I do think it's inappropriate for the Social Service Mafia to be coaching homeless on how to violate the law.  The Midnight Mission is run currently by Larry Adamson.  He was formerly head of AAA, but prior to that was an officer at Pacific Division.  You can bet he's not anti-LAPD.  The mission does prove, however, that respect for law and compassion for the homeless are not mutually exclusive ideas.  You can effectively help and provide services to the homeless without being an Anarchist.

Unfortunately with shelters there's always a "not in my back yard" issue.  While I agree that a shelter doesn't have to be on the beach, and that it doesn't need to be a four star hotel, it does need to be in the greater Venice area.  If that means a location East of Lincoln, that's fine – provided it is reasonably accessible, even if it means a quick taxi ride in the back of an LAPD car to the shelter.  I'm sure that in all of Venice/Mar Vista a suitable location could be found.

I also believe that the Social Services need to be streamlined with a clear focus.  I perceive that's not the case at the moment, with everyone running their own show.  I think that, much like the mission, the service providers need to focus on effective relief of the homeless balanced against the needs of the community.  They can't be "pro homeless/anti homeowner" in attitude to be effective.  They must be seen as working diligently to make the quality of life better in Venice for everyone, much as the Mission is dedicated to the idea of cleaning up skid row to the extent possible.  A well run social service organization should be a benefit to all of us.  Educating someone on how to break the law does not serve that purpose.

I do still maintain that we haven't effectively offered an alternative to homelessness in Venice, other than some self-serving individuals living off administering government programs and more interested in their own agendas then in combating homelessness.  At least, that's how I perceive it to be at the moment.

I'm sure some of the so-called Social Service Mafia scan this blog from time to time.  If the perceptions of many of us on here are incorrect, how about posting a few articles to show what you are doing and how effective it is being.  Perhaps if you could demonstrate that you are making a difference, you would be able to create broader community support for your efforts.  After all, public relations is vital to anyone running such programs.  The Mission does a lot to let people know what their programs are and how it is making a difference, which is why so many people reach into their pockets to privately support their work.  As tax payers, we are supporting your efforts.  It's only right that we should know what our money is buying, and whether we are getting fair value in return.

With all due respect, Surfer, the city has and continues to put money into social services here in Venice.  The question is not one of the need to increase funding, it's about whether the money currently allocated is being spent wisely.  You also have to compare the cost/benefit of a robust social service system against the cost/benefit of incarceration.  If you solution to the problem is to throw the homeless in jail, then you have to administer those jails.  That requires highly paid deputies, lots of administrative costs and so forth.  The cost of shelters and other social services, provided they are effectively managed, is actually a savings for the city.

You really have just 3 choices here.

1) Allocate resources to social services

2) Allocate even more resources to law enforcement

3) Let them run wild

fastfredddy said
bird man had flown the coop!

homelessness is a federal issue…

its a state issue, its a county issue

homelessness is then a city issue

show me the $$$ from the feds…

show me more $$$ from Sacramento…

then show me even more $$$ from LA…

show me all those private donations…

after you collect and deposit in escrow, all these billions,

then and only then come to the residents of venice with a plan to help the nations homeless, here

local politics will not fix a national dilemma, and certainly not an advisory board

go to your congressmen, mayor, governor, then come back to us, and we'll talk

With all due respect, Freddie, Homelessness is almost exclusively a city issue.  The State and Federal governments are certainly involved in economic policies that may contribute to homelessness in a positive or negative way though job creation, and setting a decent living wage.  Once the individual lands on the streets, however, they become the problem of their local community.

The "nations" homeless are in fact a collection of local community homeless.  The Federal government has absolutely no specific mandate to assist local communities with their homeless issues.  They can direct funds to the city, but it's up to the city how those funds are spent.

You also ignore my point, being that the homeless issue, once it enters the judicial system, has a significant financial impact on the city, whether the city likes it or not.  A homeless guy gets arrested for having his stuff in a "borrowed" shopping cart.  The LAPD resources that go into making the arrest have to be paid for.  Once he is given his citation, he must appear before a judge and the court costs money.  If he has to be held in jail overnight, that costs lots of money.

In California, the cost of keeping an individual in jail is approximately $140 per day.  That buys a pretty decent hotel room, even here in Venice.

This is why using the judicial system to combat homelessness is just bad business for the city.

You don't see those millions of dollars, simply because they aren't marked "allocated to solve homelessness" but are absorbed into the judiciary aspect of the city budget – and trust me, it's a big number.

There is no doubt that we all want the homeless off the streets.  Any sane person would.  To get them off the street means putting them into some kind of program, or into jail.

If you simply choose to do nothing, as you suggest, then the default is that they run into conflict with the justice system and you, I and every other tax payer in Venice gets to foot the bill for that.

Like it or not, spending city money on social services is actually a more cost effective manner to deal with the issue.

The real concern is whether the city's resources are being used efficiently and effectively, not whether spending money on social services is a good idea.  It's a concern that I and many on here share.  We are concerned that those who currently administer these programs don't have a cohesive plan, are misappropriating their budgets and thus are rendering any potential programs ineffective.  That's a very legitimate concern, and one that the current social service administrators and Bill R seem reluctant to address.

As taxpayers, we have a right to know how our tax dollars are being spent.  How much and on what?  We deserve a report on the effectiveness of the various programs in addressing the issue.  We deserve to know about future plans on how to improve the delivery of services to make the dollars go further.

Instead, we seem to get attitude, arrogance and silence.

Spend the money, by all means.  It just makes fiscal sense.  But spend it with transparency and accountability – both of which seem sorely lacking at the moment.

For a lot of people Venice is a place to for the pursuit of pleasures without consideration for the consequences. It won't remain that way if the City administers it like most other residential neighborhoods, as place where people live as well as being next to public beach.

There was a time when I would have liked Venice to remain a community with a wide variety of income groups and a place for free spirits. That was before I realized how many of the so-called free spirits simply too self absorbed to exercise any respect for the lives of others. Now I think it would be better to just become a regular neighborhood of regular folks who respect the lives of others, and the free spirits should either follow the golden rule or go someplace else.

The City is not the place to seek relief for the homeless and the private sector's ability to help is questionable. The programs and moneys provided by public funds for people in the circumstances of the homeless are under the control of the County and State governments not the City. The private funding comes through special program funding or private donations that require lots of oversight and documentation, it requires an lot more work that most small businesses have to manage and it has to be replaced year after year, and there aren't a lot of rich employees, including management, in these institutions. Besides most of those special programs are for kids and families not for adults with substance abuse or mental health problems who are unwilling to go into programs that control what they do.

If you want to know why there are people who want the homeless here, you have to understand that when rents were low, Venice was mostly derelict and ignored, and anyone who wanted to live in Venice could find a place, the homeless were far fewer and invisible. It's only since real estate prices have led to higher rents and fewer places that lower income people can afford can live that the so-called civil liberties attorneys and others have come to find ways to enable the homeless to stay. The motivation is more likely to control how Venice develops to retain a place for the counter cultural folk and artsy but modest income folks, rather than any financial rewards to some imagined mafia of social service people.

Cheesy – that's pretty much what I said.  We are using jail as a substitute for social services, making it a very expensive social service.  The more people you can get off the street and out of the criminal justice system, the more you save the city/state.