April 11, 2018

"Now, Los Angeles officials want to turn NIMBYism on its head — by paying property owners to put houses for homeless people in their backyards."

Says the L.A. Times.
Local government could finance a homeless granny flat for three years for as little as $15,000 annually — roughly the cost of a shelter bed. Backyard units expand housing options without compromising the character of the region's single-family neighborhoods, the mayor's design consultant said....
All right then.

***

For I was... a stranger and you invited me in...

151 comments:

Gahrie said...

90% of this will end up being families of illegal aliens.

LYNNDH said...

So will the rich put up more than one? How about all those movie stars, will they be putting these "houses" up to home the homeless? Fat F'ing Chance.

rehajm said...

Backyard units expand housing options without compromising the character of the region's single-family neighborhoods, the mayor's design consultant said...

...He was also the winner of season 7 of Hoarders.

WisRich said...

Good luck getting them off your property once they're in.

Ambrose said...

Suggests that homeless are sweet little grannies that just happen to not have homes rather than seriously dysfunctional people with mental health issues and alcohol and drug abuse issues

Leland said...

Congratulations LA, you've found a way to subvert the 3rd Amendment.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Sounds like a good plan, since we all know that the vast majority of homeless people are hard-working, law-abiding, clean-and-sober individuals who just happen to be down-on-their-luck, probably due to evil corporations.

What could go wrong?

chickelit said...

Will they get more homelessness if they subsidize it?

CJinPA said...

California's secession plans continue. It will need extra housing to accommodate blue state brethren escaping Old America.

Hagar said...

Los Angeles also is painting its streets white to fight global warming.

Larry J said...

This noble idea deserves to be tested. I suggest a pilot project. Each elected LA city politician should erect one or more of these housing units in their own backyard and operate it for a minimum of one year. Other advocates should also demonstrate their commitment by erecting one or more units on their own property. Admittedly, they may have to get a waiver from their gated community's HOA rules but for such a wonderful idea, they need to set the example.

Fernandistien said...

$15,000 annually - roughly the cost of a shelter bed

$1250/month? That would cover a pretty nice 2-3 bedroom house around here.

Bay Area Guy said...

If rich leftists in LA - there are a lot - would simply open up their homes in Malibu, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Arcadia, San Marino to allow the homeless to live with them, I'm sure the problem would soon go away.

Bob Boyd said...

How about homeless modules in the cargo holds of airplanes? The city could pay the airlines to fly them to popular vacation destinations.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

So now you got a tiny little house in your backyard, and the city hooks you up with a homeless person to live in it. I think they mean well, but a lot of shit can go sideways with this, because a lot of homeless people aren't good at making lifestyle choices.

Like, they're in the back looking at child porn by using your WiFi, and now the FBI is knocking down your door at four in the morning and shit, when it was the dude in the back who was whacking off to twelve-year-old girls who just thought the creepy old molester-guy was going to give them free candy.

Or a crack-whore moves in, but she's off the crack and maybe she even got her teeth fixed some, and now she's kinda hot, and so you got a kinda hot crack-whore who doesn't do crack anymore living behind you, and maybe your wife isn't home a lot, and pretty soon you're the homeless dude because your wife just kicked your ass out the door for fucking the kinda hot crack-whore who doesn't do crack anymore. And had her teeth fixed some.

Or maybe you're having a backyard barbecue with some friends, and the homeless dude joins in, because he's in the backyard, too. And now he's eating all the hot dogs and shit, because he's free and the hot dogs are right there, and you thought you bought enough beer but you suspect he took a couple of twelve-packs when you weren't looking at put them in his tiny little house.

And you can't call him on his shit, because then you look like an asshole being a dick to a homeless dude over some hot dogs and beers, but no one wants to come to your barbecues anymore and you worry if you say anything the homeless dude's gonna call a few of his homeless friends over and now they're gonna fuck your shit up. Or just move in with him, same difference.

So I'm not sure this is gonna work, is what I'm saying, but maybe I'm a pessimist. But if I can picture a crack-whore who doesn't do crack anymore and is kinda hot then I think I'm a bit of an optimist, too.

I post my shit here.

Sam's Hideout said...

That's not what NIMBYism is about though. NIMBYs aren't literally about controlling what goes on their own property but about controlling what goes on their neighbors' properties.

The Coasian bargain would be for paying nearby property owners to accept building homeless shelters.

mockturtle said...

This isn't going to work out well. How comfortable is either party going to be with this arrangement?

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

Why did you link the Bible verse?

SteveR said...

You could spend a semester going over all the potential problems. This can’t possibly work out to any extent whatsoever.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Soooooo......you can get a "homeless" granny shack in your back yard with no problem.

BUT...try to do the same thing for your actually granny. The permits and inspections would financially kill you.

Yay...homeless. Boo...your real granny. I guess you need to make her homeless FIRST then.

"Sorry, Grandma. We would love to put you up in a cute little cottage in the back yard, but you have to get a tent and live on the street for a couple of years.....Love Ya!!!"

CWJ said...

"How about homeless modules in the cargo holds of airplanes? The city could pay the airlines to fly them (one way) to popular vacation destinations."

Bob Boyd, just a thought.

WK said...

Little Pynk houses for you and me.......

Lindsey said...

I eagerly await the first court case where the homeless guy claims squatter's rights on the backyard.

MayBee said...

The mayor's house is a beautiful estate in expensive and gorgeous Hancock Park. There is a wall around it.
A few blocks down 6th Street and Wilshire in Korea Town, there are homeless encampments, people living in tents on the sidewalk, and people literally sleeping face down on the curb. They aren't camping out in Hancock Park for some reason, but I also don't think they are living on the 3rd floor bedrooms or the pool houses.

It's a very sad situation. Most of the people need help other than a home. Yet there they are, in a tent on the sidewalk, using who knows what for facilities. I suspect homeless people are coming from elsewhere to live on the streets of warm LA. If that's true, I would be for other states helping to pay California to help these people get the mental health and addiction help they need. But a small home in a beautiful neighborhood isn't going to help them.

Garcetti surely knows this, or he would invite people to stroll over and live in his tennis house.


Dust Bunny Queen said...

Being married to The Dumbplumber, my first thought is, how stupid of an idea this is.

The water and sewage issues of trying to install a 'real' guest cottage on your property are horrendous and expensive.

Do the people planning this goofy idea have and idea about the physical realities of sanitation? No idea of how hard it is to hook up to the existing public water and sewer systems. Permits, trenching, the codes (1/4" to a foot drop to connect to the sewer system or install lift pumps), connection fees. Your existing plumbing on your property may not be adequate to handle the extra "load". YOU are responsible for the plumbing up TO the connection. NOT the water/sewer company.

Alternately if you cannot connect to the public system....the cost, difficulty and engineering of establishing a septic system (leach fields etc). Pumping that sewage??? You need to have access for the honey trucks.

What about garbage and other sanitation issues??

Good GOD!!! the people in Los Angeles are incompetent retards. I hope they all stay put and don't migrate out of their bubble.

Chris N said...

I don’t think a lot of people have thought about the costs of belief, or the low cost to entry and increasing chaos and authoritarianism this process requires (we’re doomed, we’re all in this together, there’s hope, do your part, no more x, that wasn’t enough, no more x and y, that wasn’t enough, it’s starting to be your fault)

Bad ideas are easy to follow, but a real bitch once they’re the highest bar.

Idealists and utopians aren’t getting human nature and much of the world right, and they will increasingly see you as an ingredient in the ruined soufflé they keep baking.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Oh..yeah. How about electricity? Do the homeless get to have electricity in your back yard?

I'd rather have chickens living in the backyard. At least they are useful and provide eggs. However, I bet THAT is forbidden by the city.

The Cracker Emcee Classic said...

Stupid beyond belief. Just an opportunity for illegals to pick up some cash hosting other illegals or a subsidy for sweatshop immigrants housing the immigrant labor they're exploiting (and charging them rent anyway). How could anyone think this is anything other than an invitation to graft and abuse?

mockturtle said...

Good GOD!!! the people in Los Angeles are incompetent retards. I hope they all stay put and don't migrate out of their bubble.

My daughter sent me this article yesterday: Los Angeles Painting City Streets White in Bid to Combat Climate Change

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

DBQ: Yay...homeless. Boo...your real granny. I guess you need to make her homeless FIRST then.

I have no doubt this incentive to house the homeless will be used in creative and profitable ways that do not involve housing any problematic and unsightly actual homeless people.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

$1250/month? That would cover a pretty nice 2-3 bedroom house around here.

The bureaucracy has to get their cut too.

The Cracker Emcee Classic said...

On the other hand, if I owned an unusable vacant lot in the ghetto, come unto me. And send the checks here...

mockturtle said...

I eagerly await the first court case where the homeless guy claims squatter's rights on the backyard.

Or lawsuits resulting from the 'guests' getting injured on your property.

Nonapod said...

This should be compulsory in wealthy neighborhoods with lot's of rich progressives like Malibu, Beverly Hills, and Palos Verdes.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Mockturtle.

Yeah. I saw that too.

You know what would be Earth friendly and not artificially reflect or absorb heat? DIRT streets!

Let Los Angeles go back to dirt streets to save the world from Global Warming (snicker)

Plus...to stop all the emissions from all of those cars, I also suggest they return to horse carriages and wagons. With all the dirt streets, the horse poop won't be so noticeable and could even be used as natural fertilizer.

:-D

MayBee said...

How could anyone think this is anything other than an invitation to graft and abuse?

Because the intentions are good!

Brian said...

Is it considered a rental for insurance purposes?
Can I establish rules for my tenants (no loud noises after 10, no hanging laundry, no pets).

gspencer said...

Yep, comes with a never-ending parade of strangers coming through your back yard, at all times, day & night; litter, broken glass & lots and lots of needles; bum fights; arguments & yelling galore; mental illness; weapons; drugs & alcohol. At that's only a partial list of the joys that await.

It is a win-win for everyone.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

"An Arab Fable", L.H. Sigourney, GLEANINGS, 1860

https://books.google.com/books?id=nlQxe8xckw0C&pg=PA58&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

People must not read the old stuff anymore.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Brian said...

Can I establish rules for my tenants (no loud noises after 10, no hanging laundry, no pets).

Of course you can!

Can you enforce those rules? Of course not!

Mike Sylwester said...

The fundamental solution is for California to import more illegal aliens.

AJ Lynch said...

And the idiot Twitter owner hopes the rest of the country goes the way of California.

And what DBQ said at 9:20 and 9:33. God I wish DBQ was in on the meetings when someone conceived of these dumb ideas so DBQ could embarrass and blister the dumbasses.

AJ Lynch said...

How come the homeless are not a problem in wide open places like Montana or Idaho? Should the guvmint buy a 100 acres up there and build some big bunkhouses and ship the homeless there?

mccullough said...

LA lost its luster when blacks started moving out. It’s pretty much Jews and Mexicans these days.

Ann Althouse said...

“Why did you link the Bible verse?”

To make your life more difficult.

To make you ask why.

The spirit moved me.

mockturtle said...

~Gordon Pasha at 9:58: Excellent.

MayBee said...

Our Federal Government right now: "Facebook, why are you not protecting our privacy when people we don't know share information about us?"
California Government right now: "People, we are going to pay your neighbors to let untreated mentally ill people live in their backyard"

MadisonMan said...

If you're getting $15K per year for rental, the Federal Govt is going to say "Oh look! Extra income to be taxed!!"

mccullough said...

So the hipster whites are pricing the Mexican-Americans out of the Highland Park neighborhood. And now white hipsters are building homeless huts in their backyards.

This is worse than when LA relocated all the Mexicans from the Chavez Ravine in the late 50s to build Dodger Stadium.





MayBee said...

Ann Althouse said...
“Why did you link the Bible verse?”

To make your life more difficult.

To make you ask why.

The spirit moved me.


And your life too, I'd guess. After all, I don't imagine you plan to move homeless people into your back yard.

MayBee said...

MadisonMan said...
If you're getting $15K per year for rental, the Federal Govt is going to say "Oh look! Extra income to be taxed!!"


Ha!
If LA is smart, they would offer the $15K off your property tax bill, since the high property taxes aren't going to be deductible anymore.

Kevin said...

without compromising the character of the region's single-family neighborhoods,

So multiple families in single-family neighborhoods does not change the character of the single-family neighborhood?

William said...

Which is more probable: a licensed and armed teacher shooting up the class or a backyard granny committing some kind of atrocity?......I think gene splicing might be of help here. If we can equip the homeless with large, floppy ears and big, bushy tails, many people would have less objections to having them in the backyard.

Kevin said...

We've seen this movie before:

"Beverly Hills couple Barbara and Dave Whiteman are very rich but not happy Dave is a hard working business man, his wife is only interested in yoga, aerobics and other meditation classes, and he sleeps with the house maid. Their teenage son is confused about his sexuality and their daughter is suffering from eating disorders. While they are celebrating thanksgiving having plenty of food, street tramp Jerry is hungry, homeless, sleeping rough and has lost his dog. Jerry decides to end his life by drowning himself in their swimming pool. Dave rescues him and invites him to stay for a while. How does this stranger change the life style of this family?"

Doug said...

I swear, one's IQ must go down fifty points when you cross the border from Nevada, and down another fifty points when you run for public office.

cubanbob said...

For half of the 15k, give them bus tickets to Chicago, DC and NYC and let them have the rest in cash.

Teller said...

Why doesn't LA pay the street people to paint the streets white? I mean, they're right there and it's income.

Ray said...

This will not end well.

My parents helped out a homeless couple by giving them a place to sleep, their upstairs.

What a nightmare this created.

2 out of the 3 ex tenants are now in jail.

Finally had the lockout happen 2 weeks ago.

Agree 100% on the addiction issue. Not to mention petty crime.

I am still dealing with the fallout from my parents kind hearted gesture.

Jersey Fled said...

Ann quoted: "for I was a stranger ... and you invited me in"

Suppose we applied that principle to unborn children.

Christianity is hard.

Ray said...

Being a landlord is hard. And with the legal protections in CA, it opens you up on the legal liability side. Not to mention maintenance issue issues.

Bigger issue is zoning / fees that make it impossible to build low cost apartments without government funding, that then creates more issues.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

No one has mentioned the dreaded three letters

HOA.

Paddy O said...

Back houses aren't exactly rare in the LA area. I know they abound in Pasadena. Though they're all generally much older. New neighborhoods in the area have more restrictive zoning but also much smaller backyards.

Mike said...

Sounds like a zoning problem. On the other hand now everyone who owns property can aspire to be a slumlord.

Charlotte Allen said...

@Paddy O: As a native Pasadenan, I'm familiar with back houses, which are all over the place in the city's older residential neighborhoods. Many were built during the Depression, when people had huge yards because Southern California land was cheap and they needed the extra income so they could pay their mortgages. But the back houses have always been rentals, where landlords get to screen their tenants and enforce rules. I suspect, too, that most are let by word of mouth to friends and relatives of the homeowner.

cubanbob said...

Giving this some more thought and perhaps LA ought adopt Detroit. Detroit has a tremendous amount of abandoned homes, homes that could be rehabilitated for fifteen grand and if LA's homeless were moved to Detroit, LA solves its problem and Detroit gets a shot in the arm (pun also intended) of rehabilitated homes and an influx of people that have a guaranteed fifteen grand income to spend and some it will even be spent legally thus improving Detroit's tax base. Democrats helping Democrats. A win-win situation.

Sam L. said...

Can you say "Lowering Property Values", boys and girls? Yes, I KNEW you could.

Yancey Ward said...

A shelter bed costs the city $15K/yr to operate? Good grief! Man, money is greasing someone's hands.

Lewis Wetzel said...

You sign up for the program, seeing dollar signs. The county moves a homeless man accused moe than once of lechery (but never convicted). While you are at work, your wife & two daughters are home alone all day. So is the new tenant.

Unlikely scenario? Maybe, maybe not.
The more likely scenario is that the property -- with its tiny county home in the back -- is owned by an absentee landlord. Said landlord rents the front house to a single woman with a family, and the county home goes to whoever the county wants to shelter this month. Maybe his friends, too. The amount of homeless people who are sane, drug and alcohol free, and are responsible is not large.

Julian Castro, the HUD secretary under Obama, was once considered a possible Hillary VP pick. As HUD secretary he proposed rules that would forbid a landlord from having a policy not to rent to ex cons. HUD would investigate any pattern of discrimination abainst ex cons. I heard Castro interviewed on this rule change (not a law, you could never get it through congress) by an NPR reporter. The NPR woman basically read him the HUD bullet points describing the rule change, and Castro's "answers" were to explain how wonderful things that would result from the rule change.
No government official would subject the people that he or she loves to the awful things he or she wants to do to the "community."

mccullough said...

All the cities in colder weather states should be doing everything they can to ship their homeless to California. The mayors of Baltimore, St Louis and Detroit should be renting caravans and handing out $500 cash to every junkie to get on that bus west. Throw in a Dodgers or Giants cap.

Let California deal with it. They got warm weather and a beautiful coast line.

Sebastian said...

"without compromising the character of the region's single-family neighborhoods"

Riiight.

Lewis Wetzel said...

For every million dollars of value assessed above five million dollars, the proerty owner must build one home for the indigent on the property, minimun 800 square ', & allow the county to act as its land lord.

Yancey Ward said...

To stop people from simply allowing a non-homeless person to live in the unit at government expense, the proposal will have to come with one little catch- the property owner won't have the right to select who lives in it.

This is literally the dumbest fucking idea since London's knife control push.

Unknown said...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/10/los-angeles-painting-city-streets-white-in-bid-to-combat-climate-change.html

I call racism

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Ann quoted: "for I was a stranger ... and you invited me in"

"With more than 225,000 copies sold, When Helping Hurts is a paradigm-forming
contemporary classic on the subject of poverty alleviation and ministry to those
in need. Emphasizing the poverty of both heart and society, this book exposes the
need that every person has and how it can be filled. The reader is brought to understand
that poverty is much more than simply a lack of financial or material resources
and that it takes much more than donations and handouts to solve the problem of
poverty.

While this book exposes past and current development efforts that
churches have engaged in which unintentionally undermine the people they're trying
to help, its central point is to provide proven strategies that challenge Christians
to help the poor empower themselves. Focusing on both North American and Majority
World contexts, When Helping Hurts catalyzes the idea that sustainable change
for people living in poverty comes not from the outside-in, but from the inside-out."

Enabling drug addicts and alcoholics to continue in their destructive path is not helping them.

Bay Area Guy said...

Althouse ends her post with a biblical reference:

"For I was... a stranger and you invited me in..."

Althouse challenges the rogue deplorable commentariat to expand their intellectual and moral horizons by averring:

To make your life more difficult.

To make you ask why.

The spirit moved me.


Fair play, Althouse! The verse you cite is powerful and relevant. And all the joking and nonsense and horseplay aside, if one identifies as a Christian, one is obligated to read and digest this verse, and most likely act upon it.

The problem in the real world, though, is applying these biblical mandates to public policy, i.e., dealing with a homeless problem in California that was largely caused through liberal policies (no fault divorce, abolish religion from schools, celebrate drug use, release the mentally ill, etc, etc.)

Where I live/work (San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley) there are armies of homeless, particularly in SF, near city hall, who use drugs, discard needles and literally shit on the streets.

It's messy and ugly, and most sane folks, sidestep it and go back to their comfortable living rooms to watch cable tv and sip Chardonnay.

Myself, I prefer donating my time and money to organizations that actually tackle these problems (providing hot meals, groceries, etc), but maybe I should be doing a lot more? Who knows.




Bay Area Guy said...

What Winkleheimer said

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I'm with Glenn Reynolds. Worst political class in history.

Rusty said...

This too will end in tears.

Rusty said...

"For I was... a stranger and you invited me in..."

Yes. For the salvation of my soul. Not because I'm getting paid to do it. Despite what the usual suspects of the world may say, it isn't charity.

Ray said...

It's not HUD Rules, it's Guidance, and it's in effect... Thanks Obama!
>proposed rules that would forbid a landlord from having a policy not to rent to ex cons.


New HUD guidance on criminal records puts landlords in a bind

I believe landlords need to follow this, so you don't discriminate under HUD Rules.

The exception is if you can show what they did is relevant as a reason to deny them.

Target got caught on this, and did a settlement on their hiring / screening of ex cons.

I have mixed feelings on the rules for ex cons. It makes it so hard for them to get a job / housing, but the truth is the US system does a HORRIBLE job of rehabilitation.

>proposed rules that would forbid a landlord from having a policy not to rent to ex cons.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/HUD_OGCGUIDAPPFHASTANDCR.PDF

Unknown said...

This will not end well.

-sw

Francisco D said...

"Do the people planning this goofy idea have and idea about the physical realities of sanitation?"

No. Virtue and reality are often orthogonal concepts.

Next question.

mockturtle said...

Truly, the best and safest strategy is to ignore California altogether. Pretend it doesn't exist--call it wishful thinking.

Anonymous said...

Is this a joke or something? I feel like I've time traveled to the past because I specifically remember another west coast liberal enclave suggested just this some time ago, Seattle or Portland? Comments were pretty much the same. Or maybe I am just un-tethered in time.

"A shelter bed costs the city $15K/yr to operate?" A comment from above. I used to stay in Scottsdale, Ari., I had a girlfriend there for awhile, at two different hotels, full breakfast included, on North Scottsdale Rd., diagonally across the street from the small airport. Blazingly hot in summer for this New Englander but beautiful. I paid $900 a month through Priceline.com. Has Los Angeles tried Priceline.com?

Rae said...

I've always wanted to live in Barbara Steisands back yard. Now's my chance!

"The L.A. County pilot program will lend homeowners $75,000 to build a backyard house or $50,000 for a bootleg renovation for up to six units. The loan principal will be reduced each year the unit is occupied by a formerly homeless person and forgiven after 10 years, at which point homeowners can do as they wish with the housing."

So they're going to let the owner evict occupant in ten years? I really doubt that. And what if the tenant starts dealing drugs or something?

mikee said...

Here in Austin, TX, the formerly segregated Black and Hispanic slums east of I-35 are being gentrified for new immigrants to the state, because the commute downtown from the burbs is ridiculous. 50 to 75 year old 1000sqft homes are being demolished on 7000 sqft lots, and new 1500 sqft homes are being built on the lot. The trick is that behind the new house, another 1000sqft new home is being built. The single lot then gets "condo-ized" into a 2 member condominium association, avoiding the need to replat the lot. And the new homes sell for "only" about $250-$300 per square foot.

As to housing the homeless - sure, I'll try it in my back yard, as long as I can evict them the same as any other renter for violating the lease. But $15k/year isn't gonna cut it. How about $30k, with a 10% bump in rent each year until you realize how insanely wasteful of tax money the idea is, even at $15k/year.

Enlighten-NewJersey said...

Here’s a novel idea. How about the homeless go live with a relative. Charity begins at home.

Alfonse Nobile said...

"For I was... a stranger and you invited me in..."

As an earlier post stated, Christianity is hard. As one who attempts to be all in for Jesus, I'm amused by those who dabble in faith as a hobby. If the spirit was indeed the motivating force, the author (-ess? -ette? -ix?) betrays an insecurity with her core faith and attempts to transfer it to those with stronger convictions.

Quoting Scripture is easy. Living it with the full understanding of its context, requires unwavering faith. Let us pray.

Henry said...

Here's the kicker (my emphasis):

In August, the county Board of Supervisors approved a $550,000 pilot program to build a handful of small backyard houses, or upgrade illegally converted garages, for homeowners who agree to host a homeless person or family.

Nice garage you have there. You wouldn't want a zoning citation, now, would you?

* * *

BTW, for those asking about utilities and sanitation, look at the picture at the link. That's not a tent in that backyard. That's a ground-up, concrete slab foundation house.

Kirk Parker said...

Ron Winkelheimer,

The problem with When Helping Hurts is that it's written by an American Christian, and thus too "nice". The author pulls too many punches.

For a much punchier view of the same question, I recommend adding Dead Aid, by Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo, to your reading list.

bagoh20 said...

Alcatraz is mostly empty. A homeless island paradise awaits.

buwaya said...

You could set up detention camps in Montana or Nevada or even in California, way out in some rural county I suppose, quite nice ones too, well designed with easy housekeeping in mind and all-you-can-eat healthy rations, clinics, even on-site psychologists and educators and etc.

And this should be fairly cheap unless someone wants to inflate costs to benefit their friends, because they will of course.

But I don't think the homeless are going to like it there. And I can imagine the ongoing scandal the left is going to make of these places. And the legal risk. Those are very troublesome people who are going to be trouble, and this will invite lawyers.

chickelit said...

Gabriel wrote: “90% of this will end up being families of illegal aliens.”

Every SoCal mansionette needs a servants quarters. Win-win if the tenants don’t actually pay rent and the mansion owner gets a subsidy.

Rabel said...

2016:

"Trent Wolbe and Grace Lee, who own a small 1920s home in rapidly gentrifying Highland Park, are scheduled to build the first prototype. A community lender is underwriting their construction loan, because traditional banks won’t finance such properties.

Wolbe and Lee would like to move into the new unit, with their 2 1/2-year-old daughter Cora, and rent out their current home to another family."

2018:

"A prototype backyard unit with financing and design sponsored by Mayor Eric Garcetti's Innovation Team is rising behind Trent Wolbe's house in rapidly gentrifying Highland Park.

"This is all about adding [housing] stock to a neighborhood that has gotten out of reach for everyone," said Wolbe, 35, a freelance creative director for tech companies."

I give him credit for creativity and getting the city to finance his second home.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

For a much punchier view of the same question, I recommend adding Dead Aid, by Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo, to your reading list.

I've read articles about that guy, but haven't actually read his book. Thanks.

LilyBart said...

Lois Smart, a strong Christian woman, invited a homeless man to her home. She gave him work at her house so he could earn money. She thought she was doing a good deed. He came back in the middle of the night and kidnapped her daughter Elizabeth and held her captive for months, raping her over and over. I'm sure you've all heard about this case.

When I lived in California, I went to church with a Santa Monica policeman. He hold me about a family who invited a homeless man to live with them. This man had pathological problems and at some point picked up a hatchet from their garage and attacked the family with it. My friend was one of the people called to the scene. No one died, but several were brutally injured. (I looked for a link, but this happened around 1997).


Helping is good. But you have to be wise about it. I give generously to private charities that help the homeless in my city, but I'd be reluctant to bring one home. Minefield.

I'm sure Ann is happy to stand in judgement of me as I'm unwilling to 'invite them in'. But at least I'm giving my own money to help. What is she doing herself?

Let he who is sinless cast the first stone.

LilyBart said...

pathological - psychological.

Ken B said...

Mockturtle,
Can we do that with their congressional and electoral votes?

Mark said...

a formerly homeless man who lives in a 125-square-foot house in their Seattle backyard

Essentially treating him like a dog, living in a space not much bigger than a dog house.

They want to put these in Arlington too.

Bay Area Guy said...

There's a reason some folks are homeless. In fact, many reasons:

1. Broken families
2. Drug use
3. Mental issues
4. Crime
5. Innate stupidity

So, this is the input. And the output isn't just the lack of a home, as if giving them a home would solve their problems. It's a buncha problems:

1. Jobless
2. Wife-less
3. Moneyless
4. Friendless
5. Familyless
6. Hygieneless
7. Purposeless
8. Religionless

How does this happen to once cute little babies? Ask the Left. They've been building armies of homelessness since the 60s. Probably, nuclear family break down and drug use are the two most persistent factors.

I could be wrong about all this. I have no special expertise. But, in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are a lot of homeless.

mockturtle said...

Mark complains: Essentially treating him like a dog, living in a space not much bigger than a dog house.

I have lived in a much smaller space [my RV] WITH my dog and never once felt deprived. Perhaps you should move out of your house and give it to the homeless.

mockturtle said...

Ken B asks: Mockturtle,
Can we do that with their congressional and electoral votes?


I didn't mean we can, as a nation, ignore California [although that would be ideal] but rather to personally ignore them. I choose to pretend there is no such place. ;-)

Actually, there are sensible people in CA but they have little impact and really should move.

Gk1 said...

This state is stark raving mad. Yeah, I am sure the homeowners will be delighted to be in charge of sanitation, policing drug use and other obvious elements they will now be liable for. Only a liberal is foolish enough to believe this would work, cost free, to anyone.

mockturtle said...

LilyBart comments: Helping is good. But you have to be wise about it. I give generously to private charities that help the homeless in my city, but I'd be reluctant to bring one home. Minefield.

Yes, and I think most of us help when and where we can. But, as a widow living alone, I would not choose to invite a homeless stranger into my house. Being charitable doesn't mean being foolish.

mockturtle said...

Gk1: I'm sorry you are living in 'that state'. :-( Those of you stuck there will have to lie in the bed these idiots have made. They aren't thinking clearly but they don't know that because Progressive groupthink has reinforced their idiocies. Seriously. I have some relatives living in CA and they quite are oblivious to what the rest of the country sees easily. They think these kinds of measure are wonderful. It's almost like a kind of virus has taken over their minds.

JaimeRoberto said...

Or you could just make it easier to build in-law units and allow the owners to rent to whomever they damn well please, thereby reducing the cost of housing, but I guess there aren't enough opportunities for graft in my idea.

I wonder if they got the idea from Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry is letting Leon stay in the cottage in the back yard.

JaimeRoberto said...

Oh, and I've heard that renting to Section 8 tenants is a nightmare. I can't imagine that this will be any better.

Rusty said...

But keep in mind that Los Angeles is painting its streets white. So even the backyard homeless kennel is nearly sane by comparison.

Bay Area Guy said...

Hey - you guys can't rip on California! Only we can rip on California!

Geographically, the Bay Area really is a magical place. The waterfront, the hills of San Francisco, the views of San Francisco across the water from the east bay, the redwoods in Marin, the parks, the Golden Gate Bridge, the restaurants.....

The problem is the people -- most of whom are whacked-out leftists. The rich whacked-out leftists are tolerable. They read the NYTimes, fret about Trump, live in $2 Million dollar homes, and dine in the Gourmet Ghetto of Berkeley. If you ignore their politics, they're pretty decent folks.

The poor whacked-out Left, well, they set up homeless tent cities in downtown Berkeley and Oakland, smoke dope on the streets, and mooch dollars on Telegraph Avenue.

The problem is for high school graduates. If the umbilical cord of wealth to their parents is cut or never existed, it's a rough world. Housing is way too expensive, the interactions between the sexes is all screwed up, and blue-collar jobs are hard to find.

For folks like me, though, who've been here for over 40 years, and is mostly done with raising kids, and has already built a nest-egg, well, life is good.

Lucien said...

Two points:

1) To attack this, use race and class - say that most of the bums will be housed in poor/minority neighborhoods because they need the money, but the neighbors must be kept from suing for nuisance/damages, and since most of them will be minorities/poor that will be racist disparate impact;

2) Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, San Marino, etc. are off the hook, since they are separate cities- but this is a stealth boost to secession arguments in Brentwood, Bel Air, Pacific Palisades, and the San Fernando valley.

Bay Area Guy said...

Is Palos Verdes a separate city? That's a smoking hot place. Add Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa too.

Gk1 said...

Mockturtle, you can have some really surreal conversations with people out in the bay area. They aren't all wackos but many are soft headed and are unable to forecast the future much beyond a few weeks. Engaging people on the problem of open borders is astounding. At one level they understand there are limits to inviting everyone in but then think because they have "white privilege" they have no right to judge. I have paid attention to the tiny house movement in SF for the homeless gets strangled in the crib whenever it comes up for a vote or referendum. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Tiny-homes-often-unwelcome-in-SF-Oakland-7045184.php

buwaya said...

As per Bay Area Guy - ditto

If you are well off, as we are, the SF Bay Area or even Los Angeles are very nice, though expensive of course. You miss out on the mansion and servants you would have somewhere else - you have to be truly wealthy to have that in CA, but otherwise as a matter of environment and quality services, this is a very nice place to live.

But for families earning less than the top 2-3% or so, or if you haven't piled up a $million+ in assets, most of this is unaffordable.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You could set up detention camps in Montana or Nevada or even in California, way out in some rural county I suppose, quite nice ones too,

Oh HELL NO!!! Why should we, in the rural areas be saddled with the problems of the urban areas. Are we your dumping ground? A place to just warehouse the undesirable mentally ill, drug addicts and criminals? We have enough problems without being your garbage disposal.

Besides the fact that WE DO NOT WANT YOUR TRASH STREWN IN OUR HOMES.....the warehousing of the homeless in these areas is cruel to the homeless and not helpful in the least to those who might possibly be able to be helped to get out of homelessness.

Screw putting the homeless in rural areas because....

1. There are few to no jobs or any job training opportunities. No way to get OUT of being homeless.

2. There are no begging opportunities either because we see right through the scams that the homeless are pulling. We KNOW where you live. See that you are staying in a motel or other place. Get SSI or Welfare and free medical. Things that most of us in the rural backwaters don't get, and resent the hell out of the idea that we need bend over for the homeless who are getting everything for free while we pay the taxes.

3. There isn't any thing for them to DO. Especially if they have children. No parks. Can't skateboard....no sidewalks. And the acceptance level from other kids their age is about zero. Bored teenagers = big trouble.

4. Petty theft. Most of the homeless that we have had foisted temporarily on us commit 90% of the crimes and petty thefts as well as household break-ins.

5. Lack of public services. No medical nearby. Miles and miles to the closest clinic or hospital. County services, welfare offices etc. are 80 to 100 miles away. Long long response times for police. 45 minutes on a good day. No local pharmacies. NO Public transportation so even IF they were able to get a job or want to go shopping there is no way to get anywhere unless you walk, hitch hike (good luck with that one) or have your own transportation.

6. Absent or underfunded charities and churches to help the homeless and indigent.

7. Most people are armed and not willing to put up with this sort of degradation of our own lives. Cruel but true.

So. NO NO NO NO>>>>>and HELL NO.

The Godfather said...

"Homelessness" is NOT a housing problem. In the vast majority of cases it's the result of drug- or alcohol abuse or other mental illness. In D.C. there was a case in which an elderly woman died and willed her house to a homeless guy who had been living in a nearby city park. Big celebration! Within a month or so, he was back in the park and the house was trashed. I provided pro bono legal help for people who actually worked on the problems that made folks homeless. It's very hard. They had some success. Baby steps. Baby steps.

buwaya said...

"Why should we, in the rural areas be saddled with the problems of the urban areas."

Because things can be done cheaper out there. And it puts them out where these characters won't annoy rich people.

I am thinking of something more like an agricultural colony where the homeless can be sentenced to a term of rehabilitation through labor. Something like a camp in the Gulag, but with better rations and accommodations, and the purpose of which is not, well, death.

The British used to send such petty criminals, alcoholics and Irish (but I repeat myself) to a similar place, Australia. It worked out, eventually.

Gk1 said...

A good friend of mine tried managing a chapter of 'Habitats for Humanity" in Kansas City and fled after 3 years after dealing with the entitled, dysfunctional families they were busting their tails to build housing for. She said some families treated them like indentured servants while others were eternally grateful. One family refused to move in because the builders hadn't listened to her ideas on how to do the living room?!? Another candidate was quickly brought in and housed. She really learned about not only humanity but her own idealized view of poor, homeless people. The reality was rather jarring.

buwaya said...

And in the wide open country with no roads, no money, no way to make money, and no easy way to leave, it will be difficult to supply them with drugs and alcohol.

Of course, it needs to be such an isolated place.

There is no Australia (though there still is Australia, still mostly the big empty), but there should be a way to arrange a similar big empty in the continental US.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And it puts them out where these characters won't annoy rich people.

And where body disposal is much easier to accomplish....joking....of course :-)

buwaya said...

What would be best is some large uninhabited island.
Hard to reach, hard to visit, hard to leave.

I'm thinking there are options in the Aleutians, but the weather is terrible.

FullMoon said...

I am thinking of something more like an agricultural colony where the homeless can be sentenced to a term of rehabilitation through labor. Something like a camp in the Gulag, but with better rations and accommodations, and the purpose of which is not, well, death.

Liberal icon Jim Jones did a good job of it, until the women ruined it for everyone.

mockturtle said...

Are the internment camps used for the Japanese Americans in WWII [a policy which, BTW, I think was horrible] still usable? I've often thought those would work for drug rehab facilities. Neither the addicts themselves nor, certainly, society is being helped by leaving them unattended.

buwaya said...

"Liberal icon Jim Jones did a good job of it, until the women ruined it for everyone."

Jim Jones ruined it for everyone. It was his legal troubles resulting from his own crimes that made him kill them all. He really was a monster, who could not bear to go down without making a thousand others die too.

The Guyana idea wasn't bad, in itself. It got that whole crew out of the US and away from facilitating political corruption. There have been several subsequent Jim Jones wannabe's in that line btw, that made a showing in SF Bay Area politics.

See "Season of the Witch", David Talbot

The Guyana colony could have, possibly, survived to this day, had it not been for Jones. And maybe even done some good.

mockturtle said...

The homeless are a disparate group, as others have observed. There are a good many who are mentally ill, some who are substance abusers and more than a few who are both. Then there are families or individuals who simply have nowhere to live. Some are actually working but living in their vehicles. Traveling in my RV, I saw quite a few of these. So there needs to be a triage. Substance abusers need locked facilities and drug rehab, mentally ill might require locked facilities if they are unable to take care of themselves or take their medications responsibly. The rest need help to obtain housing. These are all expensive options but our nation will destroy itself without them.

FullMoon said...

Jim Jones ruined it for everyone. It was his legal troubles resulting from his own crimes that made him kill them all. He really was a monster, who could not bear to go down without making a thousand others die too.

Saw a documentary recently claiming Jones was so drug addled that several particular women were running things and put together the suicide scenario.Not sure of the title
May have been 2017's "Jim Jones:What Happened? which is the only one showing up on my cable search. Surprised me.

buwaya said...

"Are the internment camps used for the Japanese Americans in WWII [a policy which, BTW, I think was horrible] still usable?"

No, they are ruins now, or at best there are some ancient remnants.

But they also were not quite the thing either, not being designed to hold people in very well. The residents could not easily escape as there was nowhere for them to go, among a hostile population.

As for the policy, it was in truth a trivial footnote in a horrible war. I can go on and on about just how trivial. The events of any given day of 1937-45, on the other side of the Pacific, was more important than that entire episode.

US school histories make much of it, but say nothing about most of the rest of WWII. US schools teach two things reliably about WWII - the Japanese Internment and Hiroshima. The rest is irrelevant.

Freeman Hunt said...

That would be fine if the homelessness problem were not largely a mental health and substance abuse problem. Are they screening these people?

mockturtle said...

Buwaya asserts: As for the policy, it was in truth a trivial footnote in a horrible war. I can go on and on about just how trivial. The events of any given day of 1937-45, on the other side of the Pacific, was more important than that entire episode.

I'm sure it was. But the fact that friends of my family were interned, lost their business as well as their freedom, puts--for me--a human face on what may indeed be a 'trivial footnote'. A friend a few years older than I was born in an internment camp in WA.

Bay Area Guy said...

Here's a fire-gutted house in San Jose on the market for $800K . Take a look at the picture.

Robert Cook said...

"A good friend of mine tried managing a chapter of 'Habitats for Humanity" in Kansas City and fled after 3 years after dealing with the entitled, dysfunctional families they were busting their tails to build housing for. She said some families treated them like indentured servants while others were eternally grateful. One family refused to move in because the builders hadn't listened to her ideas on how to do the living room?!? Another candidate was quickly brought in and housed. She really learned about not only humanity but her own idealized view of poor, homeless people. The reality was rather jarring."

It seems odd to me that anyone would have an idealized view of the poor. Just as you'll find entitled, dysfunctional people among those who are financially advantaged, you'll find them among the poor. Poverty is not enobling. This is why Jesus Christ's commands to love they neighbor as thyself and to turn the other cheek are so radical, and so difficult to adhere to: other people--all other people--can be difficult and nasty to deal with. One chooses to serve the disadvantaged not to have a cuddly "feel-good" interaction with them--though that would be gratifying, to be sure--but because one feels a moral imperative to do so...because one feels it is the right thing to help those without food or homes obtain at least basic access to these things.

Original Mike said...

Does being liberal turn people stupid or did they start out that way?

buwaya said...

"But the fact that friends of my family were interned, "

If we want to go personal ... note that everyone I knew from childhood was a survivor, refugee or veteran of that war, all of whom had lost husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, parents, children. Entire circles of friends.

The ladies who gathered for cigarette-miasmic sessions of mahjong would speak of X, or Y, or Z - whatever happened to her?

She died in the war. She died in the war. She died in the war.

Down the street, the Chinese merchants mansion had a plaque by his gate, commemorating his tragedy - the entire family murdered in 1945, wife and children and servants - he was the sole survivor. I walked by that plaque to school every day.

The house next door - the judge who owned it, and his wife, and servants and tenants also, everyone knew - only transient foreigners rented that place.

At school, by the chapel, another plaque, of yet another massacre, of priests and brothers, and refugees, including our relations.

Up the alley was the old Baseball Stadium, where my aunts husband had joined the 8th Cavalry to get the Japs out of their bunkers, and to get some revenge, as the Japs had killed his brothers, sister, mother and nephews.

Two blocks away, the convent, my sisters school (and my mothers, in her time, and mine for that new thing, Kindergarten), in the back wall was a repaired section where a Sherman tank of the Cavalry had crashed through, and through that hole the refugees which had desperately dug trenches in the convent playground - our childhood playground - fled away from the Jap mortars.

Over and over and over. Massacre after massacre, and bombardment, starvation, death camps, torture. To ask anyone of these people what significance there was in the Americans interning some civilians? None. They had seen the real war, more than enough to know.

To put it in numbers, in those few days in Manila (just the culmination of everything, note) as many civilians were killed, as the entire number of US-Japanese interned.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Odd that this happens even as numerous people cannot find affordable housing in California, because "high density" is not acceptable due to its environmental impact.

People who work for a living have to make two or three hour commutes, or live in trailers (or flee the state for more affordable places), while homeless people are put up in their own place?

Terry said...

Japan's Unit 731: https://unit731.org/experiments/
Don't look if you have not got a strong stomach. You have been warned.

Anonymous said...

" I've often thought those would work for drug rehab facilities."

I do not think it would be at all crazy to make test "communities" for problem populations. It would make it possible for people to get treatment as well as finding a safe place to house them.

I am not talking about bringing back some old evil institution such as the workhouse; checks and balances would be necessary to protect against abuses, just as one sees (too often!) with residential living facilities for older people. Vulnerable populations must be protected. Also, people should be free to go, unless there is some reason to "5250" them, or whatever it's called nowadays.

Any population that requires charity to live, is unwanted "NIMBY" by local residents, and/or has significant health problems (including high risk of suicide or other mental health problems) is a population that might be best served by making up a community specifically to care for those people. I could be wrong, of course, but I do imagine many people would enjoy living in communities comprised of others with issues similar to theirs more than they enjoy being viewed as a nuisance by the people pushing them around now.

FullMoon said...

Odd that this happens even as numerous people cannot find affordable housing in California, because "high density" is not acceptable due to its environmental impact.

People who work for a living have to make two or three hour commutes, or live in trailers (or flee the state for more affordable places), while homeless people are put up in their own place?


Yep, a bad situation. Affordable housing is available but not where the best jobs are. Prices will come down eventually but not enough to make a home affordable for most of middle class. fifty year mortgage might help

Terry said...

And because I am even handed & hate all totalitarianism, here is art & photos from the Gulag: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/206039751677772665/
Not as bad as the Unit 731 stuff, but still pretty gruesome. This is what happens when you substitute the will of the government for the will of the people. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself a national socialist or an international socialist. The most brutal people get to the top because that is the path the power, and the top is where the power is.

Gahrie said...

I am not talking about bringing back some old evil institution such as the workhouse;

Why not> I am.

... Also, people should be free to go, unless there is some reason to "5250" them, or whatever it's called nowadays.

Any population that requires charity to live, is unwanted "NIMBY" by local residents, and/or has significant health problems (including high risk of suicide or other mental health problems) is a population that might be best served by making up a community specifically to care for those people.


We used to have them...they were called mental institutions. And if they are free to go, they will...that's how they ended up on the street in the first place.

I could be wrong, of course, but I do imagine many people would enjoy living in communities comprised of others with issues similar to theirs more than they enjoy being viewed as a nuisance by the people pushing them around now.

The vast majority of people living on the street are living there because they are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, and value their "freedom" more than security. The addicts won't go unless they can drink and shoot up. The mentally ill won't stay because they don't realize that it is best for them.

Michael K said...

you have to be truly wealthy to have that in CA, but otherwise as a matter of environment and quality services, this is a very nice place to live.

The main reason I left for Arizona was the traffic.

Several years ago we left Orange County at 4 PM on a Saturday afternoon to drive to the Beverly Wilshire Hotel for a meeting of the Claremont Foundation. We missed the cocktail reception and were late for dinner at 7PM. Three hours to go 50 miles on a Saturday.

I am back in LA to work but have decided never again. We go home to Tucson in the morning. We had an ocean front home in San Clemente 35 years ago and, if I were going nowhere any day, I would like to still have it.

I prefer Tucson at our age.

Michael K said...

The vast majority of people living on the street are living there because they are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves,

When I as teaching medical students, I used to take them to the "skid row" area of Los Angeles so they could see where their County Hospital patients lived.

The directors of the shelters told us that 60% of homeless were alcohol or drug addicts. 60% were psychotic and half of each group was both.

That left about 10% that were "situational homeless" who lived in their cars for a week while they found a new place. There were no children on the streets unless the parents were hiding them. There was a shelter just for families and any children were immediately taken to the shelter.

I doubt much has changed in the past five years.

Anonymous said...

The "I was a stranger and you invited me in" thing had more validity when our taxes to Caesar didn't pay for a Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as sundry local homeless services.

John Lynch said...

You aren't saving souls when you give them a place to keep doing the things that got them on the street. You are doing the opposite.

The road to hell really is paved with good intentions.

Lewis Wetzel said...

David Bentley Hart has written a new translation of the NT from its oldest sources. I've ordered it from Amazon, but I have not read it yet. I have read Hart's reflections on the work of translating it. He was surprised to find that the original text emphasized the salvation of all souls ("universalism") as well as the necessity of Christ's followers to give up their earthly goods to those who had even less.
There is a tension in this. Why give up your worldly goods if you don't have to to be saved?
Hart is no socialist, but perhaps there is a reason that the most popular translations of the NT have been done by committee rather than by individuals.

StephenFearby said...

In the olde days of tough love...

England and Wales Poor Law Records Pre-1834

"Before Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries in 1536-9, the monasteries took care of the poor in England and Wales. With the monasteries gone, this responsibility was shifted to each parish. An entire system of laws and documents grew up around caring for the poor."

"...1662 Act of Settlement
Prior to this date anyone able to work had been free to move wherever they wanted to, but this was changed in 1662. The Act of Settlement established the concept of each person being settled in one parish that was responsible for them. Previously a person’s birthplace had always been considered his true home, and if this was not known then any parish where he had lived one whole year became his settlement.

New provisions included:

New methods of acquiring settlement included renting a house worth £10 per year, being in the parish for 40 days without a complaint being made, or if a woman, being married to a parishioner.

Overseers could send or remove a newcomer if he had no prospect of work within 40 days, or if he did not rent property worth £10 or more a year.

Ÿ A sojourner, one who was a temporary inhabitant, for example for the harvest, had to bring with him a certificate from his home parish indicating that they would take him back.
After 40 days residence a stranger could then claim settlement in his new parish.

Persistent vagrants were variously punished, including by transportation to North America."

https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/England_and_Wales_Poor_Law_Records_Pre-1834#1662_Act_of_Settlement

Wilbur said...

"Many, many of them are just regular people like you and me who just lost their job or lost their house and really don't have other choices," said L.A. County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.

So speaketh Zelda from Dobie Gillis. She is a piece of leftist work.

Wilbur said...

Ever notice that, except for Cook, none of the blog's regular leftists shows their face when some indefensible leftist insanity is the topic?

JAORE said...

"For I was... a stranger and you invited me in..."

Funny my Bible seems to refer to my invitation into my home. I guess your version includes reference to a government subsidized/bribed structure. Nor does it mention the invitation was actually extended by the local pols without any input by me, or.....

So, yeah, sure, Jesus was a socialist. Feh.

Rusty said...

Well then Robert the church is good for something. They run a lot of the homeless shelters and outreach and food pantrys. They provide the added benefit of indoctrinating their parishoners into following their consciences in a humble and private way. Thereby letting the SJWs take all the credit.
Something about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing or some such shit.

William Chadwick said...

"For I was a stranger . . . and you didn't invite me in .
. but I have a right to housing, just because. So I moved into your house anyway, then forced you to pay for my food, my family's medical expenses, and my children's education; because as Socialist Jesus taught us, Need Equals Right."

From the Gospel of Rob Peter to Pay Paul (the Christian Left's source for their version of the Good Samaritan parable, in which the Samaritan becomes a highwayman, waylays other travellers, and forces them to pay for the food, shelter and medical needs of the guy he found waylaid and injured by the side of the road.

mockturtle said...

Well then Robert the church is good for something. They run a lot of the homeless shelters and outreach and food pantrys. They provide the added benefit of indoctrinating their parishoners into following their consciences in a humble and private way. Thereby letting the SJWs take all the credit.
Something about the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing or some such shit.


Exactly, Rusty! I seem to recall reading something [probably on about page 36 of an obscure newsrag] about the fact that the Salvation Army and Southern Baptist Convention actually contributed more in money and services to Katrina victims than did the Red Cross or the government, at least in the early days and weeks of the disaster.