Demonizing the Homeless?

The Indy out to defend their own...nice.

Methinks that Byrne, Francisco, Rowse, and Self are just complaining that Murillo spoke truth to the incumbents power, when she said exactly what they all have been doing for the past two years.

Their rhetoric and campaign of mass distraction continues to be full of talk about rounding up people and shipping them out of town against their will, among other fantasy tactics that are neither legal nor fiscally realistic.

Do we need to insert links here of all the "demonizing" analysis the Independent previously reported for these same candidates?

Do we need to post the video of Sharon Byrne screaming about the demons during the "public safety" march and rally she organized last year?

The truth hurts those trying to deny it for one of the most challenging issues facing the next city council.

It is too bad that McCradie and Hanson would join in on Byrnes' hatefest. It is clear that Casa Esperanza is a response to our dysfunction. The homeless population is a symptom, not the cause of the MCAs discomfort.

And how do you know that the MCA leadership isn't opportunistically a corporate machine. I mean they use every angle they can. Homeless, gangs, graffiti, violence. Those are good things to complain about. They are citywide symptoms. But the shelter is an easy sitting target.

But when the most serious problem to the area is the detrimental and seemingly permanent construction zone that lower Milpas has been subjected to. Never a mention of these construction degradations as a source of the MCAs discomforts.

And your self-induced antiquated 1940s Milpas Street configuration is the real danger to your well being or your very life. No organized marches or candlelight memorials for the most recent victim, Ms. Byrne?

"Both Aldana and Byrne have complained that the Casa Esperanza Homeless Center on Cacique Street — coupled with the free lunches served there to anyone — has drawn a population of street drunks and panhandlers to lower Milpas who would not otherwise be there."

Who wouldn't want that in their neighborhood?

Apparently anyone who wants to address the homeless issue with anything other than boatloads of taxpayer funded food, shelter, medical care, etc. for all who request it is a "demon". Such nonsense. Isn't Murillo's husband an activist for the homeless and a failed Council candidate? Birds of a feather.....

Who called Aldana or Byrne a "demon"? Such inability to read.

"Murillo said she recognizes the shelter has drawn troublesome people to Milpas"

Uh, gee Wilbur, you think that might be a bit of a problem to the people who ACTUALLY live & work in that area?
Demonizing the homeless, SHEESH! What a load of horse poop! For you PUEBLO folks, that's caca de caballo.
The group actually "demonizing the homeless" are those crusties that come down here from the Pacific NW to live their "anarchist" lifestyle, compliments of those who ACTUALLY live & work on Milpas.
These crusties claim they "don't want to support the system" because they don't agree w/ it.
But boy, let me tell you, they sure got ZERO problem w/ the system supporting them!
Get rid of the out of town crusties out for a free handout, use the $$$ & shelter to help the LOCAL homeless who are ACTUALLY from this area.
Remove the welcome mat for the "travellers" as they call themselves, let em' go somewhere else, another "progressive, social-minded society" far from here.
Enough's enough already, the progressives caused a system failure of epic proportion & now that people speak out against it they supposedly "demonize" the homeless. CACA DE CABALLO! :) henry

These loyal-opposition comments epitomize the demonization, with a garnish of racism.

The issue is complex and requires legally and fiscally sound solutions, not the inflammatory red meat that is much easier for Francisco, Rowse, and Self to preach and their loyalists to consume because it makes them feel good.

Besides the readily available city meeting video archives, here is demonization incarnate:
http://www.independent.com/news/2011/...
"The meeting started with Alan Bleecker, spokesperson for the newly formed Milpas Community Association, challenging the council to take swift action to remove the homeless — whom he blamed for inflicting a “toxic mess” upon the community — from the streets. But when the council confronted a $1-million decision whether to buy an old eight-room apartment building on the 2900 block of State Street to create transitional housing for the homeless mentally ill, many councilmembers most sympathetic to Bleecker’s viewpoint balked. Ultimately, the funding measure passed 5-2, but not before Councilmember Dale Francisco blamed the ACLU for forcing the closure of state mental asylums that once provided care for the mentally ill."

"These loyal-opposition comments epitomize the demonization, with a garnish of racism."
- John Adams

Racism?! You lefties draw that word like a gun! Who said anything about race?!

"But when the council confronted a $1-million decision whether to buy an old eight-room apartment building on the 2900 block of State Street to create transitional housing for the homeless mentally ill, many councilmembers most sympathetic to Bleecker’s viewpoint balked."

I sure as Hell wouldn't want it in my neighborhood. Would you? And, I wonder who was going to pay for the staffing of this asylum-lite? Or, were they just going to fill it with mentally ill transitioning homeless, and see what happens when left to their own devices? Also, just where were they transitioning to? It's a good thing somebody was thinking at least a little ahead before green-lighting yet another stupid decision based on pure emotion.

waz proves my premise completely.

J_A: "waz proves my premise completely."

So what "premise" is that? That people are fed up w/ having BUMS (not homeless) from OUT OF TOWN shoved down their throats in the name of "progressivism" just as a feel good gesture?
If you don't live in the "battle zone" then you really have zero clue as to what the problem is.
If you do live in the battle zone then having zero tolerance to the BUMS (not homeless) is no surprise.
I've had to deal w/ that BUM (not homeless) ilk, especially on 1 particular occassion that ended up lasting 2 years.
It is no wonder the people who ACTUALLY work & live on Milpas are getting fed up w/ the BUMS (not homeless).
So easy to judge a man such as waz for an opinion rather than see the facts as they are & once you realize those facts ain't pretty & the folks who ACTUALLY live & work in that area are getting fed up :) henry

Yes, John_Adams. Just what, exactly, is your premise? Do you even know what a premise is? Because if you do (and I doubt that you do), your premise is that people can only oppose the growing urban camper community and all of its accompanying pleasantries because we are racists. There's nothing that has been said that would back up your "premise'. Think, for once. Don't just emote.

Waz, therein lies the problem: So-called "progressives" (which they aren't) always turning to the race card when somebody doesn't:

1) Agree w/ their pointless view.
2) Stand up for what they believe (which goes against their pointless view).
3) Decide to take necessary action to fix problems (this also goes against their pointless view).

The so-called "progressives" on the SB City Council had YEARS to fix the homeless issues, especially on Milpas, they didn't, EPIC FAIL!
Now you got a bunch of ticked off residents & business owners demanding that something be done.
Meanwhile you got more so-called "progressives" trying to oust the ONLY chance that the people on Milpas have to actually solve the problem: The so-called "conservatives" (which they REALLY aren't).
Of course, so-called "progressive-minded" lemmings will vote for the so-called "progressives" simply because of the "conservative" label that has been so stupidly thrown around by people who wouldn't know a REAL conservative if he/she/it came up & bit them on the tuckus.
They talk about the "conservatives using fear tactics" in order to win votes. What a laugh!
They use the "conservative" tag to promote the same kind of fear that they accuse others of doing w/ a touch of the race card to boot.
Goerbbels & Goering would be proud of theses so-called "progressives" how they can skew the facts & perpetuate a lie for the sake of party politics, something they willingly put before the very people politics are supposed to serve: THE CONSTITUENCY :) henry

Hey, ...
some people are homeless -- it's not pretty to see people living on the street and pushing all their belongings in shopping carts. Maybe the Milpas St. area has been burdened with more than it's fair share of service providers to the homeless. But let's stay focused on helping people get off the streets rather than polarizing the citizenry for and against the homeless.

The marijuana dispensery issue has been buried in the other arguments.

Let me remind you all that marijuana was legal until 1937 and that the moralists who decry "legalizing" it (when it is RE-legalizing it) pine for Good Old Days that were chronologically synchronized with pot's legal status.

In another twist, how many dispensary owners actually want pot re-legalized?

"Isn't Murillo's husband an activist for the homeless and a failed Council candidate? Birds of a feather....."
-- JohnLocke

McCarthy would be so proud.

"Get rid of the out of town crusties out for a free handout, use the $$$ & shelter to help the LOCAL homeless who are ACTUALLY from this area."
-- hank

Great idea. You been here two days? Scram. Two weeks? Hmmm. Two months? Well, ok. Two years? You're golden!

When you have an actual, realistic proposal, hank, I'm all ears.

sorry, Hank, a recent in-depth study showed over 55% of the SB homeless grew up here and are thus "our" people.
"hopeful" is correct: "let's stay focused on helping people get off the streets rather than polarizing the citizenry for and against the homeless."

Move the da casa to da desert, away from the drugs, the alcohol, the beach, the enabling things that make them want to be here and us not want them here.

Location, location, location...

Then once SB gets known as a no non sense "They send you the desert man..." we will have our town back and they will have a decent rehab...

All for the price of a bus ride and enforcement of VAGRANCY laws...

When candidates or commenters bitch and moan about the symptoms of the problem but offer no solutions or even a rational recognition of the broadest approach to address the problem, then those candidates and commenters are DEMONIZING the homeless as a tactic to frighten their political base and motivate that base to support certain candidates.

Contrast that with DrDan comment above, where he at least uses some facts as evidence for a realistic and legal approach with a goal of getting homeless people off the streets and into homes.

"Sorry, Hank, a recent in-depth study showed over 55% of the SB homeless grew up here and are thus "our" people."
- DrDan

Where can we see this "in-depth study"? I have serious doubts about that 55% number. And by doubts, I mean it sounds like a blatant lie. I've lived here all my life, and I know most of these people come into Santa Barbara from elsewhere. And, I have quite a few friends in local law enforcement that deal with these people all of the time, and as it turns out, most of them are from out of town, especially the one's that have active warrants.

"Contrast that with DrDan comment above, where he at least uses some facts as evidence for a realistic and legal approach with a goal of getting homeless people off the streets and into homes."
- John_Adams

I didn't see any "use of facts as evidence" in DrDan's posting. Once again, you're seeing things that don't exist.

DrDan, w/ all due respect, that's still 45% from out of town that has come to enjoy the fruits of OUR labor, not theirs.
The fact is Santa Barbara has set out the welcome mat & the crusties are taking advantage of that fact.
As for the "in-depth study" brought up, let's see it, but ONLY if said data is truthful, accurate or precise.

Sez, really now, you're looking @ the picture in terms of time/tenure @ a location. That is meaningless.
What means ANYTHING is what a person does during that time/tenure. Work & contribute or leech & committ crimes, that's the true determinant.
If you're a habitual criminal offender from out of the area I think a bus ticket to your point of origin may be suitable.
Heck, it works for Police Chief Chittwood in Daytona, FL, we got the Goleta bb gun shooter/registered sexual offender compliments of a policy such as his. Let their home town or wherever they're sent to deal w/ them, they may have a more "progressive" approach.

By the way, for you lefties out there, the "ship em' out" policy worked fantastically for Stalin w/ the Crimeans, why are you lefties so against it? Castro did the same w/ people like my mom & me in Cuba, worked out fine, well, for us anyways. Stalin & Castro were/are lefties, what's the problem?.

Hopeful, I hear you, but who REALLY needs OUR help are the LOCAL homeless, not the BUMS (not homeless) we've been getting from out of town.
The focus has been set on a transient population that is draining our system to the hilt.
As it stands, we can't even afford to help our own due to previous "progressive" policies such as granting home loans to city officials/city workers/public employees. Talk about watching out for your own!

J_A, like I said before, none of us need to "demonize the "homeless" because they have BUMS (not homeless) doing an excellent job of that for them.
Get rid of the BUMS (not homeless) & the demonizing will cease & desist. But until then they self-domonize themselves w/ the apparent behavior they exhibit.

Waz: "I have quite a few friends in local law enforcement that deal with these people all of the time, and as it turns out, most of them are from out of town, especially the one's that have active warrants."

THE TRUTH, FINALLY! I see this in Isla Vista, all the BUMS (not homeless) that get popped by the popo happen to be from, wait, wait, getting there, drum roll please... OUT OF TOWN!
By "out of town" I mean from places FAR AWAY from Santa Barbara proper or even the county.
Why'd they come here? They heard it's such a "progressive" place & people will give you what you need (especifically beer, pot & spare change, w/ an occassional free meal from a local church).

You "progressives" can say that the BUM (not homeless) issue is a symptom all you want & all you're actually doing is proving that while it may be a symptom, the problem lies somewhere else: THEIR POINT OF ORIGIN, NOT HERE. So why should WE have to fix it? :) henry

I love the 'progressive' title. I guess we can call the other side 'regressive.'

Spacey, I use the term "progressive" to actually mean regressive, that's called sarcasm & it should be obvious by the use of those pesky little " thingys on either side of the word.
Basically I mean regressive when I say "progressive" (notice, no " on either side of the word regressive when sarcasm isn't intended). Get it? Got it? Good :) henry

"Byrne, running as an independent, is trying to induce Democrats and Republicans to cross party lines and vote for her."
Sharon Byrne isn't just trying, she has been successful. What was omitted from the story (and the author attended the press conference on Tuesday, 10/18 where many spoke in support of Sharon) were some of the names of people-Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are supporting Sharon. People like, Beverly King, Olivia Uribe, Tony and Caroline Vassallo, Chris Casebeer, me, Bob Hansen, Michael Merenda to name a few. She has support from Peter Jordano, John Dixon and many others in the business community, homeless advocates, neighborhood advocates and of course, Santa Barbara's Police and Fire. And to suggest that she only ran because electeds weren't responsive to MCA demands, is a flat out misrepresentation. The "Trouble in Paradise" march (which she helped organize) included people from all parts of the city, not just Milpas.

PedroN: "What was omitted from the story (and the author attended the press conference on Tuesday, 10/18 where many spoke in support of Sharon)"

Of course it was omitted! Why would the Indy want to publish those in support of Sharon when they (the Indy) are supporting Murillo?
Murillo is an Indy insider therefore by default has the support & endorsements of the Indy. Why would they (the Indy) want to jeopardize the chances for their candidate of choice?
Omission of the truth. Worked for Marx, Engells, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Guevarra, Chavez, Zelaya, Allende, Mao, Pol Pot, get the picture? :) henry

In the same way, Hank, there hasn't been a story about Schwartz's finances? Not a doubt that if had been Sharon Byrne or any of the incumbents who has a back debt to the IRS and is in the hands of a collection agency for another that there would be Indy headlines.

Candidate Sharon Byrnes' Facebook page (when it was freely open to the public) really reveals a person that identifies with far right extremist issues and candidates. People that want this candidate to be of a moderate genre need to do their research.

Byrnes' assertiveness is of a corporate nature that I guess could be admired but Byrne lacks the fairness or even understanding of issues and are the result of witch-hunt activism. Conflating negative environmental, economic and social issues and then organizing marches scapegoating the least among us in our population is really of a despicable action in any Democracy.

Again if Sharon Byrne and the MCA activists (really corporate activists) are so concerned about the plight of the Milpas corridor, the safety and well being of its' district and this communitys' residents, there would have been in the very least a candlelight march for the most recent and latest innocent victim of Milpas street asphalt.

Corruption, addiction, violence, environmental degradation abound but they do not begin with homelessness, they end with homelessness. Stop the scapegoating. Don't vote for Byrne and for similar reasons Francisco, Rowse or Self. They are all corporate extremists that are all clearly represented very well by our corrupt system.

"Byrne has said the shelter, now 13 years old, should be moved."
Moved to where?
Tip to Byrne: mindless complaints like that ain't leadership.

I see the right-wing loyal opposition is having a particularly hard time with reading comprehension for their comments this week.

If this is the "most offensive" and "inflammatory remark" that Byrne and Aldana have ever heard then they need to get out of the house more often. I think it's more of a case of the shoes fitting Ms. Byrne and Aldana,.

Waz, this in-depth survey of 932 homeless human beings in SB was discussed in a long article by Isabelle Walker published in this newspaper this past May -- http://www.independent.com/news/2011/... go check it out.
55.7% of those surveyed were FROM OUR TOWN -- how about helping our own homeless [not bums] out? A lot of them are mentally ill, they're mostly middle-aged men, and they need some help.
Hank, you have the reference (above), but with your comment "let's see it, but ONLY if said data is truthful, accurate or precise" I'd say your mind is already mostly closed to new data. I do buy your comment about, well, it's still 45% 'coming here and enjoying the fruits of our labor' ... yet, we are a society and our "labor" CAN support mentally ill, sick, old, damaged people AT LEAST from our own town, don't you think? Perhaps there is a way to ID "our own" and at least give them the support they need and deserve.
By the way, Hank, Karl Marx's 3-volume analysis of capitalism, dated as it is to the later 19th century, is getting a lot more respect since the Great Recession of 2008 -- part of the cause of our expanding homeless population -- is certainly predicted in his cycles/troughs theories. Yeah, his prediction about the future and the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' are crap. Just like JM Keynes's theories are back and F. Hayek is down (crony capitalism is the road to serfdom)
Of course Self, Rowse, and Byrne are corrupt corporate elitists -- vote Murillo, Falcone, and Schwartz (despite her financial ineptitude).

It isn't just greedy capitalists (of which there are many) the sheer cost of doing business with all the government permits, regulations etc, is driving small business into the ground.

Lose the Marx/Keynes idol worship and see that greed is on all sides. These were one-sided doctrinaire human beings who made some good observations about the human condition but overlooked simple realities.

thanks for that deep wisdom, bill, "Lose the Marx/Keynes idol worship and see that greed is on all sides" -- uh, yeah, greed is there, on all sides, yep, along with lust, hatred, envy, etc., but what's your stuff got to do with the homeless situation??
Lose your stuff about "driving small businesses into the ground" and get back to the homeless situation -- that's what the discussion was about, right?

I participated in the count in the north county. The survey was interesting in that at least in the case of one respondent that was 'born here' the totality of the answers I suspected put the respondent in a category of being from elsewhere. Regardless we are in the United States of America and we are allowed to travel, whether it for love, money, job, adventure or services. We'd be better off with a national homeless strategy but then you have these conservatives using selectively their 'states rights' privilege.

I appreciate comments from DrDan recently. But I would caution people about their perception regarding others' financial "ineptitude" during these difficult times. In my most generous moments I actually at times pity Ms. Byrne and her involvement as director of the questionable non-profit the MCA. I fantasize that she wouldn't even be involved with this despicable organization if it were not for perhaps wanting employment. But that is the best excuse I can come up with for such bad behavior in these most difficult times.

Dr.Dan: People become homeless for different reasons, some of them may have businesses that go under. That was my point.

I have noticed elsewhere on these pages that Transition House needs some immediate help now. My impression is that they largely serve locals, the working poor if you will, folks struggling with situations but trying to work it out .... not young "crusties" or "bums" on the move who have chosen homelessness as some weird lifestyle choice.

While this debate rages and is good, I'd like to suggest a visit from each of us to Transition House's website, to make whatever donation you can. Then come on back and resume the argument with gusto.

http://transitionhouse.com/services/

Bill, apologies for misinterpreting your comment. OldDawg, in the past I spent one night a month working at Transition House and you are correct, they give wonderful service there. I'll make a donation.

"Waz, this in-depth survey of 932 homeless human beings in SB was discussed in a long article by Isabelle Walker published in this newspaper this past May"
- DrDan

I think you're being awfully generous calling what they did an "in-depth survey". First, you didn't direct me to the survey. You gave me a link to an article about the survey. How was the data gathered? Did they simply ask someone if they were from Santa Barbara? And, if they said they were, how did they confirm the information was truthful and accurate? These transients know full well that the fact that most of them are not from the area is a sore spot among area residents. Why wouldn't they lie about being from the area? Walking around the city, asking every urine soaked urban camper questions, and accepting the answers without even the slightest bit of confirmation, is hardly an "in-depth" survey. And, it wasn't unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination for hank to say, "let's see it, but ONLY if said data is truthful, accurate or precise". Isn't that what anyone would want to see in an "in-depth" survey? That is, unless that "in-depth" survey supports your own personal beliefs. Then it doesn't matter where the data came from, or how they got it.

Yes, please do look at Sharon Byrne's 'Facebook' (actually LinkedIn for those concerned about accuracy) page and try to understand how "Candidate Sharon Byrnes' Facebook page (when it was freely open to the public) really reveals a person that identifies with far right extremist issues and candidates." This will tell you much more about McD than about Byrne.

DrDan: "Of course Self, Rowse, and Byrne are corrupt corporate elitists -- vote Murillo, Falcone, and Schwartz (despite her financial ineptitude)."

So the truth comes out: POLITICAL AGENDA. My agenda go/goes w/ the person(s) that have my best interest (as well as the best interest of those who can & do contribute) in mind.
My agenda says the people who REALLY need the help get it & those EXPECTING a handout wait their turn in line & either sink, swim or move on to the next "progressive" town/city.
By the way, that is Darwin @ it's best, something the left tends to push, yet fails to practice.
You have your agenda, I got mine, you vote for your agenda, I vote for mine. Democracy in action @ it's best.

OldDawg: "I have noticed elsewhere on these pages that Transition House needs some immediate help now. My impression is that they largely serve locals, the working poor if you will, folks struggling with situations but trying to work it out ..."

Transition House is DEFINITELY a truly successful program, a program that I can say w/ pride that I've helped contribute to on numerous occassions in either financial, food or volunteer capacity & still support that program.
Many churches/temples in town contribute food & time to serve that program.
TH is incentive based & has phases of graduation that return people back to contributing to society.
There is job, psychological, fiscal & life counseling available for the residents & when they "graduate" from TH they then move to Fire House where they don't live in communal quarters thus having to show personal & fiscal responsibility.
Thank you so much for bringing up Transition House & I do hope that many of you out there do take up OldDawg's challenge to help that program such as I have. They do an AWESOME job there!

DrDan: "yet, we are a society and our "labor" CAN support mentally ill, sick, old, damaged people AT LEAST from our own town, don't you think? Perhaps there is a way to ID "our own" and at least give them the support they need and deserve.

That is also what I am saying, but the problem lies in the fact that other places can do the same as well. Why do we have to set out the welcome mat for everyone from everywhere else? There's enough of OUR own in need!
There IS a way to "ID our own" & that's called intensive research into a person's record(s).
Just like the medical profession, if a person doesn't want to provide these records or allow access to them, well, we can't work w/ them.
I think we're both saying the same, but our political agenda is slightly different.
By the way, would love to continue the discussion of Marx/Engells, but will just end that by saying Orwell's predictions of socialist/communist evil-doings in "Animal Farm" & "1984" have rung more truly than anything Marx/Engells wrote back then & those evils continue to this day: Cuba & N. Korea. All other places they saw the failure & went the route their heroes Marx & Engells bitched about :) henry

About that survey:

>>"Did they simply ask someone if they were from Santa Barbara?"

Yup.

>>"And, if they said they were, how did they confirm the information was truthful and accurate?">"These transients know full well that the fact that most of them are not from the area is a sore spot among area residents. Why wouldn't they lie about being from the area?"<<

Bingo.

Has anyone considered that some (possibly many people from Santa Barbara) could be homeless elsewhere? How do we want our people to be treated by other cities? Why is homelessness tied to a city anyway? If I go to Seattle, lose my job and end up homeless, I may not be able to afford to leave Seattle. Perhaps a more charitable viewpoint would be to try to reconnect homeless people with family (wherever they are) as I understand the Santa Monica program does. Let's stop acting like people who didn't grow up here are the enemy!

Dear hopeful-yes, Santa Monica does this quite successfully. They have been able to re-uniute people with their families and help them reconnect. Sometimes what is needed is a hand to hold the door open.

So why isnt' SB doing this? There was a visit to Santa Monica earlier this year for the express purpose of understanding their homeless reconnect program.

Self righteousness on the left, self-righteousness on the right. That sure won't solve anything.

pedronava has selectively abbreviated Santa Monicas' efforts. Not only does Santa Monica pay several full time city staffers and police to administer their homeless program it is not really any more effective. And the Mayor of Santa Monica previously had visited Santa Barbara to glean from our own citys' successes. Santa Barbara is not exactly the countrified bumpkins that pedronava (still swallowing a bitter pill) and opportunistic and extremist candidate Byrne has portrayed the city to be.

When San Francisco instituted "Care Not Cash" the progressives went crazy and made the same claims as our local group of extreme lefties. As soon as SF required actual identification as opposed to simply asking "Do you live in San Francisco?" their homeless roles dropped over 50%. Kinda' closed the case on the point of view that making it easy to get free benefits is not a magnet for regional bums.
Of course bums come here intentionally. This city feeds them and the weather is nice.
BTW-San Francisco also confirmed that nearly 75% were drug and/or alcohol addicted. Most were mentally ill to some degree. Our own little town has similar findings and despite the efforts of the progressives there's been no clear link proving that they became abusers because of their homelessness; it's the other way around.

"Why is homelessness tied to a city anyway?"
- hopeful

Homelessness is tied to a city because the bum population in a given city, especially in The People's Republic of California, is largely dependent on how many services exist for bums in that city. In other words, transients go where the goodies are. If you had a city that was well known for its lack of bum friendly programs, my guess would be that that particular city would have a much smaller bum population than another city of a comparable size that had many bum friendly programs. I've noticed that bums also want the goodies without any conditions or restrictions. For instance, the more useful programs for the truly needy have a condition that a person be alcohol and drug free, and must remain that way in order to continue receiving assistance. They'll even direct them to organizations that will help them get clean. Most bums write these places off as being "bum unfriendly", and avoid them like the plague. They'd rather sleep outside with their bottle, than sleep inside without it.

DonMcD: "And the Mayor of Santa Monica previously had visited Santa Barbara to glean from our own citys' successes."

Successes? What successes? Oh, yeah:

1) More tax $$$ being dumped into homeless incorporated.
2) A vague count of how many homeless are in ther area done by some volunteers w/ no statistical experience.
3) An increase in homeless population.
4) An increase in homeless crime.
5) Our medical system being taxed by these newcomers.
6) Deaths of some homeless due to reasons beyond anyone's control.
7) Crusties running amok on State Street.
8) More homeless showing up.
9) The current shelter running out of space.
10) The formation of the MCA, a ticked off group fed up w/ our "successes."

Yeah, we're 10 for 10 w/ the successes here in sophisticated non-countrified, non-bumpkin Santa Barbara ain't we? If these are Santa Barbara's "successes" then the mayor of Santa Monica must be laughing his keester off :) henry

Re: the homeless issue. Only now is there talk about incorporating performance standards in contracts for public money to address the homeless issue. It is not unreasonable to insist on demonstrable goals as a condition of the granting of public money for social services and consideration for further funding. This isn't a conservative vs progressive position, it's a responsible position.
This link identifies some of the local groups that work (in some aspect) on the homeless. People are frustrated by what they see as a lack of accountability in the way public funds are spent. That frustration will lead to anger and a rejection of even effective programs. It's in everyone's interest to be cost efficient, practical and results oriented.
http://www.santabarbaraview.com/homel...

PedroN: "People are frustrated by what they see as a lack of accountability in the way public funds are spent. That frustration will lead to anger"

That particular segment, w/ the emphasis on "That frustration will lead to anger" is clearly exemplified by the formation & position of MCA. Question is tis: Can you blame them? :) henry

I find myself a little less frustrated now that Nava is out of office.

"I find myself a little less frustrated now that Nava is out of office."
- Ken_Volok

I don't know why. Nava's a big lefty. You should love him.

I don't determine my support by labels, but by actions.

His actions have been that of a big lefty.

I guess if your knee is that sensitive.

What???

Pedro Nava is a man without clear direction. He got elected and his ego ballooned, almost as large as Salud's. He forgot who he was and why people voted for him. Ended up being anti-marijuana. OK. I'm done with him. He is defending his conservative pals here. I may smoke a little weed, but I know the Milpas association demonized the homeless and they used Latino youth for politics too.