“There are no more excuses,” the California governor said in pushing for municipalities to address one of the most visible byproducts of homelessness.
    • Sundiata@lemmy.world
      171·
      20 days ago

      his ex; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhFks_9faQY

      his current wife; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Siebel_Newsom

      Siebel Newsom was registered as a Republican until 2008, before re-registering as No Party Preference. Prior to registering as an independent voter, she accidentally registered with the far-right American Independent Party, before correcting her party to “decline to state”.

      I think yes, yes he is.

    • Lukas Murch@thelemmy.clubEnglish
      7·
      20 days ago

      I came here to say this sounds like something Trump or DeSantis would do. Disappointing it is Newsome. We need leaders with solutions, not bigger prisons. (I’m not sure what I would do, but I’m also not the Gov of California hoping to be in the Dem shortlist in 2028).

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        61·
        20 days ago

        I’m trying wrap my head around the possibility of voting for Newsome just to keep whoever the Nazis nominate is really painful.

    • jam12705@lemmy.world
      2·
      19 days ago

      Efficiency and progress is ours once more Now that we have the neutron bomb It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done Away with excess enemy With no less value to property No sense in war but perfect sense at home…

  • Marn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    185·
    19 days ago

    Title is a bit missleading. He’s also setting out $3billion for homeless facilities. Better than nothing, he’ll probably criminalize homelessness even more than it already is at the same time.

    I doubt the $3 billion will do much to reverse the damage California has done with their prison machine, cost of living crisis, and under funded public services. Unless they address the underlying issues the problems are not going to go away.

    • Tire@lemmy.ml
      6·
      19 days ago

      Funding is easy to lose down the road but laws against the homeless will sure be there for decades to come.

    • Doctor_Satan@lemm.ee
      3·
      19 days ago

      Yeah that $3 billion won’t do squat. California spent $24 billion over a five year period and didn’t track any of the money, how it was spent, or the outcomes. It’s a safe bet that most of the money went to contractors charging extortionate fees for services while providing almost nothing in return, and probably quite a bit landing in the pockets of local politicians. It was basically a big scam to further enrich a bunch of greedy parasites. A few low-level idiots were charged with fraud and embezzlement of like $400k, but that doesn’t even scratch the surface of corruption involved in that whole scheme.

  • uuldika@lemmy.ml
    111·
    19 days ago

    my unpopular opinion: homeless encampments in the US are a result of housing becoming unaffordable.

    I’m not saying most people ended up in tent cities because they couldn’t afford rent. usually people will sleep in their cars, find a spot in a shelter if one’s available, crash with relatives etc. at least here (Seattle) most of those who live in big tent cities are homeless because of mental illness: drug addiction and/or psychosis.

    but serious addiction isn’t new. where did addicts live in the '80s? crack houses! before real estate turned into gold, there was plenty of mold-infested, aabestos-ridden, lead-painted substandard housing left abandoned or rented cheaply by slumlords. junkies could sleep there.

    now, most of those buildings have been torn down and luxury condos rebuilt in their place, at least in the big cities.

    I’m not pro-crack den. the old buildings were health hazards. but junkies can’t afford the upscale housing that replaced them. they can barely afford tents.

    • turtlesareneat@discuss.onlineEnglish
      24·
      19 days ago

      I’m in Little Rock, Arkansas, which has plenty of vacant properties and plenty of homeless, they don’t cancel each other out anymore but it’s because homeowners are terrified of homeless people so they police neighborhoods and call that shit in. As well they should, we have fires all the time around me because of them.

      • uuldika@lemmy.ml
        21·
        19 days ago

        it sounds like you and your neighborhood have chosen tent cities over crack houses, then.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      61·
      20 days ago

      Not going to happen. Not because the conservative Democrats won’t be able to hoodwink enough primary voters to believe the highest priority is accommodating what they think their shittiest neighbor could (but will not) tolerate, but because in doing so they’ll lose the voters they actually need to win and Don Jr. will ascend to the throne.

      • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
        31·
        20 days ago

        You are overlooking the most valuable thing that Newsom has, that makes him even more qualified to earn enough votes to win: a penis.

        Unfortunately, if you don’t have one, you can’t get elected right now.

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    6·
    20 days ago

    California is a garden of Eden,

    A paradise to live in or see

    but believe it or not

    you won’t find it so hot

    if you ain’t got the doe ray me.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    82·
    20 days ago

    If you want to get rid of homeless encampments, how about making sure people have a safe place to stay at night?

  • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    82·
    19 days ago

    Crazy how California is speed-running a transition from liberal to left to Authoritarian almost as fast as the Federal government is transitioning from conservative to right to Fascism.

    • BlameTheAntifa@lemmy.world
      6·
      19 days ago

      Newsom was always a slimy neolib. He was just the lesser evil. The same story plays out constantly all over the US thanks to our broken two-right-wing-parties system, in which both parties are owned and operated by self-serving billionaires.