Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/25/2026 9:34:19 AM PDT by Libloather
Los Angeles homeless people are being put up in brand new apartments in ritzy neighborhoods that cost taxpayers up to $1.5 million per room, the California Post can reveal.
At least $2.6 billion of taxpayers cash has been spent buying and renovating hotels, motels and dorms for the huge unhoused population in the city and county since 2020.
The properties were all purchased with $1.3 billion from Governor Gavin Newsom’s Homekey initiative, which then renovated with another $1.3 billion in funding from the city and county of Los Angeles.
Some of the suites, which are staggered across neighborhoods such as West Hollywood, Cheviot Hills and Venice Beach, even come fitted with private balconies, in-unit laundry and gated parking.
Experts are demanding an investigation and blasted the spending spree — as Los Angeles grapples with a housing crisis, draconian building restrictions and a budget deficit.
Developer and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso tore into city, county and state leaders for “funding luxury,” adding the city was wasting huge sums on “unsustainable” options while ignoring better alternatives.
The California Post reviewed 83 properties provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development through a public records request, all slated for conversion into homeless housing.
The records show that In West Hollywood, the 20-room Holloway Motel was bought and overhauled for roughly $22 million, or about $1.05 million per unit.
The hotel sits opposite private member’s club Soho House’s swanky new location, in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the city.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“ignoring better alternatives”
The best alternative is DO NOTHING for them. The more we spend, the more homeless we get. Lather, rinse, repeat for DECADES has done nothing.
It may seem heartless, but the very best thing is to let the able-bodied either a) starve or b) work to eat and stay alive.
I will make exceptions for the truly needy, the mentally incapable. But we can reopen state mental institutions for them.
Things were so much better when churches and communities cared for the indigent, not Big Brother.
Yeah this’ll cut down on being homeless for sure.../sarc
More of the left’s war on suburbs. But, since they want everyone in their inner city high rises, why not start with the homeless?
Tens of millions that SHOULD have been spent on institutionalizing these broken souls until they got sober or had the proper amount of medications and got their feet underneath them. Otherwise keep them in the asylums. Is the only realistic and compassionate way in my opinion.
Tip of the iceberg.
All up and down the coast are subsidized housing in the beach cities, paid for by not just the State but the Federal government.
Subsidized to live on the beach!
Enjoy paying for it
Nothing new under the sun!
Regards,
I couldn’t agree more.
California...where ALL the homeless should be bussed to.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” _Karl Marx
Straight up communism IMO...they’re just not admitting to it.
And why should they?
Federal personal income taxes were originally
unConstitutional. There was a VERY good
reason for that. As soon as that changed,
America started a slow decent into where
are today, broke and in debt.
A government run by idiots, for idiots.
We used to be a republic, now we are a
bureaucracy.
In a free country it shouldn't be considered heartless. If I didn't work, I'd be poor. No one played a violin for me, so far as I know.
A man in my small Bible study group serves at a mission handing out clothing to the homeless.
Part of that of course includes sharing Jesus with those he comes in contact with.
Last group meeting I happened to ask him two questions.
1. (And i knew the answer) when sharing The Good News, do you ever get rejected?
2. Do a certain number of homeless you interact with CHOOSE to be homeless.
His answer was yes and yes quite a few.
That’s a dirty little secret the left doesn’t want to talk about.....many choose to be homeless of their own free will.
And I can think of several reasons why.
Throughout all of human history, if you didn’t work, you starved. There was no Big Nanny cushy “safety net.” Your family cared for you or the church or the community. But, by and large, if you were a useless layabout, you lived dirt poor. Or you died. Simple as that. Our decades of experimenting with welfare have proven beyond a doubt that that is the best approach.
Imagine what the USA would be like with that work ethic, if the governments didn’t suck up TRILLIONS of our dollars to indulge the indolent and addicts, if the huge pots of government money weren’t sitting there enticing fraudsters to come from all over the world to loot our treasury.
“And I can think of several reasons why.”
Indeed. Reason #1: for many, it’s simply the easiest way.
as long as you keep voting for corrupt Democrats, you get corrupt Democrat results ...
It’s just another democrat scam and their filling their pockets
It certainly cuts down on overhead expenses.
Homeless means you’re off law enforcements radar to a certain extent, and other entities that would otherwise be tracking them as well.
Panhandling can be lucrative which means drug and alcohol habits can thrive. (Interesting how many Homeless and panhandlers I see that have cell phones and are wearing very nice sneakers.)
2 Thess. 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.