Los Angeles voters to decide if hotels
will be forced to house the homeless despite
safety concerns
Fox News,
by
Bailee Hill
Original Article
Posted By: NorthernDog,
8/7/2022 10:05:33 AM
Los Angeles voters will cast their ballot on a proposal that could force hotels to house the homeless, a policy that has many hotel owners concerned about how it will impact public safety. President of the Northeast Los Angeles Hotel Owners Association Ray Patel joined "Fox & Friends Weekend," Sunday, to discuss why the policy is not a long-term solution and his worry if the policy is adopted. "This is not a solution, it's just a temporary fix," Patel told co-host Carley Shimkus. "And during Project Roomkey, a great example, they housed the unhoused in the hotels – but the government
Reply 1 - Posted by:
EQKimball 8/7/2022 10:15:03 AM (No. 1240519)
To know what will happen, these voters should Google "Nickerson Gardens." They sure aren't the Garden of Eden.
8 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MrDeplorable 8/7/2022 10:19:36 AM (No. 1240527)
It’s a no-brainer. ANY government proposal that contains the phrase “will be forced” is an automatic “NO” but this one will be a great sociologic study as to how much spine Los Angelenos have and my bet is “ZERO.” Stay tuned.
20 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
EJKrausJr 8/7/2022 10:34:36 AM (No. 1240539)
What's the over and under on the number of days before there is a bed bug infestation in LA Hotels? A week?
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DVC 8/7/2022 10:43:34 AM (No. 1240553)
Building mental wards for these people would be a whole lot smarter. This is the result of losing the war on drugs.
21 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 8/7/2022 10:57:09 AM (No. 1240570)
Private property no longer exists.
22 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
2assume 8/7/2022 11:00:11 AM (No. 1240574)
If they can force hotels to do this then then could force us to do likewise. Are you ready to take in people who could be violent or sex offenders or sick or God knows what else into your home?
29 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
learner 8/7/2022 11:13:53 AM (No. 1240588)
Seeing how this is LA I imagine this will pass on the vote. I am sure Angelenos would rather have as many of these folks off the street so they can pretend the problem is not that bad. Does not matter that they are making a travesty of property rights. Maybe we need to amend the Constitutions third amendment to add the homeless to the list along with soldiers who shall not be quartered without the owners consent.
8 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
bad-hair 8/7/2022 11:18:23 AM (No. 1240594)
Bus them to Montana, cheaper than hotel. Winter's coming. I guarantee you the "unhoused" will house themselves.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
janjan 8/7/2022 11:47:14 AM (No. 1240623)
This is unconstitutional. Business owners should never be forced by the government to associate with anyone against their will, including baking wedding cakes for gay people. The homeless are mainly made up of drug addicts and the mentally ill. They are not respecters of property or particularly grateful for any help offered them. They will destroy these hotels and the owners will be hung out to dry. Pure evil.
16 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
earlybird 8/7/2022 12:21:03 PM (No. 1240661)
Hotels should not be forced to do this. No one would feel safe in a hotel where this was going on. Will the social justice be campaigning for this?
Maybe this kind of rubbish will turn LA red?
12 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
earlybird 8/7/2022 12:22:50 PM (No. 1240664)
Correction:
social justice warriors
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
mean Gene 8/7/2022 12:37:11 PM (No. 1240679)
First they came for the hotel owners.
Then apartment owners.
Then they came for those who built "mother-in-law" rooms over their garages.
Last they come for your "spare bedrooms."
12 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
stablemoney 8/7/2022 12:48:02 PM (No. 1240699)
This should clean out any paying customers from the hotels, who will not stay there. Who wants to pay $500 a night to comingle with homeless people?
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Venturer 8/7/2022 2:26:11 PM (No. 1240775)
Put them in hotels that are coming up for destruction. That would serve two purposes , it would house, and they would do the destruction.
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
thefield 8/7/2022 2:35:10 PM (No. 1240779)
1. How much compensation?
Ah hah! I thought so.
2. How quick will they close without insurance?
0 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
jimincalif 8/7/2022 2:42:23 PM (No. 1240785)
And then, once the hotels are driven out of business, the city will require residents to report the number of unused bedrooms in their homes so that homeless may stay there.
2 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
PostAway 8/7/2022 3:53:42 PM (No. 1240824)
To all of you who suspect a move on private property rights, I have reason to think you’re right. I lived near Toronto in the ‘90’s and back then there was talk by the National Democratic Party (socialist) about rounding everyone up to live in high rise apartment (rentals I assume) mega-cities. The premise was that it was more practical and efficient: one sewer/water line or or driveway to a 300+ residences as opposed to one private residence. There would be fewer streets to plow, fewer potholes to fill, etc. and this would save the cities money. But another effect which was unspoken was that corralled people are easier to punish and control. People who have no privacy are easier to watch and people with no private property will be poor and dependent. People unable to own firearms are even more submissive and dependent. Living in a cement and asphalt jungle, owning nothing and eating bugs sounds like a future that Klaus Schwab, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Justin a Trudeau, Gavin Newsom, etc. would love for the rest of us to “enjoy.”
1 person likes this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
joew9 8/7/2022 4:24:13 PM (No. 1240848)
People living on the streets have demonstrated by their choice of living accommodations that they don't have the mental capacity to care for themselves. They should be housed in mental institutions. The do-gooders got rid of most mental institutions because they were so "terrible". So I have to ask, "is living on the streets better?" And I answer, "No! It's worse." See the book, "Madness In The Streets." It explains the history of how all this came about.
We used to have vagrancy laws. We used to have involuntary committal. But the do-gooders got rid of all that with no viable alternative plan because in their starry eyed enlightenment they thought everyone should "just be free".
Once the mentally ill were dismissed from the institutions and ended up on the streets the advocates called them homeless instead of mentally ill. That's because they were communists and hated the capitalist system and wanted to claim that communism would have provided housing for these people. They were right. It usually does. The communists provide mental institutions just like we used to do.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "NorthernDog"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
This is insane. Hotels would have to report any vacant rooms as of 2 PM so the precious homeless person could claim a room (for free).