The announcement follows Newsom’s 2024 executive order, which directed encampment cleanups after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted state and local governments more authority to remove them.
It seems like this is a bit of a political move. I understand that the article mentions connecting the homeless that are cleared with the local support structure. But it gives no mention of how those support structures will be improved. No additional funding or infrastructure provided.
From what I understand the local support structures are already at capacity and generally shelters are still unsafe (especially for women).
This is either coming from Newsome not understanding the issue at best. And a political move that will just cause more suffering at worst.
I wish they said how long people lived there before becoming homeless.
Ninety percent of participants became homeless in California, having been last housed in the state.
This means someone could have moved there there and been housed for a period of time before not being able to make ends meet.
There’s also this at the end though…
Two-thirds (66%) were born in California.
So it seems it’s still a mostly local issue.
Bluemaga won’t care. We told yall this is who he is. Immiserating the homeless is what he does for fun.
The governor’s office stated that the task force will prioritize sites deemed unsafe and collaborate with local governments to connect individuals with shelter, health care and substance use services.
So much is not covered in rage bait titles.
this is the same tactic that got us trump this second time.
When all encampments are deemed unsafe and local services are already stretched to the breaking point, I think we can be justified in calling this out for the performative anti-homeless bullshit it is.
Nothing short of a complete reorganization of the economy so that working class people are prioritized instead of billionaires will fix this problem though.
Agreed with the second statement but the first is just abandoning people instead of helping them and that is negligence.
as described, it doesn’t seem as bad as the title
but we all know the reality will not be as it is described
Why help the homeless when you can spend the same amount of money to inflict greater suffering.
Literally does say help the homeless but you would have had to have read the article to find that out.
but I guess enraging at minimal information is what we are now.
Were you fucking born yesterday? This is the same exact rhetoric of empty promises we get every time they sweep up the homeless, and it never ever happens. Where is all this housing? Where are the shelters going to come from? Has Newsom secured any funding for these assistance programs? Did he bother asking the homeless people why they weren’t already in shelters? Gawd damn, you only see this level of ignorance and arrogance in two places, red and blue MAGA. You’ve polluted this entire thread with you’re nonsense.
Pathetic scumbags who worsen society MUST be removed from every city. How Newsome is still present is beyond me.
I can see you didnt read the article. You just Just raged at the title.
So he is a fan and tweeting with capitalized words is not to mock Trump but to pay homage?
Fuck Newsom for this, and all his regressive vetoes against laws throughout his tenure as governor to help fix this issue.
The governor’s office stated that the task force will prioritize sites deemed unsafe and collaborate with local governments to connect individuals with shelter, health care and substance use services.
You didn’t Read the article.
And you’re swallowing copaganda
Tell me how clearing homeless encampments will improve things.
You Tell me how NOT giving medical help, food, shelter and offer addiction recovery is improving things.
People without housing aren’t props to make you feel better about how you live your life.
Oh boy I sure love the idea of violently destroying someone’s home with no plan in place for any extra service or place for them to go. Just hand them a brochure for the exact same services that have failed them for years.
Unless you have a fucking home to move them into you should not be clearing these encampments.
It sounds like they plan to clear the camps and dump the people on the (already strained) local support systems without giving any extra funding or infra to those support systems.
yup. fuck him, if he’s candidate for president, just let the GOP win again
Why is it never the fault of the Democrats for constantly picking a lesser evil, but still evil character? Who are we appealing to with that? The moderately evil people? Brother the elections are years away, why are you so excited to throw your entire life and hope behind the first piece of shit who decided to swing?
if he’s candidate for president, just let the GOP win again
If he’s nominated, the GOP will win again. No matter how much you scold people who you don’t want to have any standards. Do better or lose. Those are your options and I’m certain you’ll choose the latter.
GOP will win again because this tactic of rage baiting dems on titles alone is still working. No one here read the article and just reacted to the title.
This is what happened the first two times. Despite so much studies reporting on this exact manipulation of elections and we learned nothing.
You have chosen the latter.
The political reality that existed when Clinton earned her loss, Biden barely squeaked in despite not earning his win, and Harris earned her loss is still present. More of the same will result in more of the same.
Newsom is more of the same. Centrists can’t win anymore. Betraying the vulnerable and triangulation with republicans isn’t acceptable any longer.
Nope. It’s all down to media and now these watered down brains in here are so easily triggered by a title and refuse to sit down, calm down and do their part in voting and being educated further than this tiktok shit tactic.
It’s all down to media and now these watered down brains in here are so easily triggered by a title and refuse to sit down, calm down and do their part in voting
No matter what shit you throw at them? I mean, I get that you liked the last three candidates and want another one just like them, and that’s fine since you’re so determined to keep losing.
Fuck him with a garden rake for running for President. The Democratic party will not survive another President of that mold. If he wins, get ready for President Stephen Miller and the end of all things in 2032.
I can see you just raged at the rage bait title and didn’t bother to read the article.
None of what I said had was commentary on the article. I was responding to a comment. I’m already quite familiar with Newsom’s track record. He’s just another establishment lizard person who should be laughed out of the presidential primary.
Jesus fuckin Christ. Fuck you, you goddam scumbag.
And You. You definitely didn’t read the article. Just the title.
I just didn’t read it with the same unjustified credulity which you did.
Based on what exactly? Your feefees? Look at you using descriptive words beyond rage baiting titles on other people and yet somehow you’re above it? I smell bullshit.
Look, asshole, based on my experience living in California. Based on my ability to read newspapers with a critical eye. “Oh, well yes they are going to use police to sweep homeless encampments, but don’t worry, it will be paired with housing and supportive services!” Do you know how long it takes to build the kind of infrastructure that second part requires? Newsom can’t simply snap housing and rehab slots into existence, but he can snap police raids into existence, so that’s what he’ll do.
Besides overhauling the economy to better suit everyone, which Newsom has little control over, what other policies and tactics would you like to see used instead?
How about don’t crow about abusing the most disadvantaged people in our communities, while pretending you’re solving anything?
Certainly you just have more to say on this. There’s quite a history of California combating homelessness. What programs and tradeoffs have you seen that you prefer? There is diversity within the homeless community. How did you like to see the different groups managed?
This sounds an awful lot like Louisiana…
Relocation begins: Jeff Landry’s administration clears New Orleans homeless encampments
Louisiana coerced unhoused people into an unheated warehouse – and paid $17.5m for it
It started out as needing to clear everyone out allegedly for security reasons bc of the Bourbon street attacks and the Superbowl, but everyone assumed he was trying to just slap a coat of paint on the city. Then it happened again when there was a big Taylor Swift concert, now it’s like every time “we have company” we should just understand Landry will be rounding up homeless people to make the city more presentable.
People keep saying Newsome is just doing this kind of shit to prove he’s a centrist Democrat but I’m kinda starting to worry it might be a little more sinister than that.
Word of advice for California, be very cautious about allowing any state police or task force to permanently or semi permanently set up in your cities. If it gets proposed push back as loud and hard as you legally can, no matter what you local government might indicate about it.
Homeless sweep ahead of Taylor Swift concert reveals conflict between city, Troop NOLA
Troop NOLA: What we know about the new Louisiana State Police troop in New Orleans
Mayor LaToya Cantrell ‘in alignment’ with Gov. Jeff Landry’s crime plan for New Orleans
And if you can’t stop it from happening make sure your city hammers out even the most obscure details in a contract. If you’re not sure if you need to bother with getting it in writing, you do.
I changed the original headline bc it’s misleading. It makes it sound like the contract was something city council wanted bc they wanted homeless sweeps. The city pushed for a formal contract bc State police were just doing it without any say from the city on how they rounded people up or where they took them.
Here’s hoping that AOC or some other progressive wins the white house. Newsom, while better than Trump, is still shit.
As for Cali, I am hoping for Katie Porter or likeminded folk to take leadership when Newsom vacates his office. The homeless and everybody else needs help from someone who genuinely gives a damn.
he had so little influence after his sf mayorship, he tried to get elected a couple times statewide, but hes just not good overall. plus he doesnt really capture people outside of montery or rich people anyways.
Would bet cash money the DNC selects- I mean uh he fairly wins the DNC primary for next election cycle lol.
As though he hasn’t already been selected.
… by making affordable housing and giving it to the needy?
Did you read the article beyond the headline? Is that what it said?
I can’t speak for all the unhoused but a lot aren’t homeless because they can’t find a place to live, it’s that they don’t want everything that comes with owning/renting a place.
Upkeep, landlords, neighbours, taxes, etc. Even if it’s all provided, just showing up and being accountable is too much for some of them.
sounds like propaganda, even housing chronically homeless people, or people who druggies, have a very beneficial effect in an area. even if it doesnt immediately solve thier problems.
I think you are conflating chronic homeless (less than 25% of all homeless) with people who are homeless for the first time, or have gone in and out of homelessness one or two times. The transiently homeless are absolutely driven there by lack of housing. Chronically homeless tend to have multiple issues that make serving them a challenge, but targeted support programs have been shown to make significant inroads even there.
This page has a lot of detailed breakdowns: https://endhomelessness.org/state-of-homelessness/
You have had conversations with many unhoused people and they’ve indicated they would much rather prefer sleeping in places with little security, a high risk of their few possessions being stolen, and little protection from the elements, to a safe, stable place of residence?
I’m quite skeptical.
Not what I said
I’m curious then, you seem to know the thoughts and experience of unhoused people, yet you’re saying you haven’t conversed with them. How did you form such an opinion?
My comments have been removed for some reason but I started the first one with “I can’t speak for all unhoused people but there are some.”
Not sure how you could read that as me speaking for all homeless people. I’ve lived in all kinds of situations with all kinds of people. I’ve known some who flat out reject being involved in programs designed to help them, preferring to go it alone. Yes, giving up access to safe shelters and other resources. I’m not saying they deserve to go without help or that they should be rounded up and placed in camps. I’m saying understanding their choices can be complex and requires more than just access to shelters or housing.
Your initial comment read like, “we shouldn’t provide access to housing for anyone because some don’t actually want it.”
I believe a better solution would be, “we should provide access to housing and if some don’t want it, they won’t be forced to use it.”
It’s definitely a complex issue, but the first step should be compassion and not eliminating practical options because they might not suit a small subset of the population.
You might have read my comment that way but you also read it as me speaking for all homeless people for some reason.
There is a risk of using already limited funds for housing projects that pay out to contractors/land developers (profiting off social programs) without having enough to go towards other issues facing unhoused people. The solution is more complex than simply “build more homes” which is what the original message I responded to was intimating.
All people deserve safe, stable living environments, some just choose to forgo those for reasons people seem unwilling to acknowledge.
I’ve been homeless. This person is either full of shit or the population they were around was drastically different than mine.
There are circumstances I recall where people turned down shelter space, opting to sleep on the streets, but that’s because the shelters imposed conditions that were unacceptable to them. Primarily, it was drug addicts refusing to get clean or shelters that imposed religious requirements. The rest was mostly untreated mental illness.
“but that’s because the shelters imposed conditions that were unacceptable to them.”
There are people for whom conditions are not acceptable. I’m not saying they shouldn’t have access to a safe to live.
probably nimby person. the last thing Nimby neighborhoods want is low-income housing being built near them. thats what NEWSOM caters to.
I think you’re buying republican narrative about the homeless. That is judgement, but so is your comment.
Edit: No judgement
i dont think that word means what you think it means
Lol, I get the impression you don’t know what it means.
no shit? you think we have different ideas of what judgement means? what gave you that impression- was it the 1/9 ratio or me telling you so first?
shove your thoughtless reply right straight back up whatever hole you were gonna shit it out of. i’ve already blocked you.
Ohh fuck off. I said for some people there’s more to mental health than access to housing. I wasn’t saying we shouldn’t provide for them just that it can be very complex. Your initial comment was so loaded with self-righteous I’m glad I won’t be interacting with you further.
200M spent on alligator Auschwitz and an estimated 450M annual operating cost.
Some googling tells me that an apartment building can cost about 200k/unit (I suspect it could be less). That’s 1000 units. And then imagine what would happen if you put that yearly operating cost into healthcare and other social programs.
They want to build 1000 concentration camps. Florida is working on their second. Texas has one. Other states will certainly follow.
Maybe Newsom should be building homes instead of division.
they are already closing the concentration camp, due to how poorly managed its run.
The vice signaling at the Fed level such as the “alligator” compound, and the “encampments bother my snowflake sensibility, just move them” shit being done in D.C. is not a carbon copy of whatever California is doing. Success at their self-stated goals is TBD, but the California government is putting actual resources to attempt to provide appealing options to those being displaced.
From the linked article, bolding mine:
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday announced the creation of a statewide task force aimed at dismantling homeless encampments on state property and expanding access to shelter and services.
The State Action for Facilitation on Encampments, or SAFE Task Force, will coordinate efforts across multiple state agencies, including the California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, and the state’s health and housing departments.
The governor’s office stated that the task force will prioritize sites deemed unsafe and collaborate with local governments to connect individuals with shelter, health care and substance use services.
California spends over $50k per homeless person per year.
How has homelessness only grown?
Because of double dipping and lack of oversight.
One homeless person goes and gets welfare from one place and then another day goes elsewhere. Both places claim them for a period even though they may only actually be going to one place a day.
If California actually wanted to end homelessness, they could, but then the NGOs and administrators couldn’t profit off homelessness.
California is performative in altruisms and they will never accomplish anything of value on progressive values if they can’t use it to give money to wealthy people.
I don’t suppose you have data for that?
Depending on quality you can make studio apartments, similar to hotel rooms, for close to $50k per unit.
Thanks I hate it.
