6/27 - Santa Monica <$3M jumped a big 17% for the week and 30% for the month from a surge of new listings. Pacific Palisades <$2M and Mar Vista were up slightly for the week and well up compared with last year.
The Westside inventory total is up 3% for the month and 33% from a year ago. Expect rising inventory to finally start affecting prices.
6/20 - SM and MV are flat; PP is down slightly. The big house at 2516 Cloverfield cut its price almost $300K to $1.9M, now down 27% from original listing last July.
6/13 - SM and MV are up; PP is down.
Another $200K reduction on 16463 Akron, PP, now a whopping 44% off original list price!
6/6 - SM is back up from last week's dip; PP's total is another record; MV is up. All are well above this time last year.
Be sure to see OC Renter's new Option ARM update.
LA County Santa Monica Pacific Palisades Mar Vista
<$3M New Tot DOM<$2M New Tot DOM Tot New DOM
-------- ------ -------------- -------------- ----------
1/30/06 27,732
2/28/06 29,420
3/31/06 31,819
5/ 1/06 34,032 38 33
6/ 2/06 37,847 56 36 38
6/30/06 42,317 66 40 49
8/ 4/06 45,315 70 34 50
9/ 1/06 46,781 71 27 59
10/ 6/06 47,369 83 25 98 71
11/ 3/06 45,780 80 20 91 77
12/ 1/06 43,103 65 18 72 96 39 20
1/ 5/07 35,646 54 4 60 117 33 6 71 66
-------- ------ -------------- -------------- ----------
2/ 2/07 36,715 38 15 45 124 29 16 61 71 70
3/ 2/07 41,251 42 14 51 114 26 10 68 79 55 25 76
4/ 6/07 42,857 41 23 49 107 18 8 73 103 54 52 50
5/ 4/07 45,918 46 28 54 92 19 6 82 79 71 37 52
6/ 1/07 52,198 50 25 61 78 17 15 87 78 77 39 53
6/30/07 52,769 42 18 56 81 17 11 92 77 74 33 61
8/ 3/07 54,166 53 28 68 86 23 12 78 76 84 39 68
8/31/07 57,432 57 21 72 98 18 7 69 75 90 40 79
9/28/07 58,973 59 17 74 103 26 9 90 81 87 20 87
11/ 2/07 58,731 62 19 81 120 29 7 106 77 98 35 88
11/30/07 59,108 52 14 67 136 23 11 88 94 96 23 96
12/31/07 53,475 42 5 53 148 19 2 73 119 79 13 116
-------- ------ -------------- -------------- ----------
2/ 1/08 53,722 54 16 67 157 26 16 101 118 89 36 96
2/29/08 53,520 50 10 68 178 29 8 108 108 88 21 103
3/28/08 53,566 57 17 81 171 32 14 122 92 82 22 105
5/ 2/08 54,098 59 14 83 159 35 7 136 93 90 33 96
5/30/08 53,216 56 23 79 147 34 9 142 106 91 29 89
6/ 6/08 60 3 84 150 34 3 144 99 92 6 92
6/13/08 63 13 85 140 30 4 136 105 95 12 96
6/20/08 52,745 63 16 87 142 28 4 132 116 95 16 95
6/27/08 74 26 98 131 30 6 129 107 96 24 95
7/ 4/08
All Westside 2/1 3/28 5/30
2/29 5/2 6/27
Bel Air-H.Hls.85 82 95 100 108 110
Bev.Ctr.-M.M. 71 67 75 79 80 78
Beverly Hills 65 64 66 78 84 79
B.H. P.O. 78 80 92 95 101 113
B'wood Vic. 50 56 53 57 67 58
Brentwood 77 86 96 104 108 116
Chev.-R.Pk.'8'21 19 20 24 25 31
Culver City 42 48 50 57 59 58
Malibu 185 200 213 242 261 266
Malibu Beach 38 49 57 60 50 49
Marina Del Rey26 36 25 25 26 27
Pac.Palisades101 108 122 136 142 129
Palms-M.Vista 89 88 82 90 92 96
Playa Del Rey 22 19 15 15 23 24
Playa Vista 5 4 6 5 5 9
Santa Monica 67 68 81 84 79 98
Sunset-Hwd.H.189 185 215 240 241 273
Topanga 49 44 63 69 66 62
Venice 72 72 74 83 85 77
W.H'wood Vic. 48 51 48 43 46 46
West L.A. 20 18 25 25 25 26
Westchester 72 54 79 86 91 88
W'wood-C.City 37 36 42 49 53 61
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
2008 Total 1509 1694 1917
1524 1846 1974
2007 Total 1282 1274 1457 1522 1671 1600
1308 1377 1483 1551 1731 1329
Notes
See here for 2007 monthly totals. LA County inventory via OC Renter. Santa Monica Days on Market (DOM) is for <$3M, and omits Santa Monica Canyon (in City of Los Angeles but S.M. Post Office). Pacific Palisades DOM is for <$2M and count omits mobile homes. "New" is for previous month, or month-to-date for current partial month.
147 comments:
I've been following 928 Iliff in Pacific Palisades.
Original listing $3.895m and recently re-listed for $3.649m.
New construction. 3763 sf (+425 sf outdoor living room).
Is this a reasonable asking price or is this crazy?
I can't find the last sale price for this property on Property Shark or Zillow. But, I would think that the tear down was around $1.2 or $1.3. If the total expenses (construction, carrying costs, commission, etc.) are around $1.4m (just a rough guess), they would be making a pre-tax profit of approx. $1 million dollars.
Are my numbers way off?
Any additional info or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
It is crazy. I looked at that place a couple of months ago and found it only slightly nicer than another new construction on Iliff that had languished on the market at $2.99m for a couple of months before finally selling several months ago. If they lowered it to 3.1m immediately, they would probably get it. By the time they actually lower it to 3.1, though, it will probably be worth 2.8.
928 iliff was a lot split from 930 iliff. if you look up 930 iliff in property shark you will see the deed transfer. Propery sharks shows the lot was sold for $1.333
Maybe there's the one magic fool that would pay 3.1 but it seems very unlikely. If they lowered it to 2.5 they would get someone, and then what would all the people paying 2.2 ish for older, smaller and on smaller lots think?.. probably that it's not so great and that you CAN lose money on real estate.
There's LOTS of houses in PP that are just sitting in need of being DRASTICALLY reduced. What is selling is reduced to basically 2004/2005 pricing with very few exceptions. It's ALL squishing down down down with nothing to hold it up.
looks like the paid around 1.5 all in plus the lot price of 1.33 mentioned earlier.
Holy cow, my wife and I just went out looking at open houses to see what our money would buy us in the 90403....yikes. All of the townhomes under $1 million were absolute dumps. There were a few nice ones once you got upto to the $1.2 range. The condos we saw were all overpriced converted apartments that were 20 to 30 years old. I don't see how these sellers are getting these prices. Many realtors encouraged us to offer lower bids, but still. There was a lot of foot traffic out there, but who is buying these things? Renting is so much cheaper still and you know you won't see any appreciation for a long time to come, so I'm not sure who would be buying these condos or townhomes. It seems prices need to adjust dramatically in order for these units to clear. JMHO.
"It seems prices need to adjust dramatically in order for these units to clear. JMHO."
Exactly; the current sellers are desperate and delusional, and they have no room to cut their asking price because they're either bailing speculators or else can't afford the mortgage once it resets. They have no room to cut, and therefore the banks will take their toys away and re-list at real world prices.
Those who put money down or got real, fixed mortgages or have been living in their home pre-bubble are staying put thinking that this is a short term blip and that if they can just hold tight another year it will be the good times again and they will sell at the top. Unfortunately for them, it only takes one of the speculators selling short or the bank relisting for the comps in entire neighborhoods to reset.
The homeowners waiting this out and refusing to cut their list will be hurt most, because those who could never afford these homes are going to simply walk away and had no downpayment anyway, while the long-time owners and those that put money down are going to lose real money by trying to chase the market down. They would have been off listing now at 10% off peak, than be forced to sell in a year or two at 20-25% off the peak price.
Greed is a funny thing.
"Greed is a funny thing"--
That says it all and people never ever seem to learn.
And it's not just happening in West L.A.--it's happening all of over the world.
With energy prices soaring and the financial markets reeling from record losses, it only looks grim for a long time to come.
I just heard an amusing bit of news from Canada where the citizens in the big wetern provinces are up in arms over the "carbon tax" that is causing energy prices to soar even higher.
Seems that when it comes to costing folks money, people are not liking this "carbon tax" idea. Hmm, that's just what America needs right now--higher prices on energy!
Remember, if we would have drilled in ANWAR 5 years ago, we'd would have been getting oil today (or at least 5 years sooner).
"the banks will take their toys away and re-list at real world prices"
Um... while this is happening in some areas I haven't really seen this so far on the Westside. I'm not sure why.
All of the bank owned properties I've visited have been listed at current mareket rates... and they won't even consider anything resembling a fair offer.
Not only that, when they don't sell for a while, the bank just pulls the thing from the market and tries to wait things out.
I've heard about whole communities elsewhere in the country where the bank has a massive fire sale... and I'd love that to happen here. But that's certainly not what the banks are doing at this point.
A few months ago, the banks didn't think they needed to cut prices where is now the "firesale zone". Same will happen on the westside.
There seems to be a few homes in my neighborhood (Sunset Park) that are actually popping onto the market and selling almost immediately...before I can even find out their price. One on Hill, just west of 21st (little yellow house), and one down on Marine north of Penmar. I figure they must have been good deals, comparatively. That, or two folks just gave away a deposit.
I look at several bank portfolios a week, both consisting of REO properties and nonperforming loans and it is still really hard to get a deal out of them for anything backed by assets in the premium areas. Sure, I can buy huge blocks of SFD's and finished lots for great prices in Merced, but if you look at prime areas ( a 90% complete beach house in Hermosa or the same in Laguna) then they are not cutting deals at all....so far. I guess I'll wait.
"but if you look at prime areas ... then they are not cutting deals at all....so far. I guess I'll wait."
I'm not sure they ever will cut deals in the prime areas. The potential upside hedge is too great.
Sure you want to move all of the underperforming garbage out of your portfolio, whatever the price... but you hold your blue chips.
Right now the banks are looking for areas where values are holding steady, or only modestly declining. Those properties they can afford to hold. Their focus is cutting out all of the dead wood before it's too late.
Sadly, Santa Monica property is too valuable too give away... unless there is an even greater solvency crunch, you might end up trying to wait out the banks forever.
The banks will be the first to cut and run, if they don't go out of business before then.
"The banks will be the first to cut and run, if they don't go out of business before then."
So your call is that the prices will drop in West LA/Santa Monica about the same time that there is a total collapse of the US financial sector...
Frankly, if prices here are so resilient that it takes a solvency crisis in the banks to drive prices down... then the realtors are right and property is a pretty safe haven for your cash.
Honestly, if you start having substantial US banks close their doors, there isn't anyplace to hide... the dollar will bottom, the stock market will collapse, international financial markets will plummet, nothing but your first $100,000 will be FDIC insured...
In a total collapse, solid but fungible assets like property tend to RISE not fall.
But, your call is total financial collapse, then property values falling on the Westside...
You'll be waiting there in the wings to snap up that 90402 estate that you've been hoping for? Where are you hiding your down payment? Gold bars under your bed?
Come on. Property values had better drop long before that, or we're all screwed.
I'm pulling my $$$$ out of stocks and the bank and paying down my mortgage....at least I can sleep in my'risky' investment at night.....
Anybody check out the little 2 bed/2 bath house on Hill in Sunset Park this weekend? Good deal I thought....1.1M...good location and lotsa room to expand....maybe buyers are getting more realistic with their pricing???
I saw that house (15th/hill) this weekend. Solid deal when compared to other properties in the area and they may even get their price, but I still think it's a few 100k too high. Apparently, 2010 Hill is in escrow at maybe $949k. That's 1,544 sf @ $614/ft. There seems to be a strong downward trend for the area. 2215 Hill is ske-rewed.
All the banks don't need to fail, just a few more.
The psychology is changing and that's what's really important when talking about bubble/price changes - removing the expectation that westside real estate is somehow different or "safe". Everywhere was different until the prices started going down and no one wanted to pay a price for a house they knew was going to be cheaper tomorrow.
And are the (remaining) banks, after they dump the "bad" properties on the books, going to make the loans for the "good" ones at 2006 prices?
In a total collapse real estate values will be zip since no one will be buying ANY houses.
To propose that 90402 is immune from the current collapse is just ludicrous. The prices in 90402 are as inflated as the prices were in the Inland Empire.
It's just going to take longer for the prices to deflate. I'M NOT SAYING THAT PRICES IN 90402 WILL DROP TO I.E. LEVELS, JUST THAT THEY WILL TAKE A SIMILAR PROPORTIONAL DECLINE! (I had to shout since I was anticipating some bull breath responses.)
Go back to pre-bubble days. This is where all of Santa Monica is heading.
i agree with the last poster
90402 will fall
but 90403 prices will fall proportionately
the heirarchy of Single family homes in SM will always be
(1) la mesa
(2) the flats of 90402
(3) the canyon 90402
(4) 90403
(5) others
nothing will change this
1221 Georgina closed at $4.475m.
"Seems that when it comes to costing folks money, people are not liking this "carbon tax" idea. Hmm, that's just what America needs right now--higher prices on energy!"
true, but name one tax that people DO willingly pay for.
we are taxed on the things we need, but won't willingly stump up for, education, social security, defence, and universal healthcare spring to mind.
carbon tax is coming, we'd all better get used to it.
--"carbon tax is coming, we'd all better get used to it."--
Who is going to levy this "carbon tax"? The U.N.? Who is going to force Americans to pay this "tax"?
How long will a politician stay in office if they say,
"You will ALL be paying more for gasoline, electricty, heating oil and natural gas! Shut up and pay the tax."
Also, what possible benefit will anyone in America get from this carbon tax? At least when I pay my property tax bill or my payroll taxes I see the benefit.
Nothing done in America in the next 20 years will stop the rise of greenhouse gases since China, India and the rest of the developing world will more than offset any decrease made here.
The Democrats and environmentalists just love the current price of gasoline for it is curbing consumption. However, pretty soon the American consumer is going to voice their disapproval and the high costs of energy are already affecting the economy.
I say "Drill right off the coast in Santa Monica Bay!"
We use more energy here in California than any other similarly sized place on the planet so we should bear the burden of our lifestyle.
And remember, without this wealthy carbon producing lifestyle there wouldn't be high priced homes or jobs in Santa Monica or any other place in our state.
"Anybody check out the little 2 bed/2 bath house on Hill in Sunset Park this weekend? Good deal I thought....1.1M..."
I was pretty surprised to see how many people were walking through it, although I find it hard to believe that many of the people I saw in it can come up with a 200K DP and carry a 900K mortgage. It seemed to be many very young people and what appeared to be flipper types.
i agree plenty of young people
but get a clue - their parents work for hedge funds / private equity funds and their parents will be buying the place for them
come on- how many people in sunset park can buy without help from parents ?
"I'M NOT SAYING THAT PRICES IN 90402 WILL DROP TO I.E. LEVELS, JUST THAT THEY WILL TAKE A SIMILAR PROPORTIONAL DECLINE!"
In real dollars, or inflation adjusted over time?
I ask because we're talking about a very wide time window, and it will make a massive difference.
I can honestly only see it happening in inflation adjusted dollars, assuming inflation continues its current rate of acceleration.
I think we're seeing that now... real dollar stagnation in an inflationary market. I don't forsee a precipitous drop in real dollar values.
How many people do you think work for hedge funds? How many people at hedge funds do you think make LOTS of money?
You are an idiot!
How many people do you think work for hedge funds? How many people at hedge funds do you think make LOTS of money?
You are an idiot!
Georgina sold/?@#!@# OH FCUK! Now there's only like 30 other houses that won't sell without more reductions. Thanks for the cherry-pick!
Remember, if we would have drilled in ANWAR 5 years ago, we'd would have been getting oil today (or at least 5 years sooner).
and
I say "Drill right off the coast in Santa Monica Bay!"
Do you nutjobs just say these things to be shocking, or do you really mean it? I'm asking sincerely.
I've spent alot of time in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, incidentally not Anwar, which is an common Arabic name) and I'd no more drill there than I would in the Santa Monica Bay.
The thing about drilling for oil, is you really HAVE NO IDEA whether you'll find much, if any, and the infrastructure required by even the most minimal excavation is remarkably complex, disruptive, and polluting.
There are so many easier, cheaper, sustainable, and cleaner ways to generate power, why are we still debating oil?
"Georgina sold/?@#!@# OH FCUK! Now there's only like 30 other houses that won't sell without more reductions. Thanks for the cherry-pick!"
But, see, the thing is... houses are still selling. Why would anybode reduce significantly when every once in a while somebody hooks and buyer and gets out at peak value? This is a stuck market. Right now everybody is fishing. A listing is just a line in the water... nobody expects to catch anything right away.
It's not that stuck a market, it's clearly moving in one direction. Lower prices.
For every one Georgina that sells there's 10 similar that don't. How long will it take for one of those 10 to cut 10%? Then the next? Then the next buyer is going to expect more off, etc...
Listings are way up, sales volume is way down... sure there will always be some sales but the future is pretty clear.
the truth is that there are buyers out there happy to drop 4.5 million in 90402
these buyers may be crazy and they may be stupid but they are there
the sellers in the 90402 are looking for more of these -
as long as the houses sell, even slowly, the prices won't plummet
1221 Georgina?
That would be a rollback then since I am seeing it sold 8/10/07 for $5.6M
"We use more energy here in California than any other similarly sized place on the planet so we should bear the burden of our lifestyle."
that would be a tax on carbon then.
glad you agree.
--"There are so many easier, cheaper, sustainable, and cleaner ways to generate power, why are we still debating oil?"--
There are? How many of these "cheaper, sustainable, and cleaner" fuels can I use to get to work tomorrow morning?
None? I thought so. Okay, how are we going to transport the 5 million commuters tomorrow morning in the greater L.A. area? Use the transporter on Star Trek?
There are NO mass market electric cars currently available to the public. The vast majority of the people in California have NO public transportation option that would not bring extreme inconvenience and hardship on themselves and their families.
Every single "green" power source requires government subsidies in order to be viable--these are either direct or lavish tax incentives.
Where are these "cheaper" sources of energy and when will they bring relief to the millions of Americans who are now suffering because high energy costs?
You are an absolute IDIOT! The reason why we are using oil and coal is because they are the CHEAPEST sources of energy! The world is swimming in oil right now.
Coal is the fuel of choice in developing countries because it is CHEAP! And PLEASE don't cite the harm being done to the polar bear population--that is a white middle class cop-out for environmentalists who feel guilty about their wealth and superior standard of living.
One day the oil will get too expensive and then capitalism will supply a alternative energy source.
Right now we are experiencing an oil bubble--it's just like the real estate bubble.
I know that there are plenty of people who doubt the latter and they probably deny the former.
well, there is an argument that if you factor in the damage that carbon or nuclear based energy production does to the environment, the cost goes up quite a bit.
don't know what this has to do with house prices though.
unless it's just an example of the same sort of denial that deluded sellers are suffering.
--"don't know what this has to do with house prices though."--
In what kind of sheltered existence do you live your life?
What does the current energy situation have to do with house prices??!!!
Our entire economy is dependent on cheap energy, that's what it has to do with house prices in Santa Monica! I hate to break the news to you but the economy is taking a beating right now because gasoline almost costs $5/gallon!
The high cost of oil is affecting the world economy.
Geez, I bet you think that food comes from bucolic farms that have happy workers toiling 2 hours a day and who spend the rest of their time spinning yarn, drinking mineral water and baking organic vegan bread!
I'm sure you believe that all the world needs is for John Lennon's "Imagine" to come true and then we'll all give up "countries" and "Religion"!
Wake up and smell the coffee. If the current situation with energy continues indefinitely (ie the high cost of oil), the economy will tank even more than it was with the destructive housing bust.
This will affect the prices of homes even more than has already occurred. For example, restaurant businesses are already suffering. In fact all kinds of businesses are suffering already.
Question: Do any of these business owners/workers/investors live in Santa Monica?
Of course not! Everyone in SM is independently wealthy and they'll never be affected by a sour economy.
And I thought that educated people lived on the Westside.
"There are? How many of these "cheaper, sustainable, and cleaner" fuels can I use to get to work tomorrow morning?"
Depends entirely on where you work. Presently my options are a CNG bus, my neighbor's mass market electric car (RAV4EV) for carpooling, a bicycle, foot, or my plug in hybrid.
But, efficiency calculations are possibly your lest telling decision making parameter in relation to fossil fuel consumption. Comparing the assets and liabilities of fossil-based and renewable fuels in the transportation sector, centralized versus decentralized technologies, cost evaluations, and taxation have to be taken into account.
"The reason why we are using oil and coal is because they are the CHEAPEST sources of energy!"
You understand of course that this is an absurd canard based entirely on the established distribution network, and ignoring overall lifetime costs completely.
Wind, Hydro, and Solar power are essentially free once your generation and distribution network has been established (see Germany's current solar infrastructure for more on this), with little in the way of lifetime costs, and zero transmission cost via the existing electrical networks.
"The world is swimming in oil right now."
This is, again, just one of those abstract mantras that has absolutely no documentable reality behind it.
i think it's pretty clear who's right on oil.
when both political candidates are in agreement that the national energy policy needs to be scrapped in favor of conservation and renewables that pretty much says it all.
nobody looking at the facts would vote for a candidate today who said anything else.
--"You understand of course that this is an absurd canard based entirely on the established distribution network, and ignoring overall lifetime costs completely."--
You're joking, right?
Who is going to pay for the enormous costs to build these new alternative energy sources? Take out a loan at the World Bank?
Excuse me for being so rude, but have you noticed that the current fossil fuel and nuclear power plants have already been built and paid for? Also, the entire infrastructure for obtaining fossil fuels exists right now and it is entirely self-supporting.
In fact the fossil fuel industry not only fuels America but it pays enormous tax revenues to the government!
However, your rose-colored glasses scenario would require that the government pay enormous amounts of money to fund this pie-in-the-sky venture of alternative energy.
In the meantime, Americans are going broke and the economy is suffering.
Like I said, you are obviously a "Let Them Eat Cake" sheltered existence snob.
What happens in Pacoima affects the values in Santa Monica.
Who is going to pay for the enormous costs to build these new alternative energy sources?
and
In fact the fossil fuel industry not only fuels America but it pays enormous tax revenues to the government!
And you don't see an obvious course of action?
1221 Georgina -- that's the point; it was a fire sale. Will push down comps at the high end.
--"And you don't see an obvious course of action?"--
We do live in a free society based on capitalism, right?
The oil companies would be jumping into the alternative energy business in a heartbeat if they knew that they could make money off of it.
But no one is because you can't make a dime off of alternative energy right now.
You can't FORCE the oil companies to build this "new" energy source--what are you, some kind of communist?
If this new energy is so profitable what is stopping investors from creating new companies to exploit the riches here?
Oh, I get it, you're a MoveOn.org dummy and you want the evil oil companies to pay for all of this new technology with their profits.
Tell you what we can do--why don't we just tax all the environmentalists and Santa Monica residents $100,000 to go to building this new alternative energy infrastructure.
Since you don't seem to mind taking money away from private companies, you surely wouldn't mind giving up some of your OWN wealth to fund this noble cause.
what are you, some kind of communist?
and
Oh, I get it, you're a MoveOn.org dummy
Okay, so we're going to do name calling?
In that case... you're a crypto-fascist McCarthyiite bastard who hides behind the mantle of Capitalism, an economic system of which you have only the slightest rudiment of an understanding, in order to parrot maxims you memorize while soaking up hours of Fox News and talk radio.
You puff youself up with a smug sense of superiority based on the belief that you're somehow more patriotic than those who disagree with you while running the nation's economy into the ground.
You don't understand the economics of alternative energy, so you make the sweeping assumption that there is no economic incentive, and meanwhile Toyota is heading for record profits while Priuses are backordered, while American car companies are faced with a potentially ruinous overstock of trucks and SUVs.
Get your head out of the sand, the transition to alternative fuels is happening. The conversation is over. And, oil companies are shifting an ever increasing segment of their exploration budget out of new oil sources and into new energy sources more broadly.
Both candidates, big multinationals, and consumers can read the writing on the wall... why can't you?
Many, many companies are making money off alternative energy solutions, perhaps not some of the big oil firms, but it's in their best interest to perpetuate their control of and our usage of oil energy. They have countless billions invested, huge infrastructure, equipment to depreciate, relationships to maintain, etc. It's probably somewhat terrifying to them that the world may be shifting away from the combustion auto and other oil applications. However, what can they do other than try to move into new fuel sources and compete with the smaller, more innovative firms that are addressing this issue? It's also a direct threat to the total dollars spent each year on transportation and power. It seems that efficiency would naturally lead to lower prices, so I'm sure there are teams of people tinkering around with economic models to figure out how to deliver us cheap, renewable energy at the same cost to us as we pay for our current system, which they can then increase at a decent enough yearly rate and show wall street earnings growth. Otherwise, the industry shrinks in size and untold billions are lost.
"their parents work for hedge funds / private equity funds and their parents will be buying the place for them"
LOL, you clearly have not been paying attention to current events in the HF/PE space have you?
Dear god, I've never glazed over and ignored so many posts on the Westside Bubbble blog. There's usually one or two people that post something way off-topic or boring, but I've never seen so many posts that are utterly off-topic and sophomoric. Can you please go to an energy or tree-hugger blog or whatever and leave this one for people who care about housing prices in West LA?
Arti
I think that the health of the economy has a direct bearing on prices of homes on the Westside.
The housing bust has started even though many said that it would never occur.
And now the economy is getting hit with a low-blow punch in the form of runaway energy costs.
RE markets depend on perceptions and the perceptions are changing for the worse. What will this have to do with values on the Westside?
You are being foolish to ignore the energy situation since it may be driving an already out of control bus over the cliff.
I agree with anonymous.
the one anonymous is full of crap, but the other anonymous is spot on.
I just think that energy policy is always good fighting. Low cost fuel has helped shape LA. When I say "shaped" I mean amorphous sprawl out to the middle of nowhere. I also think that home prices have much further to fall across the board. When Arti just called this discussion irrelevant I started thinking about how it will impact west side prices and it would seem to me that increased energy cost will only further push the value differential between Santa Monica/west side (and their wealth of jobs and lifestyle offerings) and part further out. So, you get hit with higher fuel costs and higher costs of borrowing and you may even see declining values being curbed by people loving in from the suburbs??? Or maybe not, but it seemed like yet another possible force pushing the market one way or another. Seems relevant, Arti.
"moving," not "loving"
I liked "loving" more.
i agree that high energy prices push more people in from the distant suburbs to santa monica
think about it - right now, today, if you are a dual income couple with one kid, you can either spend a million bucks on a
very big very nice mansion in the valley and have a long commute to your job in the santa monica or you can buy a townhouse in the 90403 for the same million bucks.
two years ago you would have chosen the big big house in the valley but now with high energy prices you prefer the townhouse in sm
benefit of the townhouse in sm is super super low commuting costs, and a short commute
therefore the high energy prices will INCREASE the gap between distant suburbs and santa monica
perhaps the distant suburbs will fall far and santa monica will fall less
one thing is sure you can bet there are thousands of people in the valley right now hoping they can buy in sm to be near their jobs in the water garden and other sm developments
Don't bet that high energy costs will benefit the Westside or Santa Monica since a Honda Civic or Fit gets between 30-40 mpg. A commute from the valley or even Santa Clarita will still cost you less than $400/mo in gasoline costs.
The differences in home prices between the suburbs and Santa Monica are in the six figure range and are not even close to offsetting the commuting costs.
The energy situation will absolutely negatively affect the overvalued real estate on the Westside since all of this value has been based on speculation and easy credit.
With the money supply gone and the speculators out of the picture, there is only one way for Westside prices to go and that's down.
true, but it will drive rents up by $400+ much more quickly, and that will affect the calculations for thousands of people.
Geez, I bet you think that food comes from bucolic farms.
er, no i don't actually.
funny post though.
keep taking the pills
Why oh why won't this incessant and incredibly boring digression on gas prices stop. Look, no one who's buying a house in Santa Monica gives a damn if gas is $4 or $5, are all these posters from Alhambra or something? Maybe we need a new blogger post to give us something more interesting to chew on, like when will the 90402 finally start showing some cuts.
No one who's buying a house gives a damn about gas prices? It's early, but that's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Did you say it to antagonize or are you just that limited in your understanding of the people in Santa Monica.
Let's step back from the rancor here.
The people that buy on La Mesa for $7 million
The people that buy on Georgina for $4 million -
THOSE people don't care about gas prices
Outside of those two streets, most of SM is UNDER four million per house and people that pay under four million a house are more concerned with gas prices
we have a bifurcated market - two separate crowds here
Let's step back from the rancor here.
The people that buy on La Mesa for $7 million
The people that buy on Georgina for $4 million -
THOSE people don't care about gas prices
Outside of those two streets, most of SM is UNDER four million per house and people that pay under four million a house are more concerned with gas prices
we have a bifurcated market - two separate crowds here
Oh, and all of the Prius driving, eco-biking, tree hugging, enviro-hippies don't care much either.
Neither do the homeless.
And (based upon comments on this blog), the city is pretty much full of them, the homeless, and the gazillionaires... so yup.
Nobody who lives in Santa Monica cares much about gas prices.
Oh, it's the bifurcated market guy again...what's your argument, that uber-wealthy don't care about valuations and the overall economy?
Only in that they're making a killing in their petro-stocks.
I drove past 701 20th St., a house in 90402 discussed previously here I think, and it looks like the buyer is going to remodel or tear down because the irrigation is turned off and the house is going downhill pretty fast in terms of appearance. Closed at $2.5m. Is this the new lot value for an 8940 sq ft lot on a nice street?
i think that is a little high
lot value for the 7500 sq foot lots is now 1.9 and for 8900 it is around 2.2 million
but there are so few transactions that it is hard to get an exact fix
but yes i would say 2.2 is the value of the lot you are talking about
Do you think the buyers of 701 20th just overpaid, or is there a $300,000 premium for a corner lot?
corner lots are worth about a 300 thousand premium -
I hate to say it, but I kind of a agree that serious Westside homebuyers shouldn't care too much about gas prices. Since the minimum buy-in for a really crappy condo is around $500k, you have to figure any serious prospective buyer on here has a decent income.
Granted, I'm sure we'd all rather pay $25 than $100 to fill up our gas tanks... but I hope no one on here is in serious jeopardy of missing rent or mortgage payments or going hungry because of $5 gas.
The issue is still interesting, but I don't see it having a huge impact on real estate prices around here. Lancaster, Victorville, even the Valley... that's another story. And maybe a few young yuppies will start to think downtown is looking better than the beach cities or the hills for that new condo. But it would be hard to convince me we're talking more than a 1% change in Westside RE prices due to the cost of oil...
Right you are
The unspoken truth is that high gas prices are a huge boon and benefit to the affluent folks who live in 90402
the 405 is **much** less crowded now that gas has hit $5 a gallon
as gas goes higher and higher the highways get less crowded and it is easier to drive up to Santa Barbara or down to Laguna for a weekend trip
also it is easier to pop downtown for a meeting
the honest truth is that more of the la working class is taking the bus and that eases traffic
Right -
Los Angeles freeway system will return to what it was in the 1950's - wide open spaces and fast travel
LA is about to get a hell of a lot more livable and pleasant
and the air is about to get much cleaner
what's wrong with that
Don't forget the beaches will be less crowded since people that live far from beaches won't be able to afford the gas to get to them
so perhaps we will have fewer crowds on our beaches ?
>>>"the one anonymous is full of crap, but the other anonymous is spot on.
July 1, 2008 3:13 PM"<<<
Well isn't that interesting. I wrote both posts and on the one hand I'm "full of crap" and on the other hand I'm "spot on."
It just shows how stupid anonymous 3:13PM is.
Now the REAL soul of affluent Westside residents is revealed--the high cost of gasoline will decrease the beach crowds since the po folks from Paramount won't be able to afford the trip.
And the San Diego Freeway (you really aren't a native Westside resident if you call it the "405") will also have less traffic because, again, the common folk won't be driving around since they can't afford to fill their tanks.
Who ever said that people living in Santa Monica were progressive and tolerant.
They are really the biggest bigots, racists and hypocrits on the planet.
Tell me, what do you think of colored folks visiting the pier?
"(you really aren't a native Westside resident if you call it the "405")"
Really? I attended Frankin, Lincoln, samo, and UCLA, and I've never called it the San Diego Freeway. Where did you get that idea?
"They are really the biggest bigots, racists and hypocrits on the planet."
Please stop race baiting. Lots of people complained about this when you were beating the dead horse of "busses and gangs."
And your claim to have written the two anonymous posts is silly... there were eight or ten that he could have been referring to (hence the humor), and I wrote at least two of them.
Folks, the issue on gas prices for us Santa Monica residents has more to do with it's overall impact on the economy. Paying double for gas doesn't move the needle for me as I fill up every two weeks, but it taxes my industry and ultimately leads to slower growth for my business. Quit thinking about it as just what comes out of your account when you swipe your card at the pump. It hurts the broader economy and that's why people in Santa Monica care. When you are a developer, for instance, and you have your eye on a $3MM house, but the petroleum-based construction materials on your new Hi-Q warehouse in Industry caused your costs to increase by 30%, then it hits you, hard. That's what I'm talking about. That's why it's relevant.
Oh, and don't think that high gas prices are going to clear up traffic in Santa Monica. It's going to exponentially increase the pressure by outside forces to further increase the density of the city. IF that doesn't work, you can bet that once you hit Palms, Venice, Brentwood, Palisades, and Mar Vista you'll see a whole lot more mid-rise development. Santa Monica will be under pressure from the county and state to open itself up to a modern, urban development program and it will likely succumb because it needs the fees anyway. Look at how easy it was for the FAA to keep the runways open for speedy jet traffic. The same pressures will be on the city if the energy prices stay high for years to come.
i respectfully disagree
high gas prices are a god send for those of us that want a high quality of life here in LA
less traffic, less stress, less polution
true, everyone in la will be a little poorer but so what - what do we need all those material things for -
let's all just slow down a little and enjoy what we have
Good points, wooster... I wasn't thinking about the overall economic impact. Gas prices don't have a big effect on lawyers, but obviously they're hurting a lot of other industries... GM, FedEx, and even Pepsi have been hurt to some degree.
I do think that the high prices may ultimately improve quality of life down the line, particularly if this eventually leads to a new infrastructure boom, and more trains and other mass transit tools are built in LA and elsewhere. By the same token, I'm not holding my breath... Congress can't even manage to extend the tax credits for alternative energy, despite overwhelming bipartisan support, so I have only minimal hope in any kind of infrastructure bill ever going anywhere.
Anon 10:50pm.
I don't why acknowledging that I am appreciating the positive side effects (namely less traffic) to high gas prices would make me intolerant.
10:50pm -
hate to get too much into the details, but in your odd rant you mentioned that folks from Paramount might not be able to afford to come to the beach here in Santa Monica. I would say that over 90% of Paramount residents choose a beach in either north OC or the Southbay. What we are worried about is the residents from Latino-Byzantine Corridor and all the "park" neighborhoods (Glassell, Highland, Cypress, etc).
Actually, most people I know who live around here don't go to the beach in Santa Monica, so we don't really care. I prefer to visit my friends down in the Southbay or Paradise Cove.
if i might make an observation from the way things are in the UK, (gas $10 a gallon)
people do not really drive less, (i know, i know, it's only a small place, and you fall off ther edge after a while), they just prioritize more.
we may, for instance spend less on clothes, eating out, or vacations. (you know we spend less on dental).
in general, only the well off can afford to run a 9mpg car. big thirsty cars remain a status symbol worth paying extra for as they show off your position to your peers.
i think the same can be said for the cost of housing, you might pay a lot extra for SanMo, but could save a small fortune in private school fees. maybe don't buy a boat/jetski/harley/RV/cessna/horse/$4000 an night hooker, just yet. but the flashy house/car stays.
regards
dunc
"Well isn't that interesting. I wrote both posts and on the one hand I'm "full of crap" and on the other hand I'm "spot on."
It just shows how stupid anonymous 3:13PM is."
I think you just proved who the stupid one is.
"I think you just proved who the stupid one is."
I'm sick and tired of this. All anonymous posters are stupid.
___
Anonymous said...
Santa Monica has gone through a paradigm shift.
If you talk to the older generation, the people that moved to Santa Monica in the 1940's, they remember a 90402 where any unionized factory worker could afford to move. They were shocked when the unionized factory workers were priced out of the 90402
Now, you can talk to people who remember 90402 from ten years ago when the average doctor or lawyer or CPA could afford it -
there is a paradigm shift that many people on this board haven't yet accepted
_______
i agree that the paradigm has shifted
doctors and lawyers and cpas should stop complaining that they can't afford 90402 - just throw in the towel and make way for the next generation
Please please please post westside bubble. Someone needs to stop all the ranting.
i saw this on another blog
___
one of the reasons 90402 is priced at a premium is that the community has one standard there and one standard elsewhere -
just let a homeless person or gangbanger hang out in the 90402 - he gets chased away
the same homeless person and or gangbanger hanging out in rest of santa monica gets a warm welcome
bottom line - it just isn't fair - someone is helping 90402 out
i guess if someone buys a house in 90402 for five million they pay fifty thousand bucks in property taxes in their first year as an owner so perhaps the city feels they deserve better protection than the rest of us
_
can someone explain to me why the police enforce one standard in 90402 and another standard in the rest of SM? it seems like all the smelly deranged vagrants congregate in my neighborhood and the cops don't do anything about it - but just let them go to montana avenue and the cops are all over them
can someone explain to me why the police enforce one standard in 90402 and another standard in the rest of SM? it seems like all the smelly deranged vagrants congregate in my neighborhood and the cops don't do anything about it - but just let them go to montana avenue and the cops are all over them
I have a number of acquaintances on the Santa Monica police force who vociferously refute any claim that this takes place.
They are very clear that they respond to calls about vagrancy and loitering with precisely the same intensity regardless of where they come from. There are a number of factors:
1) 90402 has virstually no "public spaces" legal for loitering (ie. parks, businesses, et al).
2) Calls come in quickly and in great numbers from 90402 when vagrancy is concerned. The simple fact that a vagrant walking down a public thoroughfare in 90405 gets one call is insufficient. More like 50 calls come in in a ten minute period from 90402 (one of my cohorts theorizes that this has two points of connection to affluence: first, "Come save our valuable stuff," and second, "I'm home all day being wealthy and retired, and I've noticed something out of the ordinary." Whereas in other parts of the city folks are at work and fewer of them feel inclined to call the police. And,
3) The homeless actually self-police. This is a major factor. Imagine, you're a vagrant, you want to draw some income and shelter from the community at large... you'd be much more inclined to congrigate in mixed use areas with large conglomirations or tourists... not the 90402, which is pretty much a wasteland when it comes to begging, or sleeping opportunities.
So, the moral of this story, is, if you have a concern about the homeless, call the police. If they aren't in a park, or public right of way, and if enough calls come in, the police will sweep in regardless of where it happens. If enough people did that then there might be a chnage in the self-policing factor...
In the mean time, the squeaky wheel is the 90402.
thank you for the update on this
this makes a lot of sense
if i hear you correctly - the people in the 90402 are vigilant enough to call cops quickly and in my neighborhood we aren't vigilant enough so that is why cops dont come
i hope we can turn this around soon
"doctors and lawyers and cpas should stop complaining that they can't afford 90402 - just throw in the towel and make way for the next generation"
I'd love for you to give some actual examples of exactly who has bought NOM over the last few years, but alas I know you're merely talking out of your you know what.
private equity
"if i hear you correctly - the people in the 90402 are vigilant enough to call cops quickly and in my neighborhood we aren't vigilant enough so that is why cops dont come "
This depends on the neighborhood.
If you're adjacent to any of the parks in the city, you're out of luck. Anybody who likes has a legally assured right to use those parks during posted hours.
Public parking lots are the same. Nobody can legally turn you away from a lot during business hours, unless you are creating some sort of nuisance.
Public rights of way are also protected if you are in transit. As are shopping districts like Main Street and the Promenade.
So... if you live away from, parks, parking lots, shopping districts, and major thoroughfares, and if the vagrant in question is not in transit, or causing a public nuisance you've got a legal leg to stand on.
Otherwise the police are going to tell you all of the above.
By my reckoning, there aren't many neighborhoods that fulfil the above requisites with the exception of 90402. If yours does, you may be in luck. Mine sure doesn't (we have a park, two parking lots, and a major roadway quite nearby).
In the grand scheme of things, its important to remind yourself... anything that you don't own is not your property, and other people do have a right to use it!
i wish i had know that before buying
the vagrants are very threatening towards my two toddlers
and i am scared since one of the vagrants in my area was just revealed to be a murder suspect - this is someone who hung around near the toddlers in the park
so forgive me for being scared
I just don't understand why the residents south of Montana are so welcoming to these homeless, are they mostly renters or something? Santa Monica has become the butt of jokes, there is even an entire episode of South Park devoted to it, where Cartman saves his town and rids it of a tidal wave of homeless vagrants by enticing them to Santa Monica . . . Enough is enough, we have right too and we need to start a movement to get them out.
I am a parent of a toddler. I am an owner living in an urban area of santa monica. there is the guy with the bike who always sleeps under the neighboring business. even tonight on the 4th. there is the neighborhood's disturbed woman who has had a tough life. and there are all the less fortunate who go through the garbage cans looking to make a few bucks, i guess. in the 10 years i have known santa monica, there have been homeless people making santa monica their home. i find the recent poster's dismay of waking up in her one million dollar plus home with the realization there are homeless people in her neighborhood a bit ... silly. when i go buy something for about a million bucks, I open my eyes and see what's around. yeah, there are homeless people, especially near the public areas through santa monica. the public areas being the very thing that make santa monica, santa monica. miss poster, move to calabasas. yeah, i am angry at the SELFISH attitudes of so many posting.
move in, claim safety concerns, & kick out folks who have suffered a lot more than you. that doesn't sit right with me. if it's problem, don't move in. if, you didn't do the million bucks due-dilligence, well, trade for a place that's clean. santa monica is the safest 'feeling' place i have ever lived. even when i lived in the heart of downtown. i did feel very safe in manhattan. & when i last looked, the stats showed it was sufficiently safe. if i were homeless, i've learned that this seems like a nice place to be. sure, i do not want to bring harm to my son. but, i'm not going to go about & push to bush it up -- try to eradicate all 'evil' to serve my personal needs. (And, yeah, my rant was unnecessary. hurtful to the poster. maybe, i'm feeling the deep emotions of reading these posts on the 4th.)
while here, i'll say ...
i like the cogent arguments made here. this is why i come back. i guess i like the ridiculous perspectives as well. my wife reads her smut magazines. i've got my trusty west-side-bubbler. by the way, i respect the blogmaster here. while the perspective is obvious -- the posts do retain a sense of objectivity. & therefore high usefulness. well done! exactly what a blog should be. a niche source of infotainment.
while i have entertained so many of the 'selfish' thoughts in my head -- i would never assert them, permanently, into the blogosphere -- before doing a reality check -- what's good for all is good for me is good for all.
oh, & to the 'drill in samo bay' man. then what? after that's been tapped? i'd rather save that 'till there's a cataclysmic reason to tap it. a 'save-earth, save-humanity' reason. and sure, i realize if we don't tap it, it'll be tapped with a long straw on the other side of the pacific. so be it. we've had ours. let others drink. let's push & support the innovators to find a new way.
i drive my gas car. i pay my taxes. i am guilty. i know this. i ate a hot dog today, breaking 30 days of my 1st attempt at pescatarian blah blah. it was tasty.
i don't even truly know why it is wrong to tap the ocean side. it just feels wrong.
--
& while i do my 1st & cowardly anon post -- to the young fella' who has come up with the west-side-bubble remix blob. i respect your detail-orientation. & when i was 'in the market' for a trade-up, i enjoyed seeing the details. however, there's a 'youthful innocence' that clouds your thinking. you're not thinking about the entire picture. you're too stuck by your foregone conclusion. but too young to have one. now, i'm not 35 yet. i figure you're in your young 20's. anyway, i respect the work you do. i figured i'd share this as constructive criticism. and, now, i'll get back to being a greatly appreciative westside-bubble bystander. (lurker's got such a ick connotation.)
: )
i apologize for 'hurt feelings'. i had my fill, & being the 4th, i figure we have to be a bit more neighborly, while things are still so good. how dare i be rejoice in the empty roads. someone is getting squeezed. i don't deserve it. i actually don't.
"Enough is enough, we have right too and we need to start a movement to get them out."
No. You don't. Constitutionally, you don't have a leg to stand on. Read the post above about limitations to your rights as a homeowner.
If you don't own it, you don't own it. And you don't own the streets.
There are other cities with fewer vagrants don't rely on the police to rid them of them. They just don't have the same infrastructure that Santa Monica has. There are just areas that attract vagrants (I always find it ironic that vagrants and tourists are attracted by the same things... large public spaces, quality sanitation, public restrooms, bucolic parkland, street entertainers, and so forth).
You chose to live in one of those areas. Bad choice if vagrancy worries you. You could have moved to Stanton.
That's great, we were wondering why there are so many vagrants and homeless in Santa Monica, and now we have it. Yuppie guilt. They consume exactly what the rest of us do and have profited from the same society, but they feel guilt and alleviate it by feeling like they are better than the rest of us, just because they repress their revulsion at the horrbible-smelling, invective-yelling homeless that live among us. You say Manhattan was worse? Great, go back there.
I don't feel it's that selfish to pay $1.7 mil for a tiny two bedroom in Ocean Park and be annoyed that I have to wake up to a homeless man going #2 right in my front yard. Just so you can tell yourself you're a good person.
There is a whole school of scientific research that studies the phenom of "competitive altruism"
this phenom explains the self destructive behaviour of our neighbors in SM that invite vagrants and criminals in to our midst.
These neighbors have a sense of self worth that depends on inflicting suffering on themselves - their most freverent hope is for the opportunity to demonstrate moral superiority
just go to wikipedia and look up competitive altruism - or google it
"That's great, we were wondering why there are so many vagrants and homeless in Santa Monica, and now we have it. Yuppie guilt."
What an amazingly stupid remark. I don't see a single post in the above thread that would lead me to conclude that yuppie guilt or competetive altruism has anything to do with it.
Santa Monica is a convenient beach city with good public services and amenities (parks, toilets, churches, et al), and it draws a good share of homeless folks.
What is your point exactly? That the police should round them up and drop them in another city? That would not only be illegal, unconstitutional, but it would be a total waste of police resources.
I'd prefer to have the cops fighing crime. Not hounding some homeless guy of the streets and into another city.
What a joke.
with all due respect,
manhattan beach has exactly the same amenities that santa monica has - plenty of free showers and toilets and tourists
ever go down there? not a single vagrant.
The truth is that the vagrants are in santa monica because they are invited and welcomed to santa monica
"competitive altruism" leads the powers that be to invite the vagrants to SM while MB simply fails to invite them and thus has few
to tie this back into this blog's subject:
santa monica is where the US hits the pacific ocean. the southern variety. the 10. be anywhere in the US. aim for the sunny beach on the west coast & you'll hit santa monica first. it's a funnel. lots of people from homeless to $2000+/sf homes in the '02. it's basically the same thing that makes it inviting to both groups & all in between. artificially 'remove' one & it will become soulless, less vibrant. less real. as i said in my long meandering post, i've been here 10 years. married. now with a toddler. the homeless have been here longer than i have. if i had a problem with them, i would not live here. i would not expect i was almighty to stake a claim here & then inspire others to drive them out. if i had a problem with them, i would not live here. i figured others would do similarly.
by the way, santa monica is the most vagrant-dense population i have ever lived in. it also is the safest place i have ever lived in. based on my personal experience, the large vagrant population does not correlate with frequency of crime incidents.
And, if I felt that it did, so much so, that it would be a factor in purchasing a home, I would reconsider purchasing a home here.
My argument is against the silliness of the poster who is fortunate enough to own a sunset park house (about a $1M or more), & then, wakes up & realizes there are lots of vagrants. Uh, pico, uh, ocean park, uh, the 10, uh, north of pico. uh, the 10. uh, parks. uh, liquor stores. parks. parks. And, then suggests they be removed. Claiming it's not fair, because they are not in the '02.
My suggestion would be go to mar vista, or rancho park. Close to Sa Mo, less vagrants. I don't know about crime rates, but, i do not believe crime incidents would be reduced there.
I appreciate the works of the cops. From my experience & from what I read in the paper -- they do a great job.
Also, I was ready to purchase an infamous house on 2nd street, near Ashland. The vagrant population wasn't my issue. It was the perennial drunken college students shouting at 2 AM. I did my homework. I wasn't going to pay over a mil & have to deal with that. And if I did, I would not expect to try to go remove 'em. I'd put up with it, or move.
My point is that I did my homework. And I'm aware enough to have a sense of what I can change & cannot.
Mr. $1.7M, 2-BR ocean park condo: What were you thinking? If you paid around that, you bought way after main st is what it is. Did you think you'd pay that, & then go form a posse & round up those you didn't want around you. That Santa Monica would change for you?
Sounds like the same type of 'control' thinking that got us in our current world mess.
"The truth is that the vagrants are in santa monica because they are invited and welcomed to santa monica "
No. This is an absolutely stupid remark, and utterly unsupportable by any evidence.
"manhattan beach has exactly the same amenities that santa monica has - plenty of free showers and toilets and tourists"
Not to be condescending, but this is one of the most absurd things I've read on this blog.
Lets make a list of things that Santa Monica has (homeless friendly) that Manhattan Beach lacks:
Close access to the Veterans Center
Close access to the Goodwill employment center
Three times as many churches
Close one bus access to downtown Los Angeles (skid row)
Close one bus access to Venice Beach
Two major freeways that pass close to town
Two public shopping areas that are unregulateable outdoor public spaces
Parks that have well maintained restrooms that open at 6:00am and close at 9:00pm (longer hours)
A police force that doesn't dump the homeless out at the city limits (breaking the law)
If I were a homeless person, I certainly know where I'd find myself. I'd settle in the center our southern costal parts of Santa Monica. No question at all.
why would someone so blog-aggressively opposed to vagrants pay $1.7M to live in ocean park? It's just north of the strand in Venice. It's next to main street. It's next to the Ashland open space on the beach. It's in ... ocean park. I do not get it. Ocean Park is what it is because it is real. It is not the OC disneyland, or the gated Calabasas. If it's too city, it's too city.
I do not *do* good. I am self-centered. I try to not do harm, to a reasonable degree. I am not better than the guy who lives in santa monica & is opposed to homeless. I am not better than the homeless guy who lives in santa monica & pees next to the guy who's peeved by it.
I was fed up with the anti-homeless tone that arose from Sir Westside-bubble, otherwise-typical monthly inventory update. On the 4th of July. A day that was making me feel strangely ambivalent. I appreciate this country entirely. I wish it would try a little better at aiming to do less harm.
I am surprised by the extreme differences of opinion.
I think of the world & it's components in a much more inter-related way. Integrated. Not because of 'competitive altruism', becuase I am not *doing* anything, nor showing it to anybody. I studied biology. I realized we are all connected. In temple, I learned the value of being good, for it's sake & nothing else. It seems like a good idea. I am selfish. I am judgemental. I am crabby. I am obsessive. Compulsive. I just couldn't stand back & hear such gross hoarding, petulant whining. We are all here, reading this blog to get a sense of timing, to upgrade, here or nearby.
I imagine this ping-pong will & should end shortly, with the next customary & informative post & comments.
I do find this thread philosophically interesting. Because on one hand it is a digression. And on the other, it is related. The '02's relative to the non-02's, relative to the homeless. We are all in the same river. Different boats, sure. We're coming from the same place, going to the same place. One must think of themselves to move along. No need to be hostile to another. No need.
And to get so angry at me for coming to the hypothetical defense of the blog-defenseless. I do not do a thing. I am neither the cause nor the solution. If i share a sentiment with authorities that have something to do with why there are more homeless people. whatever. that's probably why i'm sad to leave.
there are many, many, many more things that make our lives more difficult than the homeless in santa monica. i hope the best for them. i hope that there are people that are involved in helping them.
anyway, enjoy.
& my apologies for not editing my meandering rants. at best, i've turned away further growth of this thread. but, yeah, i am saying, 'bring it'. cowardly, behind my anonymous blog. thinking, can the gov't find me & do me harm.
anyway.
homeless. we're all avid readers of this blog, because in some way we feel a bit homeless. wishing to be in homes & neighborhoods similar to those we grew up in. & we are all a bit, 'cuckoo', wishing it will somehow happen. knowing, if it were to happen-- it ain't gonna be pretty.
new blog name:
westside-homeless. resist it. embrace it. it is. enjoy the condo. enjoy the home under the airport, next to the market. the liquour store. the park people. the through-way. in many, many ways, i'd rather be in the thick of things, south of the '02. like the 'city' shack. & yeah, i'd take that '02 fantasy. not for me.
enjoy yourself.
keep the blog name as is. ; )
great blog. thanks for my 15 minutes on the soapbox. chau!
Thank you for your comments.
there is a lot of truth to what you say
i see a lot of smugness among the people that advocate for more homeless in santa monica
these people feel morally superior to people in towns that do not have so many homeless
it is this sense of moral superiority that drives them to bring more and more homeless to santa monica
i had a conversation with one of them right after a homeless man murdered someone by the pier - i expected the murder to change their perspective - but it didn't it simply made them feel even better about themselves -
the more murders committed by the homeless, the more of a risk they were taking on in bringing homeless to santa monica and the more dramatic and extreme their morality was
it is a competition and they think the more homeless people they bring to santa monica the more moral they are
i see a lot of smugness among the people that advocate for more homeless in santa monica
these people feel morally superior to people in towns that do not have so many homeless
it is this sense of moral superiority that drives them to bring more and more homeless to santa monica
I think I can speak for almost everybody in saying, we're waiting to see ANY evidence that ANYBODY has this attitude...
Seriously.
You're just making this stuff up to rationalize your increasingly bizzare conviction that the reason the homeless come to Santa Monica is that they are somehow "brought" here by the residents.
The homeless are here because this is an ideal place for them to be (from their perspective). Nobody "brings" them, and legally (as citizens protected by the Bill of Rights), they can stay as long as they don't break the law.
Any claim to the contrary is utterly without evidence, and just plain silly. If you have some sort of documentary evidence that locals are going out and shuttling homeless into the city LET US SEE IT!
I think the dumping out of the I-10 into Santa Monica is probably the best rationale for the homeless in Santa Monica. Of course, it takes a city that is slightly more tolerant and progressive, but having a nationwide highway dump onto you front porch does most of the work. Go West!
re: homeless
I've been a SM resident for 30 yrs, and have lived in just about every corner in the city as a renter/homeowner. The homeless situation was worse 20 years ago, when the SMRR mindset ruled the city council, city hall, city attorney's office, etc. SFR and apartment owners were simply at the bottom of the pecking order, and the homeless were given cover and protection. Fast forward to today, the rent-controlled mix is shrinking, and folks (renters and buyers) are paying good money to live in SM.
When the current city council cycles out in a few more elections, and SMRR's influence fades, it will be a different tolerance factor towards the homeless. It is just a long-term waiting game for the pendulum (some say sanity) to swing back.
"When the current city council cycles out in a few more elections, and SMRR's influence fades, it will be a different tolerance factor towards the homeless. It is just a long-term waiting game for the pendulum (some say sanity) to swing back."
I really hope you're right poster! Thanks for your perspective, it does make me feel much better to know that some of my neighbors have some sense out there, that they care about the neighborhood. The posts by those aging hippies and guilt-ridden competitive altruists is truly frightening, for them caring about the neighborhood is making sure that there is good access for the mentally ill vagrants and the homeless. Can't wait for these smug types to get the boot, maybe they should move to downtown so they can be close to skid row and feel "real".
I'm begining to question your literacy. Where do you see any indication above that there is a single person bringing homeless people into the city intentionally?
I've reread the thread three times, and I'm certain that you're the ONLY post who has been saying this.
As far as SMRR... I understand the point of view if you're arguing that attitudinally the city has changed, but in a more concrete sense, "homeless" people DON'T HAVE renters rights.
Re: Homeless
Agree no single person is bringing in homeless, but consider how SM has become the 'home of the homeless' (Harry Shearer)through the political landscape.
It is a fact the city council for the past 25 years has had either a simple or super majority of SMRR backed candidates. Take a (long) moment to read the SMRR platform at http://www.smrr.org/ to get an idea of the movement. For the full blast, attend their candidate selection meeting ('upcoming' tab)in August. Seriously, go and take a look at what drives SM politics.
not to be pedantic, but that website only mentions the homeless in the context of trying to eliminate homelessness.
it's not exactly an outreach program.
Why do we all have to be hostage to a minority that wants to welcome the homeless to Santa Monica just because they are really loud (like the repeat poster on this blog) and they try to use guilt to silence opposition? We have rights too.
I have the right to sleep in peace and not hear a homeless man rummaging in my neighbor's big trash bin at 2am in the morning as happened LAST NIGHT. I have the right to walk down the street with my wife and not have some old mentally ill crone call my wife, out of nowhere, a "fat b___" (that one had tourette syndrome). Even in neighboring Westwood, you can't go to the coffee bean on Gayley on Sunday morning without an incredibly foul-smelling homeless man with obvious defacation stains all over his pants and flies all over him walk in and sit next to you. As if that were not enough, the student staff of the coffee shop don't have the nerve to do anything at all about it, and instead give him free coffee (to make sure he comes back), and then he proceeds to butt into our own private conversation. Enough is enough. Enough of the homeless infestation, and enough of these loud aging hippies telling us to fall in line and do nothing about it.
I'm with the other folks who aren't really seeing this mystery poster who is encouraging homeless people to come to Santa Monica...
I see the posts from the guy who says they're not a big deal and you should get used to them, but I don't see anybody saying, "Yay! Bring them in!"
I honestly think it's the Veterans' Center that brings most of them. Talk to them, you'll be shocked at how many of them served in the US Military and are on this side of town because psychiatric support is available in Westwood.
I'm with the other folks who aren't really seeing this mystery poster who is encouraging homeless people to come to Santa Monica...
I see the posts from the guy who says they're not a big deal and you should get used to them, but I don't see anybody saying, "Yay! Bring them in!"
I honestly think it's the Veterans' Center that brings most of them. Talk to them, you'll be shocked at how many of them served in the US Military and are on this side of town because psychiatric support is available in Westwood.
I say "yay, bring them in." Maybe I'll run into my father at some point.
I think we need a new thread (or blog) on the upcoming fall election. There is a lot at stake this November - 4 out of 7 council seats, SMRift's proposal, etc. and a lot of development issues. Hot topics that will affect neighborhoods is the new SM Place (may jump-start 'downtown living), Village Green (across from City Hall), the rail project, and the corridor development issues (Broadway, Olympic, etc.). The city council will more-or-less decide most of these issues.
Ironically, if SM chokes off development, then the law of supply and demand will keep prices high on limited residential and commercial stock, and if SM chooses to agressively develop then prices will rise due to desirable density (the oft-mentioned Manhattanization factor).
Seems like SM owners win either way.
For those of you concerned about panhandlers, fear not; we are now in the Summer 2008 'leverage relationships' phase according to this presentation from the City of SM. You (the public) will be educated in the Fall.
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080513/s2008051303-A.ppt
BTW, the panhandling study cost $100k per the link below; SM plans to spend $337k (which could hire 2 more police offices, all-in) to advertise a 'say no' to panhandling campaign. What a joke.
http://www01.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2008/20080708/s2008070801-D.htm
Hey - Did anyone notice that Westside inventory is UP 33% from a year ago ?
The "say no" campaign is right, those who give are worse than those douches that throw food to a pigeon, all you're going to do is attract a hundred more to the area. We need more cops in Santa Monica that are focused on containing the population of mentally ill homeless roaming among us (and I don't mean the aging hippies).
What exactly are the cops supposed to charge the mentally ill homeless with? Being mentally ill and homeless?
We still live in a society with laws and rules and a Constitution. As far as I know, you can't make it a crime to be without a home.
I don't like homeless people since it's not good for anyone--the homeless, our society, public places, etc etc. Some people here sound like they are one step away from sending these folks off to concentration camps.
This is America and we can't do that. The mentally ill homeless situation really took off decades ago when well intentioned people got the mentally ill released from the state mental hospitals which used to "warehouse" these unfortunate people.
Community mental health centers were supposed to keep these mentally ill people well enough and managed so that they could live on the outside. Well, that system fell apart and zoom fowards 30 years and you have the situation we have today.
I've never seem so much NIMBY behavior as I've seen on this board specifically when it comes to Santa Monica. A prevailing attitude is all you want is the homeless and mentally ill to go to SOME OTHER city--you could care less about the homeless or actually solving the problem.
Gasoline? Of course I want gasoline for my BMW. As long as that gasoline is refined somewhere else.
As long as the crude oil comes from somewhere else.
As long as the homeless people live somewhere else.
I thought that the people of the Westside had an ounce of humanity. Oh, I forgot, as long as that humanity is applied somewhere else!
That previous post was the most sane and reasonable that I have read in the comment section of this blog posting. Thank you very much.
It's a sign of intellectual laziness to try and wish that all those problems in our society would just go away. Or at least stay on the East Side of LA.
I would express my horror at the thought that I might have neighbors that put mentally ill homeless people ahead of their neighbors' interests (to say nothing of our kids), just to satisfy their repressed need to feel like they're good people, but I will refrain. Rent control will drive these hippies out, as will price appreciation. Time is on our side friends, eventually they will leave Santa Monica for another place, like Silver Lake, and hopefully they'll take their homeless with them.
---"I would express my horror at the thought that I might have neighbors that put mentally ill homeless people ahead of their neighbors' interests (to say nothing of our kids), just to satisfy their repressed need to feel like they're good people, but I will refrain."----
Thanks for not refraining and expressing your view that you just want the homeless sent somewhere else.
It's not a matter of putting this group ahead of that group. The homeless are overwhelmingly Americans with the same rights as the affluent home owning residents of Santa Monica. You can't just decide to eliminate them--what kind of attitude is that?
I hate to burst your bubble but we have some problems in LA-LA land and the homeless issue is one of the most insignificant one out there. Have you noticed that there are people out there who can't afford health insurance or even car insurance? And these people have jobs and are productive members of society?
Have you noticed that the gap between the have and have-nots is growing wider by the minute? And I'm not talking about $200,000,000/yr CEOs and us regular folks.
I'm talking about the "average" homeowner of the Westside and everyone else. How much money does a family or household have to make to afford a $500,000 or $850,000 mortgage?
Do you realize that not a long time ago a person working at a working class job could afford a house in West L.A.? I'm talking about a job with the Post Office or even being a Japanese American gardener.
I know because I grew up in a neighborhood that was filled with gardeners. Now the houses in that neighborhood all cost well over $500,000.
Households making >$100,000 comprise a small proportion of all American households or even L.A. households. Yet without that kind of income you can't buy a house in L.A. anymore.
So what justifies the exhorbitant wages that the new upper-middleclass rich give themselves?
Is an accountant or lawyer or investment advisor worth a considerable six-figure salary especially when only a few years ago, the ratio of these people's wages to the gardeners was MUCH smaller?
So, you are living in a world that will continue to push MORE people downward and onto the streets. The homeless situation will get MUCH worse in the future and the reaction from the new upper-middle class homeowners in places like Santa Monica will be to regard these people as lower than animals.
In fact homeless animals are given better treatment than homeless people in our society.
From the comments on this board it is evident to me that we are moving into a much darker world than where we came from.
The ACLU and liberals are more worried about the government tapping the phone calls between Osama bin Laden and his lackeys here in the states.
Not a word of protest is made when we treat a mentally ill homeless person worse than we treat a stray dog.
That is disturbing.
I've said this before, but there are alot of posters on this board who really shouldn't consider Santa Monica when shopping property. They seem to HATE everything about the city. There are other beach suburbs that are probably better suited for someone who feels the way these posters do.
"I've said this before, but there are alot of posters on this board who really shouldn't consider Santa Monica when shopping property. They seem to HATE everything about the city. There are other beach suburbs that are probably better suited for someone who feels the way these posters do."
I agree! The poster just above you, who's been ranting about the need to welcome the homeless in our neighborhood all over this page, is a perfect example. He betrayed himself with his last post: nothing at all about the best interest of Santa Monica and the people who live here, it's one long tirade against the rich (so making $280k/year supposedly makes me rich? It's not half of what most my old classmates are making--I can barely afford this area).
And now you see who it is that's supporting the homeless rights in SM. It's not about the homeless either, it's really all about their narcissistic need to feel like they're higher on the food chain, with the homeless there at least they feel like they're better than somebody. My advice to them: life isn't a food chain people. You don't need the homeless there endangering our kids and trashing our city to feel better about yourself vis a vis them and better than "the rich" because you're more "caring". It's all about you.
It's so sad, but that kind of attitude makes you glad those types are getting priced out . . . To side with psychotic vagrants over your neighbords . . . I have no more words.
From the comments on this board it is evident to me that we are moving into a much darker world than where we came from.
Huh?
What SM do you live in? SM is a special place of 90k residents, perched on the edge of the 8th largest metro in the world, with $1B in visitor dollars spent, 100's of thousands who come to work and visit the city everyday, and world-wide name recognition. The desirability of the neighborhoods has attracted smart, successful, and creative types from entertainment, legal, and other professions, as well as entrepreneurs.
SM is not a commune, social experiment, or nostalgic hangover from another era. The energy of the residents, old and new, is moving the city forward. The old politics (and property values, rent control, homeless tolerance, etc.)of 20 years ago do not apply today - the train has left the station and is picking up speed.
Take a deep breath - change is good, and for those who don't deal well with change, SM may not be the right place.
I agree! The poster just above you, who's been ranting about the need to welcome the homeless in our neighborhood all over this page, is a perfect example. He betrayed himself with his last post: nothing at all about the best interest of Santa Monica and the people who live here, it's one long tirade against the rich (so making $280k/year supposedly makes me rich? It's not half of what most my old classmates are making--I can barely afford this area).
I'm going to jump in and agree with the poster above who questioned your ability to read.
You twist every post in this thread, without a care for its content, into "evidence" for your position. Nobody AT ALL in this thread has advocated encouraging the homeless to come here. In fact there are some very interesting posts above that give reasons for their coming here.
Nobody is saying that you have to "welcome the homeless." All they are saying is that IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND ELIMINATE THEM.
So please shut up about it. Your position is creepy, stupid, and unconstitutional. You don't have to like the homeless, but you can't just legally eliminate them.
"so making $280k/year supposedly makes me rich?"
Well... yes. Many of us are rich. You've got to be to afford to live here. What's your point?
Being rich doesn't mean we want to violate people's constitutional rights, or waste police time on what, honestly, isn't generally criminal behavior.
"To side with psychotic vagrants over your neighbords . . . I have no more words."
Excellent, lets call it a day then.
You want to wipe out the homeless, and we think you're scary.
End of conversation.
---"SM is not a commune, social experiment, or nostalgic hangover from another era. The energy of the residents, old and new, is moving the city forward. The old politics (and property values, rent control, homeless tolerance, etc.)of 20 years ago do not apply today - the train has left the station and is picking up speed.
Take a deep breath - change is good, and for those who don't deal well with change, SM may not be the right place."----
What in the world are you talking about? You talk as if Santa Monica was its own sovereign nation which has the freedom to close its borders to undesirables.
You speak as if the citizens of Santa Monica have the right to dictate who can visit the Magic Kingdom.
Well, I have news for you. The very same qualities that make SM desirable for the affluent also make it attractive to the homeless.
The homeless situation will only grow worse in Santa Monica and none of you well-heeled jerks can stop the homeless from coming to this town.
Change does not necessarily bring good things as this latest housing bust has shown. When all is said and done, trillions of dollars will have evaporated and the effects of the meltdown have barely begun. Look at all of the large corporations laying off workers.
Look at the failing airline industry.
The RE prices in SM are absolutely unsustainable and never reflected the true value. Disagree with me but the meltdown has started and just like a glacier, it will be slow moving and unstoppable.
I can't believe how many of you believe that you DESERVE to live your lives in a community free of the homeless and other undesirable people.
We don't live in the old Soviet Union.
The true colors of the affluent residents of Santa Monica are showing here and they are remarkably ugly and unattractive.
I'd rather spend my time with a bunch of down-to-earth fly-over country people any day than any of you sorry excuses for human beings.
BTW, I'd hate to think WHAT you're teaching your kids. With values like yours you are going to create a bunch of monsters. Why would anybody want to send their kids to a school where the parents have the values of old fashion bigots and "ME FIRST" jerks?
"Mommy, Mommy, what's that dirty man doing over there?"
"He's just a bum--I'll call the police on him and they'll take him away. We don't associate with people like him."
"The homeless situation will only grow worse in Santa Monica and none of you well-heeled jerks can stop the homeless from coming to this town."
Keep talking, you're only hardening a lot of our views on who you are and your "vision" for the city. When we're done with value-destroying rent control laws and price you out of here, we will be able to turn to the lax attitude the city has towards enforcing the law when it comes to the psychotic vagrants. Believe it or not it's not legal to go #2 in public on someone lawn, or to shout obscenities at passersby, or make a filthy bedspread right at the entrance of a store. I have a feeling that once your kind leaves the homeless will follow right behind you.
Thanks again. I can't say how much I agree with the poster @2:56 pm and sole voice of reason on here, it seems. I would advice anyone who seems not to be able to deal with our society's ills, as they manifest themselves in urban life (homeless people, crime, ...) to move far far away from LA county. How about a gated community in Arizona, anyone?
"so making $280k/year supposedly makes me rich?"
Yes it does. It puts you in the top 15% in the US. You need to wake up to reality, my friend. That your classmates make more than that proves only one thing about you.
"Keep talking, you're only hardening a lot of our views on who you are and your "vision" for the city. When we're done with value-destroying rent control laws and price you out of here, we will be able to turn to the lax attitude the city has towards enforcing the law when it comes to the psychotic vagrants. Believe it or not it's not legal to go #2 in public on someone lawn, or to shout obscenities at passersby, or make a filthy bedspread right at the entrance of a store. I have a feeling that once your kind leaves the homeless will follow right behind you."
This creeps the hell out of me. What EXACTLY do you suggest? Round the psychos up and send them to concentration camps?
Okay, I'm not saying I don't see both sides of the argument here . . . but:
When we're done with value-destroying rent control laws and price you out of here,
You think prices are going to rise from here? It seems like you've stumbled into the wrong blog.
we will be able to turn to the lax attitude the city has towards enforcing the law when it comes to the psychotic vagrants.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there isn't actually a law against "psychotic vagrants."
Believe it or not it's not legal to go #2 in public on someone lawn,
True. Call the police. They do come for this. I did this just last month, and felt pretty good that the homeless fellow got to spend the night in a nice warm cell.
or to shout obscenities at passersby,
Actually that is legal. I'm positive. Even though I'm not a lawyer.
or make a filthy bedspread right at the entrance of a store.
This isn't legal, but generally, the way the law is enforced (in every city I've ever lived in [Los Angeles, New York, and London]) is that the business owner needs to be the one to call in the police . . .
This is just a matter of discouraging busy-bodies from calling the cops 600 times a day as they walk the streets spotting urban campers.
I have a feeling that once your kind leaves the homeless will follow right behind you.
Wow. You really are the most unpleasant person, aren't you?
I really hate sharing the streets with the homeless, but you're making me want to go out and volunteer my time at a mission.
Wow!
This is all great stuff (drum-roll please)for the November local election. Enough quotes in here to fill 100's of flyers!
Wealthy have no souls!
Homeless gone wild!
Development gone wild!
Real estate depression hits SM!
Buckle your belts... a long way to November...
The incumbents would love to run on that set of issues. They've made them their bread and butter, and won, for nearly thirty years.
the poster with the creepy comments keeps assuming he's talking to one poster. i am the 34 y/o dad & samo home-owner who responded to the july 4th call strongly suggesting to simply get 'rid' of vagrants, because one day that particular sunset park owner woke up in her/his home with kids & realized there were vagrants around. i have not written in a few days.
at the same time, so that i feel less troubled, i am assuming that there is one or two posters who are so passionately opposed to vagrants. neither are true. (seems like there are lots of folks on both sides.)
it deeply comforts me to have read some of the very lucid & rational responses to the anti-vagrant sentiments which come from a thought-process so radically different to mine. in fact, reading the thoughts of this 'anti-vagrant camp' greatly concerns me. i hope it's only a few folks. but, i have to accept it may be at least half of the folks, if not more.
the priorities seem odd. but, i do understand getting worked up about something seemingly inane to most. although this is irrelevant to this meta-topic, i'd rank passionate opposition to the 'ugliness' & 'inconvenience' of vagrants tremendously lower than opposition to the covert & obvious 'ugliness' & 'inconvenience' of matters that result in actual negative consequence to large groups of people. i accept that maintaining an anti-vagrant stance does not mean you are pro 'harmful' acts to u.s. & world citizens due to political & business policies. what's getting to me is having such an intimate exposure to a thought process that is so radically different to mine. which is definitely, what set off the poster to over-react to my thoughts. it's unsettling. for both groups, obviously.
i am politically inactive. i do not claim to be.
the main point i'd like to make here is that i'm not an aging hippie/yuppie, i'm a samo home owner, i'm a dad, & many of the people i know who are in a similar boat agree with me. i write this to counter the (in-my-opinion) 'grim' depiction of the tides turning towards what i consider to be 'inhumane' thought-process as the poster says it will.
the funny thing is, while i hope everything turns out decent -- like the poster who passionately opposes my thought, i too believe it ain't gonna fare well. and not really because of him, or people like him. mostly because there are more & more folks- & i guess, because i do nothing to better things. & if don't do anything to better things, i can't expect others to; or assume others will.
& i deeply enjoy the connection that this passionate discussion emerged from a run-of-the mill westside-bubble stats post. because this blog's theme & this thread's diversion are deeply interrelated. and we are all afraid. afraid that we are being left 'homeless' relative to our decades-old notion of home, due to the high-priced housing. and we know, it'll probably drop, eventually - a bit. to what extent is why we're here. and it's this that upset me. to be fortunate enough to have a home & simultaneously exert significant energy to get rid of those without. but, yeah, i accept that one feels, they've paid X million dollars & they work hard, & there simply should not be undesirables in their santa monica country club. there many, many nice places nearby for folks with vagrant-aversion. brentwood, palisades, rancho park, westwood, calabasas & the conejo valley. los angeles is a city. santa monica is the beach outlet of that city. santa monica is a vibrant, dynamic, pre-school beachtown version of manhattan, sort-of. i remember witnessing the nypd removing vagrants from madison square park.
anyway --
hugs to all. all. hand-holds to all. which, in person i would never do. i'm too socially-cold. comfort from what connects us & unifies all of us to all of us.
again, i do nothing. think of myself. i do appreciate this blog for momentarily awakening- at least for this moment on the internets- a part of me who wishes for harmonious interactions. i do know it is the dissonance that i find more enjoyable. strange the way that pull is.
(i regret my 'wimpish' anonymous id, but, kinda glad i did -- feel like i'd be egged; or knocked down like that er doc did to those 2 bikers on mandeville canyon. he pulled in front of a group of bikers & slammed on his brakes. they slammed into his windshield. ouch.)
"anyway --
hugs to all. all. hand-holds to all. which, in person i would never do. i'm too socially-cold. comfort from what connects us & unifies all of us to all of us.
again, i do nothing."
Sounds like hippie talk to me, all talk and zero solutions. Doing nothing is a choice, just as much as doing something. For too long the silent majority in Santa Monica has been cowed by the loud minority into shutting up about the homeless all over the streets, for too long we let that minority intimidate us with their ranting about "concentration camps" or more subtle political correctness jargon. Next they will call you Hitler for merely wishing that the police and our council do *something* about these psychotic vagrants. I say no more, not this dad. You will not shut me up--you will leave Santa Monica eventually, and we will fight to clean it up and keep it that way.
Next they will call you Hitler for merely wishing that the police and our council do *something* about these psychotic vagrants.
Okay. What's your plan? What will it cost? How will it address the problem? Where would you like them put exactly?
Other than, "Get rid of them!" we've heard nothing constructive in this thread.
"Okay. What's your plan? What will it cost? How will it address the problem? Where would you like them put exactly?
Other than, "Get rid of them!" we've heard nothing constructive in this thread."
The practical solution is to enforce current state and local code sections for agressive panhandling, public intoxication, indecent exposure, threats, etc.
The same kind of enforcement that would befall any of us if we were in another community. Yes, BH has panhandlers, but they do not block pedestrians, are not overly intoxicated, don't issue threats, etc. BH went through their ups and downs to arrive at their current enforcement and prosecution policies (some of you may remember the BH-directed free speech rulings and the 'walker' case). Try staggering around drunk and panhadling in BH, MB, or any other self-policed community and see what happens. Swift enforcement. LA went as far as to issue injuctions against a gang to keep known criminals out of certain neighborhoods. It's like setting up speeding enforcement on San Vicente, 24/7. At some point people will slow down, drive elsewhere, or get so many tickets they will lose their right to drive. All legal, no harrassment, no violation of civil rights, simply standard law enforcement.
How much will this cost? The SM budget allocates $66M for the local police, and $9M for the city attorney's office. The answer is we are already paying for it, but due to softness from the City Council and City Administration, SM taxpayers are not getting their money's worth. I certainly don't blame SMPD - they are a good bunch, diligently following their marching orders.
Bottom line: City Hall needs to take a leadership role, the City needs to enforce existing laws in a fair and consistent manner, and maybe then SM will no longer be an 'easy mark' for opportunistic drifters. At the very least, the homeless may become better behaved and actually blend into the fabric of the community, instead of tearing holes into it.
"agressive panhandling, public intoxication, indecent exposure, threats, etc"
problem is this only addresses the 10% or so who are breaking these laws. what do we do about the rest?
what about the mentally ill who clg the streets. is there a law we can use to get rid of all them?
Man you are blind--or not too bright.
You can't solve the homeless problem by arresting people or through the police force.
What do you intend to do, charge and convict vagrants and send them to the L.A. County Jail?
In case you haven't heard, the County Jail is overcrowded and they don't even have the space to incarcerate convicted criminals and so they release them early.
Now, how do you feel about the fact that drunk drivers, thieves and other REAL criminals serve virtually NO jail time?
If S.M. or any other city just started throwing people in jail, they would just end up being released with no time served and be right back on the street.
Which do you prefer? Jailing people convicted of real crimes or just warehousing vagrants.
I'm sure that if one of those repeat drunk driver offenders who served 27 minutes in County got drunk again and hit and killed your wife and daughter in a crosswalk, you'd probably say, "I'm glad that the spot for the drunk driver is being occupied by a homeless person right now."
I'll send a card rubbing it in to your wife's and daughter's funeral.
Or maybe we can bring back Oliver Twist style Work Houses!
" I'm sure that if one of those repeat drunk driver offenders who served 27 minutes in County got drunk again and hit and killed your wife and daughter in a crosswalk, you'd probably say, "I'm glad that the spot for the drunk driver is being occupied by a homeless person right now."
I'll send a card rubbing it in to your wife's and daughter's funeral."
Based on the above, it won't be a vagrant or drunk driver in jail - it may very well be you!
Please, go get help for your anger issues before you go postal or road rage on innocent people.
This is about life and death and crime and violence. It's life and death for the homeless and crime and violence for the inmates at the County Jail.
Wake up and look on the other side--the grass is dead.
Man, you people in S.M. live such sheltered lives.
A serious issue is not whether someone takes a dump on your lawn. A serious issue is whether a homeless person drops dead on the street or whether serious criminals get off scott free because the jails are full.
Both of these issue have a bearing on S.M. Using the jails for punishing the homeless is diverting an important resource because rich people can't stand the sight of really smelly and offensive street people.
There's one or two repeat posters here who have some serious wealth envy. Real estate is only part of why they're here, on a larger scale they are very angry at themselves and want to see other people fail. This is why they want the homeless to stay here at all cost, it makes them feel like at least someone's worse off than they are, and at the same time makes them feel superior to the wealthier people because they tell themseves they're more "moral" for siding with the rights of deranged vagrants over the rights of their neighbors to have a safe and clean city.
Save your breath fellow Santa Monicans, these people will leave the city soon enough as we get rid of rent control and start raising rents. They've picked their side and they're with the homeless.
The homeless topic is now closed, as if there's anything left unsaid.
Inventory is the largest and probably the most important asset of many distributors. More money is probably tied up in inventory than in buildings or equipment. And inventory is usually less "liquid" than accounts receivable.
------------
oliviaharis
california dui
Post a Comment