not eliminate homelessness (!?!). Though points about lower total state cost per homeless person are well taken.

The article probably has some good points to make, but how am I supposed to find them under all the spin?

[1]: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/us/san-francisco-firefi...

> I've always considered the Utah program an interesting failure in that regard

How is it a failure? It's not a solution to literally everything, but it's benefited many people and saved the state a fair amount of money by reducing emergency service and jail visits.

http://www.tbo.com/news/breaking-news/ut-study-housing-the-h...

A failure in that one very specific sense, that it did not completely cure homelessness, as one might hope giving them all free housing would. I don't mean it was an overall failure.

Edit: if my exact word choice is that important to you, how about "qualified success". Does that make you more comfortable? Hopefully we can agree that a program which gives the homeless homes and yet fascinatingly does not eliminate all homelessness is not an unqualified success.

Clearly a failure. Can you imagine what a failure your startup would be if it only controlled 91% of the market?

The last two paragraphs make me really question this guy's perception and judgement. DTLA has been significantly revitalized, business has improved considerably, and no one in their right mind would call an investment made there 10 years ago a bad one.

Skid Row still exists, but it's shrinking every year, and Downtown is a completely different place now.

Wow, maybe there is some truth to what the author claims and surely there are concerns with regard to the homeless, but credibility gets thin after the deluge of hyperbole and inflammatory language. In some circles this language soul be classified as "triggers".

If they have a point to make, it's easier to understand when the other side isn't so violently vilified.

I think it's also worth remembering that the opposite of gentrification is what you get in places like Detroit --and I don't see people clamoring to go to Detroit, physically or as a state of mind.

So we need a balance. We need policies which offer help to the homeless but also allow for progress which can sustain programs which help the homeless.

From the title, in the context of hacker news, I thought it was going to be software developers not real estate / property developers. Phew, sorta.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com