re: Los Angeles voters to decide if hotel owners can be forced to house the homeless

I hope they vote in favor just for the lolz.

quote:

---

This is the worst idea I’ve ever seen.

---

Par for course when it comes to Libtopians. Give em time and they’ll even top this with their wonderfully inept minds.

quote:

---

I wish you would go there and a bum would give you monkey pox in multiple openings.

---

He/she/zir is afraid to leave the house with the deadly Covid disease running rampant.

Whoever votes yes should have to house em in their homes

quote:

---

Kind of reminds me of property owners being forced to house British solders.

---

Keep pushing the damn envelope.

quote:

---

NorCal is such a cesspool

---

Apparently, SoCal is too.

In the many videos out there, in interviews with homeless people, over & over again there is confirmation that the majority of them are addicts. And addicts are always stealing to support their habits. Those rooms would be stripped bare within a matter of days. And what's to force them to stay in their rooms? They'd be hanging out in the halls, harassing people as they try to enter their rooms.

They did this in San Francisco during the covid lockdown. Many hotels in the tourist areas were sitting empty and the SF mayor forced them to house the homeless. They were paid at below market rates.

quote:

---

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

---

Translation: Los Angeles voters will cast their ballots on a proposal that could crush tourism and visitation.

The question I have on this is "do enough voters understand the full impact of voting for this?"

I wouldn't be shocked to find that most voters do not fully comprehend the economic destruction and calamity voting for this will bring.

On the plus side, it seems California is hell-bent on becoming the "Homeless Addict Capitol of the Country" (maybe the world, eventually). If so, let them. We can start arresting panhandlers then bus them to California like Texas is doing with illegals by sending them to NYC and DC.

quote:

---

This is already being done in south Texas and no vote was necessary. The federal government has been paying for large blocs of hotel rooms at above-market rates to house illegal immigrants. Seasonal workers who rely on those affordable rooms have no place to stay. The locals hate it. The people who depend on the affordable temporary housing hate it. The hotel owners love it because they are making a killing and the illegals are usually processed and moved before they can do too much damage. The owners aren’t in a hurry to keep the rooms in great condition anyway.

---

That's completely different. In the Texas scenario, that's a choice by the hotel owners. What's up for a vote in Los Angeles is forcing owners to do this.

quote:

---

If the measure is approved by voters, the city's Housing Department would pay hotels a fair market rate to lodge each person after identifying hotels with vacant rooms. It would require hotels to report the number of vacant rooms to the city and prohibit them from refusing lodging to unhoused people seeking housing through the program.

---

LINK

This would, by default, make every hotel in Los Angeles into a flophouse for addicts. As more non-addicts and/or non-homeless stop going to hotels in the Los Angeles city limits, the city will incur more costs while gaining less tax monies from these properties (if they're having to pay taxes on the subsidies they get from the city for housing homeless, at best it means the city is still losing at least a little money due to the overhead of having to manage this system with less outside money coming in to make up the difference).

This is a policy which will create a death spiral for the hotel industry in Los Angeles, right up to the point where the property owners mass together to get it repealed (if it's not too late by that time).