MovieChat Forums > Politics > Thoughts on the $595k ($600k) per unit L...

Thoughts on the $595k ($600k) per unit LA Homeless shelter?

posted 6 days ago by Rorikon (16821)
4 replies | jump to latest

https://youtu.be/CsLO6Gkp848

https://swinerton.com/project/weingart-center-tower/

Info [Weingart Center Tower]:
-19 story building to provide: x228 studio/bachelor, x47 1 bdr, and x3 1bdr for full-time onsite managers
-Pre-furnished with decent quality amenities: Metal microwave, metal fridge, electric stove range, etc.
-Building amenities included: Dining facility, commercial kitchen, community center, music room, art room, computer room, and outdoor decks. The building will also feature one level of below-grade parking with 15 stalls.

I think a lot of the pricing comes from the above average quality amenities. They aren't those cheap plastic-type stuff. That and the gentrified place called California so everything is more expensive along with higher income pay.

[–] curiousMInd101 (1015) 6 days ago

I think it's great. We need more of this. Having these people in a home rather than stinking up the streets is a win/win for everyone.

[–] DMT (4038) 6 days ago

More and more lazy drug addicted losers will flock for the benefits while more and more rich hardworking folks supporting all this shit will leave (as they already are). This is not sustainable.

It is like communism why wake up early and slave away if you will not be able to enjoy the fruits of your own labor, best just to chill out and go mushroom pickin thru the woods, at least you will end the day with some quality food instead of jack shit...

[–] curiousMInd101 (1015) 6 days ago

Yes, but the alternative is that you will have bums roaming the streets, shitting all over the place, robbing people, vandalizing, etc.
Don't you think it's better to put them into housing? It's not just that it's more humane, it's a benefit to everyone else. And it saves us money in the long run. The money we have to spend on dealing with the homeless costs us more than if we were just paying for their housing.
However, I take your point seriously. If you have a person that is incapable of maintaining a home and they are not capable of functioning in society then they should be an asylum, where you have doctors and nurses managing their care. But many of these people are capable of maintaining a home they're just not capable of working, which means they are functionally disabled, and therefore they should be treated as such. Put them on disability and give them a home. And as far as drug addicts go, it is much easier to get clean if you have home then if you're on the street. If you're living on the streets then you'll likely need drugs just to cope with your situation.

[–] Lord Rake (4038) 6 days ago

"And as far as drug addicts go, it is much easier to get clean if you have home then if you're on the street. If you're living on the streets then you'll likely need drugs just to cope with your situation."

But they are on the streets because they lost their home because of doing the drugs. And almost all homelessness is drugs or mental illness caused by drugs. These facilities will be turned into shitholes in less than a year and all sorts of sordid shit will be done there.