Comments by "B Bodziak" (@B_Bodziak) on "Were homeless people told to move to the Beverly Hills area? | Rush Hour" video.

  1. What bothers me the most, and it's certainly not limited to BH or even California, is many people have the mindset that if something is provided or given to someone else, in this case, specifically those who are homeless, that it somehow translates with something being taken away from them -- that they're going to miss out on getting something for themselves. It's as if giving a sandwich to a 6 yr old that is hungry is somehow unfair to their own 6 yr old who's never missed a meal. God forbid someone far less fortunate gets $20 worth of food and they don't get $20 worth of something. Can you imagine if ten homeless families were provided a 2 bedroom, 700sqft apartment for a year? Most of those with 2700-27,000 sqft homes would be pissed because they aren't also getting a 700sqft apt. I really believe that those with this attitude is what makes the SoCal homeless crisis unsolvable.
    3
  2. No. It's not "Haves" voting for Newsom.
    3
  3. I'm not sure we're hearing the whole story in these 2 minutes, but it's completely understandable that any and every one would prefer to "live"/stay in a safer area. I can't blame anyone who is homeless from wanting to do just that. Just like the property owners in the BH area are paying more for everything there, the people living there without property (or renting) are also paying more for their food and convenience/drugstore purchases. People willing to pay twice as much for a home or an apartment want the same safety as those paying twice as much for a sandwich and toothpaste. Until homelessness is actually addressed and workable, viable solutions that include real opportunities for these folks to attain some resemblance of a "normal" life, there's no reason for those with larger savings accounts to be exempt from the effects of southern California's extraordinarily high rate of homelessness. Those who are homeless want to live in safer BH than in South Central. We need to stop putting a few scattered bandaids on the situation and actually address the main causes of homelessness. Ronald Reagan's response to homelessness is definitely not the answer. In case any of you have forgotten, Reagan claimed addressing homelessness would be futile because homeless people want to be homeless because they enjoy sleeping outdoors. Yep. That's what he said. I think many people have this notion that if help is provided for those less fortunate, it means that it's somehow unfair because they will end up being deprived of something. People need to stop thinking that helping someone much less fortunate is somehow going to lose out on something they could have had or will lessen the quality of their lives. Do they think a government "handout" to a homeless family is suddenly going to translate into that family living in a larger home with more luxuries in 6 months? Given the audience of this channel, I'm sure I've just put myself in the firing line.
    2