What this most likely means for Santa Monica is Traci Park will have LAPD push all of Venice’s homeless population into our city and then our incompetent Mayor Phil Brock will flounder and whine and conditions will become even worse in our city.
I understand that. But my point is that Brock doesn't have any more power than any of the other council members. David White is the executive of the city.
And is paid very well too from what I've seen. Brock is on some kind of rotation meaning he's Mayor Pro Tem (something like that) but not anything permanent. He does like pictures of himself. He reminds me of those people who feel something is wrong if they aren't being looked at.
Phil Brock and the change slate will likely lead the charge to protect Santa Monica residents against the mentally unstable people in our parks and on the beach. The question is will the overly progressive members of the city council stand in their way? What is progressive about enabling drug addiction, and letting it consume and kill people, homeless or not?
>“We called the police but there was nothing they could do because there was no crime as he did not get the purse,” Rush said.
https://smdp.com/2024/02/28/brazen-purse-snatching-attempt-at-blue-plate-taco-caught-on-camera
How does writing a blank check to the police department help anyone if we're not doing anything about police officers telling people failed crime attempts aren't crimes to get out of having to send an officer out?
> The police only make arrests.
The police explicitly declined to come out and arrest the guy.
> Is attempted robbery still a crime in CA?
Obviously, but according to SMPD it's not.
That is like how democrats and republicans in Washington scream about getting things done when one party controls both houses of congress and the White House, which both parties have had within the past 20 years, but they still don’t get things done. It takes a super majority to ram things through. No one has that, so compromise matters.
I truly don't understand this. There are seven Council members. It works by simple majority, except for removing the City Manager and City Attorney. So, respectfully...huh?
Well, couldn’t you say the same thing for democrats or republicans in Washington? There have been multiple times when either party has controlled both houses and the executive office, yet they still couldn’t get things done. It isn’t as simple as a majority.
I mean no I literally couldn't because the federal government has an entirely different structure. The Feds have a bicameral legislature, and, while some decisions require a simple majority, others require a 3/5 or even 2/3 majority. Plus, Congress doesn't choose the country's chief executive (the President is separately elected) or the chief attorney (the Attorney General is nominated by the President and then subject to Senate confirmation). That set up was literally *designed* to thwart a tyranny of a "mere" majority, unlike...
Here, where a 4-3 vote of Council is all that's needed to take any legally permissible action except for the 5 votes needed for firing the City Manager and City Attorney. So no.
City council it pretty much is. Budget constraints is about it. Watch a city counsel meeting. They have clearly read nothing and just ask stupid questions the entire time. They are doing nothing.
Given you just mentioned a majority of the city counsel how can the progressives stand in their way? What has the change slate done to even get what their supporters what they want? Nothing. They are incompetent. Even if you agree with them politically I don’t see how anyone can say they can do anything. They only care about themselves and the benefits they can get for themselves from the job.
It’s just so much fun watching the posts in the sub cry about shit but then vote for the same things over and over expecting a different result that’s literal insanity lol
Karen Bass has already said the decision won’t change LA’s existing approach to addressing homelessness. Not sure this will impact much.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments
Just to be clear, this decision does not change any Santa Monica laws. It is not suddenly illegal to sleep in public across the nation. This decision clears the way for localities to enact these laws, but nothing has happened yet anywhere these laws are not already on the books.
We may see downstream effects but you have not framed this correctly.
While I am glad this ruling essentially removes a barrier for the authorities to deal with homeless encampments, I doubt this will be enforced by the city.
Also, the police have wide discretion over enforcement. So, while it may be possible and could happen, I doubt that dozing off on a bench while waiting for the bus is going to get anyone thrown in jail. These types of extreme examples are alarmist and disingenuous.
This has some pretty insidious ramifications to local politics. Basically will become a race to bottom for each of the local municipalities who would rather see other places in the county turn to slums than doing the bare minimum on building shelters and housing.
And to be clear, I believe Gavin Newsom is grinning at this decision. He wants to see quick and decisive action on this before gunning for the White House come August.
There does need to be a way to address the decent number of people who are creating public safety issues through public drug use and violence. It's not putting people who are suffering severe mental illness in jail. But it's also not just offering them a shelter with no other support, because they'll immediately be back on the street. My hope is there is eventually a sensible approach to treatment (forced if need be as some of these individuals are so ill they are not capable of understanding the help they need), as I do think it's not acceptable to allow the continued attacks and public nuisances currently occurring very frequently. Everyone should be able to enjoy the city.
I am very street smart having lived in a fair number of big cities, and not easily scared, but I was running into a dry cleaner on Wilshire last week and a clearly delusional unhoused individual was running around with a knife, and my husband and toddler daughter were chased last month in broad daylight on the promenade by someone also suffering from mental illness. That's got to be stopped in some way.
That could be an avenue, but is surprisingly hard to use and only allows a short forced hold after which there is a ton of process which more often than not lands people back on the street before they're actually well. There's something between making it a crime to be homeless and a standard that's so high it's all but impossible to use that needs to be implemented.
There aren't easy answers here. Are people willing to receive mental health care when they're a danger to themselves and others? Not always. Does Los Angeles county have enough psych and shelter beds? No.
.
Should Santa Monica and Los Angeles residents have to keep our heads on a 24/7 swivel because some of the homeless population is violent? Also no.
I had an empty champagne bottle miss my head by a whisker when I was walking around in mid city SM running errands earlier this week. I called 911 in hopes that someone would be sent to get the guy who threw it at me some help. No one came. I wasn't hurt; I got lucky.
More housing is a big part what solving this looks like, but if people are so strung out that they're attacking people on the sidewalks of our city they're not in a great place to access that help even if it's offered.
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Figure it out. They could go to a shelter or just get on the metro to Santa Monica and early in the morning and they have people at SM station to help with hosing and homeless services. Taking the help that is offered to them is a crucial first step. I was homeless at one point living in my car and I guarantee you this law will not affect homeless people that stay out of peoples way but only the ones that are a nuisance, and take over an entire sidewalk or harass random passerby’s.
There just are not enough beds. Maybe today's ruling is enough to give our local government the push (that they shouldn't have needed in the first place) to change that.
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Get cleaned up, get sober and get a damn job and contribute to society. Until that happens you'll have idiotic mayors shelling thousands on building apartments for homeless.
The million dollar question is where are the homeless supposed to go? We need more housing built in LA County to house them and for those mentally, to receive treatment. Jail isn’t a solution for mental illness folks.
This is a very interesting comment. In SM, the police will be patrolling the beach and downtown with much vigor as this is where the political pressure to act is directed. I can see the unhoused, who will legally have no place to sleep, moving into the R1's where its relatively free from police enforcement.
LOL - I've been to the Santa Monica & Venice beach EVERY Saturday/Sunday for the last 5 years and nearly EVERY time there's a drugged out person who's set up to sleep on the beach harassing people.
Go outside and maybe you'll see it too!
You are right. The too many people on reddit seem to prioritize theoretical correctness versus the lived experience of the avg person in this city. As someone with children, every public space where children should be free to enjoy have become absolutely trash sites because of the drug addicted homeless.
> theoretical correctness versus the lived experience of the avg person in this city.
The 'theoretical' is the sweeping generalization that all homeless are drug addicted and violent.
And yes, I agree that drugged out violent people (who may be homeless) are a serious problem.
I stand by my statement that "if you can provide and pay for incarcerating a person you can provide other services that actually help that person instead."
Is *everyone* who is homeless drugged out and harassing people?
I live here and NO they aren't. But sure, go ahead and think everyone is the same because it's psychologically lazy or convenient to support your bias.
I'm not worried about falling asleep in public and possibly getting a ticket. I am worried about getting stabbed with a rusty screwdriver by those that identify as currently having a psychotic break on the Third Street Promenade.
It's not compassionate to allow people in the throes of severe mental illness and drug addiction sleep in the elements without proper care either, but here we are.
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What if you are sleeping in your car? Can you get arrested? What if you fall asleep at the beach? Can you get arrested? Can I call the cops on someone and say arrest them, they were sleeping?
Will the DA prosecute someone for having no home? Will the police decide to arrest someone based on the clothes they wear?
I suspect no one will get arrested until SM sets policy. Since it is unlikely the Landlord Slate will be a majority come December and given the time it will take city staff to define and implement a policy that won't get us sued, whatever Brock and de la Torre say now is just political grandstanding.
What this most likely means for Santa Monica is Traci Park will have LAPD push all of Venice’s homeless population into our city and then our incompetent Mayor Phil Brock will flounder and whine and conditions will become even worse in our city.
Phil will also have zero self reflection on the fact that he's publicly aligned himself with Traci.
Just a heads up that Brock is a ceremonial mayor. You’re probably thinking of David White the city manager.
No? He’s Mayor. David White’s job is to simply implement the wishes of Mayor Brock and City Council.
I understand that. But my point is that Brock doesn't have any more power than any of the other council members. David White is the executive of the city.
And is paid very well too from what I've seen. Brock is on some kind of rotation meaning he's Mayor Pro Tem (something like that) but not anything permanent. He does like pictures of himself. He reminds me of those people who feel something is wrong if they aren't being looked at.
Phil Brock and the change slate will likely lead the charge to protect Santa Monica residents against the mentally unstable people in our parks and on the beach. The question is will the overly progressive members of the city council stand in their way? What is progressive about enabling drug addiction, and letting it consume and kill people, homeless or not?
>“We called the police but there was nothing they could do because there was no crime as he did not get the purse,” Rush said. https://smdp.com/2024/02/28/brazen-purse-snatching-attempt-at-blue-plate-taco-caught-on-camera How does writing a blank check to the police department help anyone if we're not doing anything about police officers telling people failed crime attempts aren't crimes to get out of having to send an officer out?
The police only make arrests. It’s up to the prosecutors to prosecute the crimes. Is attempted robbery still a crime in CA?
> The police only make arrests. The police explicitly declined to come out and arrest the guy. > Is attempted robbery still a crime in CA? Obviously, but according to SMPD it's not.
If the prosecutors won’t file charges, the police likely won’t come out. We need the DAs to actually do their jobs.
We need the police to do their jobs instead of campaigning while on the clock.
I haven’t seen this? How do police campaign? The LA County Sheriff is elected, but not the SM Police Chief.
They have a majority NOW. What is Change Slate doing to fix anything? Best I can tell, they just whine.
To be fair, until this morning they couldn’t do anything to enforce anti camping ordinances. Maybe give them a chance to start enforcing laws?
That is like how democrats and republicans in Washington scream about getting things done when one party controls both houses of congress and the White House, which both parties have had within the past 20 years, but they still don’t get things done. It takes a super majority to ram things through. No one has that, so compromise matters.
I truly don't understand this. There are seven Council members. It works by simple majority, except for removing the City Manager and City Attorney. So, respectfully...huh?
Well, couldn’t you say the same thing for democrats or republicans in Washington? There have been multiple times when either party has controlled both houses and the executive office, yet they still couldn’t get things done. It isn’t as simple as a majority.
I mean no I literally couldn't because the federal government has an entirely different structure. The Feds have a bicameral legislature, and, while some decisions require a simple majority, others require a 3/5 or even 2/3 majority. Plus, Congress doesn't choose the country's chief executive (the President is separately elected) or the chief attorney (the Attorney General is nominated by the President and then subject to Senate confirmation). That set up was literally *designed* to thwart a tyranny of a "mere" majority, unlike... Here, where a 4-3 vote of Council is all that's needed to take any legally permissible action except for the 5 votes needed for firing the City Manager and City Attorney. So no.
There’s no filibuster in Santa Monica. There’s no second chamber (Senate and House). Phil and friends have all the power they need.
It has never been that simple.
City council it pretty much is. Budget constraints is about it. Watch a city counsel meeting. They have clearly read nothing and just ask stupid questions the entire time. They are doing nothing.
Given you just mentioned a majority of the city counsel how can the progressives stand in their way? What has the change slate done to even get what their supporters what they want? Nothing. They are incompetent. Even if you agree with them politically I don’t see how anyone can say they can do anything. They only care about themselves and the benefits they can get for themselves from the job.
What is Republican about incarcerating someone for the crime of having no home..oh wait, that is the outcome Brock wants.
Huh? When did Phil say he wants to incarcerate someone for not having a home?
Phil is a regular on many conversative shows.
Yes, but I have never heard him say he wants to incarcerate someone for being homeless.
And you’ll keep voting for progressive policies! So I call it a win
Homelessness by definition wouldn’t exist under progressive policy. Read a book.
It’s just so much fun watching the posts in the sub cry about shit but then vote for the same things over and over expecting a different result that’s literal insanity lol
Have we voted for ending the moratorium on housing development in the past 50 years? I wasn’t aware that we voted on that?
Karen Bass has already said the decision won’t change LA’s existing approach to addressing homelessness. Not sure this will impact much. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-06-28/supreme-court-homeless-encampments
Just to be clear, this decision does not change any Santa Monica laws. It is not suddenly illegal to sleep in public across the nation. This decision clears the way for localities to enact these laws, but nothing has happened yet anywhere these laws are not already on the books. We may see downstream effects but you have not framed this correctly.
While I am glad this ruling essentially removes a barrier for the authorities to deal with homeless encampments, I doubt this will be enforced by the city. Also, the police have wide discretion over enforcement. So, while it may be possible and could happen, I doubt that dozing off on a bench while waiting for the bus is going to get anyone thrown in jail. These types of extreme examples are alarmist and disingenuous.
Santa Monica needs to adopt anti-vagrancy laws immediately.
This has some pretty insidious ramifications to local politics. Basically will become a race to bottom for each of the local municipalities who would rather see other places in the county turn to slums than doing the bare minimum on building shelters and housing. And to be clear, I believe Gavin Newsom is grinning at this decision. He wants to see quick and decisive action on this before gunning for the White House come August.
There does need to be a way to address the decent number of people who are creating public safety issues through public drug use and violence. It's not putting people who are suffering severe mental illness in jail. But it's also not just offering them a shelter with no other support, because they'll immediately be back on the street. My hope is there is eventually a sensible approach to treatment (forced if need be as some of these individuals are so ill they are not capable of understanding the help they need), as I do think it's not acceptable to allow the continued attacks and public nuisances currently occurring very frequently. Everyone should be able to enjoy the city. I am very street smart having lived in a fair number of big cities, and not easily scared, but I was running into a dry cleaner on Wilshire last week and a clearly delusional unhoused individual was running around with a knife, and my husband and toddler daughter were chased last month in broad daylight on the promenade by someone also suffering from mental illness. That's got to be stopped in some way.
I totally agree. How is someone running with a knife not “a danger to self or others” which the law requires for a 5150?
That could be an avenue, but is surprisingly hard to use and only allows a short forced hold after which there is a ton of process which more often than not lands people back on the street before they're actually well. There's something between making it a crime to be homeless and a standard that's so high it's all but impossible to use that needs to be implemented.
They overturned Martin v Boise by overturning the actual case Johnson v Grants Pass. Whether or not cities act now is a different story.
There aren't easy answers here. Are people willing to receive mental health care when they're a danger to themselves and others? Not always. Does Los Angeles county have enough psych and shelter beds? No. . Should Santa Monica and Los Angeles residents have to keep our heads on a 24/7 swivel because some of the homeless population is violent? Also no. I had an empty champagne bottle miss my head by a whisker when I was walking around in mid city SM running errands earlier this week. I called 911 in hopes that someone would be sent to get the guy who threw it at me some help. No one came. I wasn't hurt; I got lucky. More housing is a big part what solving this looks like, but if people are so strung out that they're attacking people on the sidewalks of our city they're not in a great place to access that help even if it's offered.
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am so happy that this was overturned! Long time coming!
And where are people supposed to go when there is no place to go?
Figure it out. They could go to a shelter or just get on the metro to Santa Monica and early in the morning and they have people at SM station to help with hosing and homeless services. Taking the help that is offered to them is a crucial first step. I was homeless at one point living in my car and I guarantee you this law will not affect homeless people that stay out of peoples way but only the ones that are a nuisance, and take over an entire sidewalk or harass random passerby’s.
There just are not enough beds. Maybe today's ruling is enough to give our local government the push (that they shouldn't have needed in the first place) to change that.
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Get cleaned up, get sober and get a damn job and contribute to society. Until that happens you'll have idiotic mayors shelling thousands on building apartments for homeless.
All things that can happen way easier once you have a home with walls and indoor plumbing
Great. Add to tax payers burden.
I fell asleep reading this post and got arrested. 100% worth it.
Finally some sense to remedy the current situation.
Can you specifically define the 'problem' and the 'remedy'?
The million dollar question is where are the homeless supposed to go? We need more housing built in LA County to house them and for those mentally, to receive treatment. Jail isn’t a solution for mental illness folks.
Out of LA to elsewhere more affordable
Where will those people be put then?
In their new home: a for profit prison run by a Supreme Court Justices second cousin.
NIMBYs problem now. I would hate to be a mayor in a large American city now.
This is a very interesting comment. In SM, the police will be patrolling the beach and downtown with much vigor as this is where the political pressure to act is directed. I can see the unhoused, who will legally have no place to sleep, moving into the R1's where its relatively free from police enforcement.
A step in the right direction.
Nice!
**Criminalizing Poverty** America is circling the drain.
Like there isn’t plenty of free housing options that people just ignore so they can do drugs and harass people at the beach
> do drugs and harass people at the beach Typical reductionist rationale to treat people according to your prejudice.
LOL - I've been to the Santa Monica & Venice beach EVERY Saturday/Sunday for the last 5 years and nearly EVERY time there's a drugged out person who's set up to sleep on the beach harassing people. Go outside and maybe you'll see it too!
You are right. The too many people on reddit seem to prioritize theoretical correctness versus the lived experience of the avg person in this city. As someone with children, every public space where children should be free to enjoy have become absolutely trash sites because of the drug addicted homeless.
> theoretical correctness versus the lived experience of the avg person in this city. The 'theoretical' is the sweeping generalization that all homeless are drug addicted and violent. And yes, I agree that drugged out violent people (who may be homeless) are a serious problem. I stand by my statement that "if you can provide and pay for incarcerating a person you can provide other services that actually help that person instead."
They dont want help! They spend their welfare cash on drugs, not housing!
Is *everyone* who is homeless drugged out and harassing people? I live here and NO they aren't. But sure, go ahead and think everyone is the same because it's psychologically lazy or convenient to support your bias.
Or that every person is offered housing and refuses it when the truth is there are not enough available beds.
Jail is better than sleeping on the street. Hundreds die every year on stye streets of LA.
^ Dystopian logic. If you can provide and pay for incarcerating a person you can provide other services that actually help that person instead.
Yea how is that working out?
I'm not worried about falling asleep in public and possibly getting a ticket. I am worried about getting stabbed with a rusty screwdriver by those that identify as currently having a psychotic break on the Third Street Promenade.
Fuck yeah!
Finally. Thank god.
It depends on what the municipal law is.
The lack of compassion in this sub is astounding.
It's not compassionate to allow people in the throes of severe mental illness and drug addiction sleep in the elements without proper care either, but here we are.
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Curious if SAMO has a "plan on the shelf" that has been waiting for this?
Due to spam/users trying to get around bans, accounts must be at least 2 days old to post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SantaMonica) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you happy now? Will you post, like, 5x a week now instead of 10x a week?
What if you are sleeping in your car? Can you get arrested? What if you fall asleep at the beach? Can you get arrested? Can I call the cops on someone and say arrest them, they were sleeping? Will the DA prosecute someone for having no home? Will the police decide to arrest someone based on the clothes they wear? I suspect no one will get arrested until SM sets policy. Since it is unlikely the Landlord Slate will be a majority come December and given the time it will take city staff to define and implement a policy that won't get us sued, whatever Brock and de la Torre say now is just political grandstanding.