The Bill That Could Make California Livable Again

[craigs]

The city passed a law allowing garages to be converted to housing units as-of-right. There are still building codes to satisfy, and I would imagine a construction permit is needed, but no zoning variance is required if I recall correctly.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by craigs

The city passed a law allowing garages to be converted to housing units as-of-right. There are still building codes to satisfy, and I would imagine a construction permit is needed, but no zoning variance is required if I recall correctly.

I know, but before the law changed there were hundreds (if not thousands) of such conversions done illegally and there's a process to get them legalized that most owners have not gone through.

All you have to do is scan real estate adds and you'll see plenty of "unpermitted inlaw unit" acknowledgements, quite a few of which are in former garages I'm sure.

[plutonicpanda]

Nice! We are moving to assimilate Hong Kong's cage apartments which I believe are even illegal there.

[chris08876]

1968, California dreamin', 2020, Mamas and Papas leaving California.

Hopefully the fire gets put out in the future. Make the state livable again.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Hopefully the fire gets put out in the future. Make the state livable again.

No matter how you feel about SB 50 and California's various policies toward business, development and assorted social issues (and I am severely distressed by quite a few of them--nearly all it often seems), California remains a beautiful place, almost uniquely blessed by nature and in many ways also enhanced by previous generations (Highway 1, Golden Gate Bridge, the towers of SF and LA, the state's many parks (national and state) and so on. And while some large businesses are leaving the state for Texas suburbs and other low tax/low regulation spots, the concentration of knowledge professionals and entrepreneurs in California continue to create new businesses faster than any are leaving. In part this is because of high skill immigration (a remarkable percentage of knowledge-based businesses are led by immigrants). 90% of the state remains a great--maybe exceptionally great--place to live. Even parts of the infamously challenged cities.

And it's an interesting fact that while 27% of California (over 10 million people) is foreign-born, Gov. Newsome says the state needs 3.5 million new homes by 2025. There are several points to be made here: (1) Without virtually uncontrolled immigration, the state might not even have a housing shortage, however (2) very few of the people living in the state's tent cities and making up the population of homeless are immigrants. Assuming many of the newly arrived immigrants crossing the southern border bring very little with them in terms of possessions or assets, this tells you that the state's housing problem is not about poor people and maybe not even about too few homes (although a reasonable surplus of homes, which we clearly do NOT have, might help with the problem of affordability).

It really seems to be about an exceptionally tolerant attitude toward substance use/abuse and the resulting addiction and about a failure to deal appropriately with mental illness, both making treatment available to those who need it and making it compulsory for those who demonstrate an inability to shelter and feed themselves thus putting their lives and physical health in danger. And to at least some extent it may be about such factors as the gentle weather and the generous welfare benefit policies which the state can afford because of its continuing wealth and wealth creation.

[Pedestrian]

The real reason California’s upzoning bill failed

[plutonicpanda]

^^^ for the second or third time. Let it go already(not talking to you but lawmakers). Just keep rehashing it over and over hoping it will go through.

[urban_encounter]

It’s going to take more than adding affordable housing to make this State ‘livable’ again because it’s a freaking mess.

Poorly maintained roads and highways despite billions upon billions of dollars; thousands with addiction and mental health issues living on the streets, used drug needles, trash (from the crazy unsheltered), human feces littering city sidewalks and once pristine parkways. This used to be a problem more akin to San Francisco but really all the large and mid sized cities have the same thing now. Add that on top of a large Northern California utility that cant keep the electricity on during any a strong breeze, because the State Public Utilities Commission (PUC) allowed PG&E to put shareholders ahead of infrastructure and safety. Lastly the state has among the highest State tax rates in the country and some of the poorest performing K-12 public school system.

Cost of housing is just one of many issues driving down the livability of what was once the best State in the Union imo.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

It really seems to be about an exceptionally tolerant attitude toward substance use/abuse and the resulting addiction and about a failure to deal appropriately with mental illness, both making treatment available to those who need it and making it compulsory for those who demonstrate an inability to shelter and feed themselves thus putting their lives and physical health in danger. .

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. I’ve worked with the homeless in both Northern California and the Central Coast as well as Chicago and there’s a big difference between the homeless population in California and Chicago in terms of addiction and mental illness among the homeless. We have a lot more homeless in California who have serious substance abuse and mental health issues. California’s cavalier attitude about drug use and the lack of compulsory drug rehab following the passing of Proposition 47 has just exacerbated the problem as you noted. Supposedly there has been a 95% drop off of voluntary participation of the state’s drug treatment diversion once many realized that the police will no longer arrest them for drug offenses and many district attorneys offices will no longer bring charges even if arrested). That 95% figure was a figure that was quoted on a local news radio station so I don’t know if that’s accurate nor not tbh. But there’s a segment of the population (see SF DA Chesa Boudin) who insists on ‘compassion’ and ‘understanding’ with drug addicts. The truth is, it’s not compassionate at all to enable people to destroy their lives and possibly the lives of others (to say nothing of the environmental impact of needles littering parks etc). Secondly the increase in property crimes in California has just fueled the ability of unsheltered addicts to pay for their addiction.

As far as people who lack the mental capacity to care for themselves, California needs to expand its state conservatorship of those people and build enough mental hospital beds / rooms to take them off the streets so they can receive care. It’s not compassionate and in fact it’s cruel to leave these people to fend for themselves.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

As far as people who lack the mental capacity to care for themselves, California needs to expand its state conservatorship of those people and build enough mental hospital beds / rooms to take them off the streets so they can receive care. It’s not compassionate and in fact it’s cruel to leave these people to fend for themselves.

One quibble. I've read that there have been recent changes that permit expanded use of the mental health conservatorships first authorized in 1967. Certainly their use varies around the state with the least use, relative to the need, in places like San Francisco where the need is probably greatest.

[llamaorama]

How is it compassionate to put someone in a prison that’s got “clinic” on the outside of the building when middle ground options exist? You people really just want the bums locked up and that’s it.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

How is it compassionate to put someone in a prison that’s got “clinic” on the outside of the building when middle ground options exist? You people really just want the bums locked up and that’s it.

What is the middle ground(I really don't know)?

Also, yes, I want crazy homeless people taken away from civil society. It's better for us and better for them.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

One quibble. I've read that there have been recent changes that permit expanded use of the mental health conservatorships first authorized in 1967. Certainly their use varies around the state with the least use, relative to the need, in places like San Francisco where the need is probably greatest.

It’s still quite difficult. I work for a healthcare physicians group as a nurse case manager and the process of getting people into conservatorship can still be quite tedious, although as you noted it probably varies. I’m assuming it has something to do with exhausting all efforts to locate families of those who are pending conservatorship before it actually happens. Well that and the normal State bureaucracy in California.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

How is it compassionate to put someone in a prison that’s got “clinic” on the outside of the building when middle ground options exist? You people really just want the bums locked up and that’s it.

Saying that we “want the bums locked up” is equivalent to me saying that ‘you don’t care if they die on the streets as long as they’re free’. Both are ridiculous statements.

It is (or should be criminal) to leave people on the streets who lack the mental capacity to make medical decisions for themselves because they’re either mentally incapacitated or incapacitated due to addiction issues. You have no idea how many times I see the same patients come into the hospital that have severe chronic conditions that go untreated simply because they won’t follow up with their doctors. Additionally they won’t pick up their prescriptions, won’t even answer the phone if we call to remind them because they don’t have the mental capacity and/or they’re consistently in an altered state of mind until such time they’re brought in by EMS. Many times the end result is that they end up dying and even worse dying alone. So if I can offer some advice? Please don’t assign nefarious intentions to people you don’t know.

Lastly, if you have proven “middle ground” ideas perhaps you can share them with the State of California, Oregon, Washington and Austin Texas?

[JManc]

I just back from San Francisco and parts of that city look like scenes from the Walking Dead. A lot of these folks are severely mentally ill.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

I just back from San Francisco and parts of that city look like scenes from the Walking Dead. A lot of these folks are severely mentally ill.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Just about ALL of them--the ones laying about everywhere--are either severely mentally ill, severely addicted or both. The city has many programs to help those willing to accept help so they aren't the ones you see sleeping on sidewalks and in doorways and sprawled on the concrete.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

How is it compassionate to put someone in a prison that’s got “clinic” on the outside of the building when middle ground options exist? You people really just want the bums locked up and that’s it.

Conservatorships can utilize group homes, halfway houses and all sorts of facilities that can ensure they are living in safe, healthful conditions. The "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" state mental hospitals are history. They no longer exist. No one today will be locked up in anything like that.

In San Francisco, there are 2 hospitals with mental health "beds": A ward at San Francisco General and Laguna Honda Hospital. Both are brand new, modern facilities well respected for their capable and compassionate staffs. But San Francisco generally prefers to put all sorts of people under its care, from juvenile offenders to the mentally ill, in community-based care when possible.

[llamaorama]

Lastly, if you have proven “middle ground” ideas perhaps you can share them with the State of California, Oregon, Washington and Austin Texas?

Why should I? Isn't that the job of people with advanced degrees who study psychiatry, social work, and public health? Are you saying those fields have zero insight into this?

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Conservatorships can utilize group homes, halfway houses and all sorts of facilities that can ensure they are living in safe, healthful conditions. The "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" state mental hospitals are history. They no longer exist. No one today will be locked up in anything like that.

In San Francisco, there are 2 hospitals with mental health "beds": A ward at San Francisco General and Laguna Honda Hospital. Both are brand new, modern facilities well respected for their capable and compassionate staffs. But San Francisco generally prefers to put all sorts of people under its care, from juvenile offenders to the mentally ill, in community-based care when possible.

Yes, that I was hoping was the case. I think this approach makes sense. Again, I'm mostly just critical of the politically biased attitudes I see online where someone says all homeless people are characterized as hopelessly mental ill, when mental illness can mean lots of things which aren't incompatible with having a job or living in society.

All I know is that for a long time I worked in retail and fast food jobs surrounded by people who had terrible lives, which taught me how fortunate I was. I knew more than one person who confided to me that they had mental health issues. They would work hard and be normal one day, but sometimes struggle with something, and an occasional incident would get them let go so they'd have a hard time with stable employment. They'd develop a learned helplessness mindset. It's not hard for me to imagine these sorts of people getting into drugs. Of course, being from a small town, vulnerable people would have housing and family support. But in a ultra expensive city where even if they did have the money they'd have bad history as a tenant, I can see housing being a problem. Combine that with the stresses of being on the streets and it seems like you would have a person resembling those sleeping on sidewalks in San Francisco, right?

Or, what about adults who are very mildly intellectually handicapped, like people with IQ's in the 60s? What do you do with them? They can't really make it on their own if they don't have family, but they should be fine to be in public, no?

If we had a system where people like this were all brought in and the default was essentially to institutionalize them just because that was the easy way to get them off the streets, it would be an incredible injustice where a person like I described above was grouped with people who indeed are so profoundly handicapped they cannot function at all in society. I'm not saying that a person who runs around mumbling and is unable to practice hygiene or threatens others should be allowed to sleep on the streets just so they can be free. Just that the system should be incredibly thorough in determining exactly what a person's needs are and not depriving them of freedom. And knowledgeable people should be investigating the effectiveness of current policies and proposing improvements at all times. Anything less is unacceptable when it is the fundamental civil liberties and rights of people we are talking about.

I also empathize with the homeless people who live in those formal tiny house camps like they have in Oregon. I mean, nobody wants to have their personal belongings taken away. We all want to spend money we had to work to earn on things we want, like a smart phone or beer, right? Should someone who for the rest of the life will be dependent on the system(and therefore not negatively motivated by receiving handouts) have to live in an institutional "poor house" setting with puritanical rules, or should we just kind of let them have their TV and porn and their dog as long as they feed it?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

Why should I? Isn't that the job of people with advanced degrees who study psychiatry, social work, and public health? Are you saying those fields have zero insight into this?

You’re preaching about a magical “middle ground“ as if caring for the homeless is ‘a one size fits all’ which couldn’t be further from the truth. Secondly you keep making the erroneous assumption that people are suggesting permanent institutionalization. That’s just nonsense. People who have the capacity to make decisions for themselves have no need for inpatient mental health care.

I’m assuming you’re either not reading nor comprehending that in my line of work, I work and volunteer in the “field”. As a Nurse case manager (transition of care), I work with the doctors, social workers, discharge planners and mental health providers. As I said, I’ve volunteered to work with the homeless in California and Chicago and I’ve worked in a psychiatric hospital in San Antonio, so I think I have a pretty good picture. I’m no expert but I’m smart enough to know that what California is doing as it pertains to the homeless is mostly a failure, because we haven’t been honest about the root causes of homelessness here. That robot cause is mental health and substance abuse (sometimes both).

I understand what Pedestrian is saying about new hospital facilities are building dedicated mental health beds Part of the reason for this is because hospitals in California cannot by law discharge anyone to the street without having a dedicated shelter bed. Secondly, if patients lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves they would be considered ‘unsafe discharge’ and would be a liability if they’re hurt or hurt somebody else. At one of the local hospitals I cover, we had a patient who remained in the emergency room for three months because he was developmentally delayed, homeless and had no family support. On top of that he would lash out physically at ER medically staff. This person has no business being turned out to the streets where he lacks the ability to care for himself.

l I also empathize with the homeless people who live in those formal tiny house camps like they have in Oregon. I mean, nobody wants to have their personal belongings taken away. We all want to spend money we had to work to earn on things we want, like a smart phone or beer, right? Should someone who for the rest of the life will be dependent on the system(and therefore not negatively motivated by receiving handouts) have to live in an institutional "poor house" setting with puritanical rules, or should we just kind of let them have their TV and porn and their dog as long as they feed it?

You’re all over the place here and again making a lot of assumptions, with no basis in reality. Nobody is talking about denying anyone their belongings or confining them to “an institutional poor house” with “puritanical rules” indefinitely. But again, I think your solution is rooted in the failed assumptions that created this kind of mess to begin with.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by JManc

I just back from San Francisco and parts of that city look like scenes from the Walking Dead. A lot of these folks are severely mentally ill.

Yes, it’s very sad tbh. But it’s the same in Sacramento, not as bad as SF or LA but it’s pretty bad and getting worse. Shelter beds and housing alone won’t help that.

Now housing will help another segment that are often overlooked and that’s families who are homeless and Sacramento has the largest number of unsheltered families in California, which is absolutely something that would benefit from more affordable housing.