The majority of home owners and renters in Venice aren’t psyched on the Streets to Homes program, and now we have word that the RV Dweller activists aren’t either.
Who really wants this program besides the social service industry of Venice Beach that may get between 20-100 million in government money for it?
From homeless activist and RV Dweller Roots Xl:
it has been reported by yovenice that the final draft of the so-called ‘streets to homes’ program can be found at (link).
if this is the true draft for request for proposals, i must point out, for the purpose of drafting a more fair and just policy regarding the poor in our community, some major flaws in the logic used to piece the draft together. first of all, the definition used for homelessness attributed to Housing and Urban Development is misquoted,
below is the direct quote from HUD
Federal Definition of Homeless
The United States Code contains the official federal definition of homeless. In Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I, homeless is defined as:
Federal Definition of Homeless
The United States Code contains the official federal definition of homeless. In Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I, homeless is defined as: §11302. General definition of homeless individual (a) In general
For purposes of this chapter, the term “homeless” or “homeless individual or homeless person” includes-
1. an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and
2. an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is –A. a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
B. an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
C. a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
when the authors of the request for proposals list recreational vehicles as places not meant for human habitation, they are embellishing the federal law to suit their use of the term. A misuse, i must add, because the very definition of a motor home is that it is a home… with a motor. below is a definition of an RV from wikipedia, again the very definition of a motorhome is that it is fit for human occupation… so i believe that the very premise behind this push to move rv-dwellers onto semi-legit parking spots in order to eventually deny and remove the freedom that owning your own home entails is wrong. i think it’s wrong to remove that freedom in order to push another future eviction down the throat of an already-clogged judicial system. in order to what? satisfy a small group of atheist landowners’ desire to rid the streets of believers?
this from wikipedia:
Recreational Vehicle or RV is, in North America, the usual term for a motor vehicle equipped with living space and amenities found in a home.
so in the definition, they are flawed, and another flaw in the logic is that somehow the rv housed are being denied access to services. in fact the streets to homes program is for bridging the perceived gap between services they believe exist and people they think are too lazy dumb or otherwise to apply for and receive. federal law makes it a criminal act to separate homeless students from housed students…. this is from an act of congress, to protect homeless children from discriminatory action based on their housing status, definitely showing that the gap doesnt exist..:
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Reauthorized January 2002
Subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:
Subtitle B–Education for Homeless Children and Youths SEC. 721. STATEMENT OF POLICY
The following is the policy of the Congress: (1) Each State educational agency shall ensure that each child of a homeless individual and each homeless youth has equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including a public preschool education, as provided to other children and youths. (2) In any State that has a compulsory residency requirement as a component of the State’s compulsory school attendance laws or other laws, regulations, practices, or policies that may act as a barrier to the enrollment, attendance, or success in school of homeless children and youths, the State will review and undertake steps to revise such laws, regulations, practices, or policies to ensure that homeless children and youths are afforded the same free, appropriate public education as provided to other children and youths. (3) Homelessness alone is not sufficient reason to separate students from the mainstream school environment. (4) Homeless children and youths should have access to the education and other services that such children and youths need to ensure that such children and youths have an opportunity to meet the same challenging State student academic achievement standards to which all students are held.
as if los angeles california didnt already have enough budget woes… can you imagine what it would be like if the city just decided to be on the wrong side of justice and just keep paying settlements to folks who realize they are being denied their very right to property, education, sanitation and a myriad other basic human rights… in order to satisfy the ascetics of one very small minority?
jeremiah35:10 But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTSSEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious* or inconsistent with the peace* or safety* of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.
United States Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Jeremiah 35 (New International Version)
The Recabites Jer 35:6-10; 18-19
6 But they replied, “We do not drink wine, because our forefather Jonadab son of Rechab gave us this command: ‘Neither you nor your descendants ever drink wine. 7 Also you must never build houses, sow seed or plant vineyards; you must never have any of these things, but must always live in tents. Then you will live a long time in the land where you are nomads.’ 8 We have obeyed everything our forefather Jonadab son of Recab commanded us. Neither we nor our wives nor our sons and daughters have ever drunk wine 9 or built houses to live in or had vineyards, fields or crops. 10 We have lived in tents and have fully obeyed everything our forefather Jonadab commanded us…
18 Then Jeremiah said to the family of the Rechabites, “This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘You have obeyed the command of your forefather Jonadab and have followed all his instructions and have done everything he ordered.’ 19 Therefore, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Jonadab son of Rechab will never fail to have a man to serve me.’ ”
*licentious: Promiscuous and unprincipled in sexual matters.
*peace: yPeace describes a society or a relationship that is operating harmoniously and without violent conflict.
*safety: Safety is the state of being “safe” the condition of being protected against physical, social, spiritual, financial, political, emotional, occupational, psychological, educational or other types or consequences of failure, damage,error, accidents, harm or any other event which could be considered non-desirable.
