Homeless camps coming to Irvine

Happiness said:
So when is IHS going to chime in and say this homeless encampment is a conspiracy organized by TIC?
Click to expand...

Which IHS? 

The original IHS or the new IHS3000?  :)
 
aquabliss said:
Looking at the map it's going to be right across the road from all the new baseball fields that are set to open soon.  Lots of kids in close proximity on the weekends. 

I'm assuming the homeless won't be "locked in" this encampment and if they wander off the grounds no one will be there to stop them or force them to go back in.  What better place to wander off than a nearby park. 

Fun times.  Can't wait to listen to John and Ken this afternoon.
Click to expand...
Is this the same land that the county wanted to use for commercial development but 5P and City of Irvine sued them to block it because 5P didn't want the competition?
 
Wonder which will rile up the locals more than the other - a homeless dumping ground encampment or a veterans cemetery. Time will tell.

The NIMBY factor would be greatly reduced if there were real housing and frankly strict access limits imposed on the site. If IPD would stop and frisk everyone coming in and out of the shelter area, nonsense levels might be reduced by half.

A saying I've kept dear to my heart applies in this case - "You are only 5 or 6 decisions away from becoming those you look down on". The truly homeless need a help during a rough patch that could come upon anyone, including me, at any time. The addicted and those who live outside by choice are another story and need a much different treatment approach than just free housing. If run properly, I'd not hesitate to live near a homeless services shelter. The key phrase is "run properly" and there's little chance of that through the State or County.

My .02c

My .02c
 
I thought the county was more interested in building condos and retail along the 100 acre strip. Or is this a scorched earth move, i.e. stop suing to block our development or we'll drop a homeless encampment there instead.

Gated communities would be less affected, hard to push a shopping cart past the guards.
 
GP has no public transportation, little infrastructure, and no jobs.  There is little chance that this actually happens.  Laguna Niguel has already threatened litigation and Irvine will be following closely behind.  Why setup the homeless to fail in such a poorly matched location?
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
Wonder which will rile up the locals more than the other - a homeless dumping ground encampment or a veterans cemetery. Time will tell.

The NIMBY factor would be greatly reduced if there were real housing and frankly strict access limits imposed on the site. If IPD would stop and frisk everyone coming in and out of the shelter area, nonsense levels might be reduced by half.

A saying I've kept dear to my heart applies in this case - "You are only 5 or 6 decisions away from becoming those you look down on". The truly homeless need a help during a rough patch that could come upon anyone, including me, at any time. The addicted and those who live outside by choice are another story and need a much different treatment approach than just free housing. If run properly, I'd not hesitate to live near a homeless services shelter. The key phrase is "run properly" and there's little chance of that through the State or County.

My .02c

My .02c
Click to expand...

Agree with you 110 %. While we all work hard and strive to better ourselves, there are forces of nature at times will put you down and under without warning. Such events could be natural disaster could make a person or family homeless. A sudden fire, or a winter storm flooding could put you at risk in this scenario. While unfortunate, most normal sound minded people have such a plan to mitigate a lengthy homelessness. 

People with persistent mental illness and substance-use disorders make up a disproportionately high percentage of Anaheim rivers homeless. Providing long term free housing isn't going to help. Even if the OC county succeed in winning the "right to build", where they are intended to build, they have failed already. They failed in solving the issues many years ago even when lands and materials are cheap, it puzzled me to believe they will succeed this time. Especially in the locations and conditions of the proposed shelter.

OC County supervisors board playing politics and not doing policies to eliminates homelessness. By calling Irvine, Laguna and Huntington beach, they are just yelling for attentions. Looks I am doing something,,,,succeed or not. Likely to be a failed attempt, because too many hurdles to cross.

Sure they got some attention, but free housing is not the answer to homelessness.
 
Looks like Todd Spitzer was the only supervisor voted against the homeless shelter in Irvine.

If you like to voice your opinion, feel free to call other supervisors.  Surprised Lisa Bartlett voted for homeless shelter at GP as she represents part of Irvine.
http://www.ocgov.com/gov/bos/

 
paydawg said:
GP has no public transportation, little infrastructure, and no jobs.  There is little chance that this actually happens.  Laguna Niguel has already threatened litigation and Irvine will be following closely behind.  Why setup the homeless to fail in such a poorly matched location?
Click to expand...
Actually, the main OCTA bus yard is on the edge of the GP on Sand Canyon and Marine Way. It's been there for decades back when MCAS El Toro was in the middle of nowhere so was a cheap place for OCTA to store their buses. GP would probably be the least expensive place for OCTA to extend a bus line since their buses depart from there every morning and return there every night.
 
Maserson said:
I thought the county was more interested in building condos and retail along the 100 acre strip. Or is this a scorched earth move, i.e. stop suing to block our development or we'll drop a homeless encampment there instead.

Gated communities would be less affected, hard to push a shopping cart past the guards.
Click to expand...
I think 5P would prefer the site to be a homeless encampment rather than face competition from non 5P retail, office, and hotel which would cut into 5P's long term leasing profits.
 
Happiness said:
paydawg said:
GP has no public transportation, little infrastructure, and no jobs.  There is little chance that this actually happens.  Laguna Niguel has already threatened litigation and Irvine will be following closely behind.  Why setup the homeless to fail in such a poorly matched location?
Click to expand...
Actually, the main OCTA bus yard is on the edge of the GP on Sand Canyon and Marine Way. It's been there for decades back when MCAS El Toro was in the middle of nowhere so was a cheap place for OCTA to store their buses. GP would probably be the least expensive place for OCTA to extend a bus line since their buses depart from there every morning and return there every night.
Click to expand...

You know what's the least expensive way for OCTA to transport people?  Using existing bus lines and existing bus stops, not extending bus lines so that bus drivers (at the end of a long shift) are transporting a bus filled with tired homeless people back to a shelter in the dark. 
 
Happiness said:
So when is IHS going to chime in and say this homeless encampment is a conspiracy organized by TIC?
Click to expand...

Weather IHS chimes in or not, I am convinced that very high level of politics going on here, potentially with lotsa $$$$ involved. It could be TIC, It could be other cities, or who knows what. Hopefully, City and residents of Irvine will fight this tooth and nail.

Anywhere else in socal, are there such shelters right next to world-class amenity? I haven't been around much so I don't know. Bet, this could be a good data point in projecting the future of this site.
 
Compressed-Village said:
Soylent Green Is People said:
Wonder which will rile up the locals more than the other - a homeless dumping ground encampment or a veterans cemetery. Time will tell.

The NIMBY factor would be greatly reduced if there were real housing and frankly strict access limits imposed on the site. If IPD would stop and frisk everyone coming in and out of the shelter area, nonsense levels might be reduced by half.

A saying I've kept dear to my heart applies in this case - "You are only 5 or 6 decisions away from becoming those you look down on". The truly homeless need a help during a rough patch that could come upon anyone, including me, at any time. The addicted and those who live outside by choice are another story and need a much different treatment approach than just free housing. If run properly, I'd not hesitate to live near a homeless services shelter. The key phrase is "run properly" and there's little chance of that through the State or County.

My .02c

My .02c
Click to expand...

Agree with you 110 %. While we all work hard and strive to better ourselves, there are forces of nature at times will put you down and under without warning. Such events could be natural disaster could make a person or family homeless. A sudden fire, or a winter storm flooding could put you at risk in this scenario. While unfortunate, most normal sound minded people have such a plan to mitigate a lengthy homelessness. 

People with persistent mental illness and substance-use disorders make up a disproportionately high percentage of Anaheim rivers homeless. Providing long term free housing isn't going to help. Even if the OC county succeed in winning the "right to build", where they are intended to build, they have failed already. They failed in solving the issues many years ago even when lands and materials are cheap, it puzzled me to believe they will succeed this time. Especially in the locations and conditions of the proposed shelter.

OC County supervisors board playing politics and not doing policies to eliminates homelessness. By calling Irvine, Laguna and Huntington beach, they are just yelling for attentions. Looks I am doing something,,,,succeed or not. Likely to be a failed attempt, because too many hurdles to cross.

Sure they got some attention, but free housing is not the answer to homelessness.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ, respectfully.

John Doe is an ok employee at an ok organization. Sheer bad luck and he get fired from the job, evicted from his apt, and his car gets repo all on the same day. At this point, he is truly at a risk of becoming homeless. But, you already see signs of bad decisions, one after the other. He still has a chance, he can get his act together and get a burger flipping job, work diligently and at least make a living, not become homeless.

Becoming homeless requires special skills and unusual levels of irresponsibility. Same goes with addicts. Don't know much about mentally ill, there could be legit reasons why they remain homeless and why we as a good society should pitch in to extend help.
 
Soylent Green Is People said:
Wonder which will rile up the locals more than the other - a homeless dumping ground encampment or a veterans cemetery. Time will tell.

The NIMBY factor would be greatly reduced if there were real housing and frankly strict access limits imposed on the site. If IPD would stop and frisk everyone coming in and out of the shelter area, nonsense levels might be reduced by half.

A saying I've kept dear to my heart applies in this case - "You are only 5 or 6 decisions away from becoming those you look down on". The truly homeless need a help during a rough patch that could come upon anyone, including me, at any time. The addicted and those who live outside by choice are another story and need a much different treatment approach than just free housing. If run properly, I'd not hesitate to live near a homeless services shelter. The key phrase is "run properly" and there's little chance of that through the State or County.

My .02c

My .02c
Click to expand...

I think we need a good accounting for how many are choosing drugs and or crime versus those losing to happenstance. And then younhave the just dripping out contingent.

As of late, ive been feeling 90/5/5 is sounding generous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top