Defund homeless industrial complex

by Eric Matteson

U.S. Supreme Court ruling that cities no longer need to offer shelter to homeless means taxpayers no longer need to pay for it.

defund HIC DEFUND HOMELESS INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

In 2021 the Los Angeles city council passed the 41.18 anti-homeless enforcement zones act that creates signed enforcement zones with signs like::

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT ZONE
Beginning on and after
Friday comma, June 28 comma, 2024
No person shall sit, lie or sleep or
allow personal property to remain in the
public right of way within 500 feet of
the underpass at 11201 Kagen blvd and GOP FWY
. .
41.18 ( map )
(gibberish)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is extremely unfair to outlaw sitting lying sleeping
outdoors and the other problem is that they are way too
many 41.18 enforcement zone signs all over Los Angeles so
it seems like there is no place outdoors where anyone can
sit lie or sleep anywhere in Los Angeles beginning in 2021.
.

The Homeless Industrial Complex consists of several organizations that receive billions of dollars of taxpayer money to provide services for the homeless including healthcare services such as nursing and shelter service and drug treatment services.

Most homeless people do not have Internet service and are unable to e-mail their city council people to request a repeal of every 41.18 enforcement zone.

The most likely situation is that just one tenant who is afraid of becoming homeless in the future has written e-mails to just one city council person to request a repeal of every 41.18 enforcement zone that outlaws sitting lying sleeping but as of Saturday, June 29, 2024 there is still no progress getting a repeal vote to the floor of the Los Angeles City Council

Every organization that makes money off of the homeless that is paid by taxpayers has a moral obligation to restore homeless peoples rights to sit, lie and sleep outdoors because they are getting rich off of homeless people who are usually incapable of adequately advocating on behalf of their own rights.

On Friday June 28, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the legislative branch city council has the power to regulate public space without restrictions of any kind. In two earlier rulings the Supreme Court ruled that the legislative branch congress gets to decide who has to register for Selective Service System and congress gets to decide the fate of the potentially unpopular individual mandate that requires people to buy expensive junk health insurance that probably does not allow them to actually see a doctor.

When the U.S. Supreme court ruled that cities may criminalize
homelessness without offering shelter to homeless people.
it also means that::

Homeless people are no longer required to accept shelter.
Taxpayers are no longer required to pay for homeless shelters
or anything for the homeless!!!

I have decided to terminate all taxpayer funding for homeless services .

Those of you who are working for the taxpayer supported Homeless Industrial Complex ( H.I.C. ) need to quickly begin demanding that the Los Angeles City Council repeal every 41.18 enforcement zone that outlaws sitting lying sleeping and after that repeal and after every 41.18 enforcement zone sign is removed by the city your organization will then be allowed to try to get its taxpayer supported funding restarted.

replyshare

Homeless money not being properly spent and should be terminated

by Eric Matteson

Los Angeles Countys propositions H and A were designed to provide
services to homeless people including shelter.
A very important radio talk show host has repeatedly stated
that taxpayer money for the homeless has disappeared but the
number of homeless people has remained high without any
reduction. That radio talk show host has revealed that organizations
that were hired by taxpayer money have completely failed
to help homeless people.
According to the Internet Los Angeles 41.18 enforcememt zones are
supposed to expire after only one year in section C-4.
If you see a 41.18 enforcement zone sign that is more than two
years old then you know that far too much money has been wasted
enforcing that extremely unfair law against sitting or lying or
sleeping outdoors.
It is my opinion that if the Los Angeles city council soon repeals
the 41.18 anti-homeless law and removes all signs prohibiting
sitting lying sleeping outdoors that there would then be
enough prop A money to provide decent affordable apartments
for homeless people to live in. Voters approved prop JJJ
earlier that requires the Los Angeles city government to
grant permits to build apartment buildings that include
affordable apartments.
Every organization that has recieved taxpayer money to help
the homeless has a moral obligation to support the right
of every homeless person to sleep outdoors including lobbying
the Los Angeles city council to repeal every 41.18 enforcement zone.
All 41.18 enforcement zones need to be repealed soon and all 41.18
enforcement zone signs need to be quickly taken down in order to
avoid the possibility of a LEGAL CHALLENGE to Prop A that will
completely eliminate it. If prop A is eliminated in court those
organizations that have wasted prop H money in the past and
also failed to lobby the L.A. city council to restore the
right to sleep outdoors will experience complete LOSS OF FUNDING.
Try to imagine the legal brief that could be used to challenge
Prop A. Imagine that two numbers that are on it could be
multiplied together to create the product of 8.6666
and the brief could also say that money that was supposed
to be used to help the homeless was WASTED enforcing the
law against homelessness.
The federal government should go ahead and abolish section 8
vouchers because section 8 vouchers raise the rent on those tenants
who do not qualify for section 8. Spending money on increasing the SSA
COLA is simpler and more helpful to real people than trying to use
section 8.

replyflaglike

Prop A in trouble

by Eric Matteson

homeless industrial complex t3

Homeless industrial complex part three

A previous radio show alleged that Prop A was a citizens initiative that was declared passed with a simple majority vote only.

p13 is the link to information about California proposition 13 of 1978.

Prop 13 is extremely complex. Its encyclopedia webpage was checked for several keywords Citizens initiative Sales Tax . The Altadena Library District V. Bloodgood case of 1987 was litigated and after it was appealed it was destermined that even a citizens initiative tax requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in order to comply with proposition 13s requirements. . The Rider V. County of San Diego case of 1991 was litigated and the result is that Proposition 13 requires a new sales tax or increase be approved by a vote of not less than a 2/3 supermajority vote.

It has been concluded that Los Angeles County made a mistake by declaring that Prop A of November 5 2024 was passed by a simple majority vote that was under 60 per cent.

Prop A in trouble

2024 Prop A homeless sales tax increase in trouble

 <br>
  This episode of deep space nine is written by Eric Matteson <br>
and permission is hereby granted to copy the plain html text version <br>
of this script and to publish it on the Internet. It may also <br>
be used in student films and for political activism. <br>
(Scene 1 interior. quarks bar.) <br>
QUARK <br>
I have invested 4096 bars of Gold pressed Latinum in the Homeless <br>
Industrial Complex of Los Angeles on Earth. There was a newscast <br>
that said that Los Angeles County Proposition A homeless sales tax <br>
was declared passed with a simple majority vote of at least 52 <br>
per cent. <br>
  I believe that my investment is now worth 8192 bars of Gold <br>
Pressed Latinum. <br>
  Prop A provides twice as much money as previous Prop H. <br>
NOG <br>
I thought that a 2/3 supermajority vote was required to raise<br>
any tax including the California sales tax.<br>
QUARK <br>
  The newscast said that Prop A is exempt from the 2/3 vote <br>
requirement because it is a citizens initiative. <br>
MILES <br>
I never heard of any such exemption under Proposition 13.<br>
I think that Proposition A homeless sales tax vote <br>
requirement should be investigated. <br>
QUARK <br>
Prop A is only a half of a percent increase in the sales tax. It is not <br>
worth wasting valueble starfleet resources challenging it. <br>
NOG <br>
I disagree. Homeless sales taxes might be unfairly used to enforce unfair <br>
city ordinances against sitting or lying or sleeping outdoors. <br>
In order to reduce enforcement of those unfair laws homeless people <br>
have a right to insist that the 2/3 supermajority vote requirement <br>
be checked and reinstated by Starfleet command even if Starfleet has <br>
to invest a vast amount of resources.<br>
(Scene 2 interior. Docking ring.) <br>
(Nog goes on board Enterprise and meets with Lt. Commander Data <br>
  in Engineering) <br>
NOG <br>
Is there an exemption to California Proposition 13 that allows a <br>
non-educational tax to be passed as a citizens initiative with <br>
less than a 2/3 supermajority vote? <br>
DATA <br>
No there is not. <br>
NOG <br>
Quark claims that Los Angeles County declared Proposition A of 2024<br>
homelessness sales tax passed with a simple majority vote because <br>
it is a citizens initiative. <br>
DATA <br>
Then Los Angeles County is in error. Ask the lawyers who are challenging <br>
Prop A Homeless sales tax to begin by checking the wikipedia entry for <br>
1978 California Proposition 13 .<br>
Look for the part about Citizens initiative and then <br>
the part about the sales tax. <br>
I have a friend on Cardassia who might be interested in the investigation.<br>
(Nog Then leaves the Enterprise.)<br>
(Scene 3. interior. Defiant 74205)<br>
BENJAMIN<br>
The treaty between the Federation and Cardassia allows the Federation <br>
and Cardassia to work together on some projects. The Cardassian <br>
ministry of Justice has invited us to Cardassia to put Los Angeles <br>
County 2024 ballot proposition A on trial in a Cardassian Court <br>
to determine whether it really got a high enough percentage of votes <br>
tp legitimately PASS.<br>
QUARK<br>
It did because it was a CITIZENS INITIATIVE.<br>
BENJAMIN<br>
The Cardassians know you have invested 4096 bars of Latinum in the <br>
homeless industrial complex that gets almost all of its funding <br>
from prop H and then Prop A. <br>
They will allow you to defend Paop A in Court. <br>
The Cardassians have allowed Prop A to have two defense attorneys. <br>
The other defense attorney is the public defender who defended <br>
Miles Obrien when he might have <br>
used his command codes to transfer weapons <br>
to the Marqii. <br>
The Cardassians will allow a unlimited number of people to <br>
prosecute Prop A of 2024. <br>
( Defiant arrives in orbit arround Cardassia. )<br>
( Scene 4. Interior. Cardassian Court)<br>
JUDGE <br>
The Case of United Federation Of Planets and Cardassia V. Los Angeles <br>
  County homelessness Sales tax Proposition A of 2024 will now begin. <br>
We begin with opening statements.<br>
DEFENDER<br>
Los Angeles County Proposition A homelessness Sales tax is a <br>
CITIZENS INITIATIVE that is exempt from the 2/3 vote requirement. <br>
BRUNT<br>
California Proposition 13 of 1978 is absolute. All non-educational<br>
taxes including Los Angeles County Prop A homeless sales tax of <br>
November 5 2024 absolutely requires a 2/3 supermajority vote no<br>
matter what type of ballot proposition it is. <br>
Prop A was declared passed by Los Angeles County with only <br>
a final vote percentage of 57.78% which is less than <br>
the required minimum of 66.67% <br>
JUDGE<br>
  In addition to the technicality of a 2/3 supermajority<br>
vote requirement <br>
is there any other reason anybody could oppose passage of Prop A <br>
homeless tax??<br>
JAKE <br>
The City of Los Angeles passed the 41.18 enforcement zone signs act <br>
of 2021 that is a very unfair anti-sit-lie law.<br>
I am afraid that money from Prop A which is twice as much as <br>
previous prop H will be used to severely enforce enforcement <br>
zones that prohibit sitting or lying or sleeping or allowing <br>
personal property to remain within 500 feet of each <br>
enforcement zone signs address. <br>
In Section C-4 of 41.18 it says that each zone is to last <br>
for a maximum time limit not to exceed one year. <br>
After the year is over each enforcement zone is supposed <br>
to be terminated by the removal of its 41.18 signs. <br>
How come so many enforcement zone signs are now more <br>
than two years old??<br>
EDDINGTON<br>
  The Marqii have obtained hearsay evidence from unidentified <br>
sources that one person who was a employee of the <br>
homeless industrial complex had had a conversation with <br>
a alleged high ranking homelessness policy person who <br>
claimed that the city lacks a decent system to <br>
determine which enforcement zones have already expired.  <br>
That information has helped extend the Homeless Industral <br>
Complex deadline to save funding from June 27th 2024 to<br>
December 2,2024.<br>
  The Homeless Industrial Complex is required to lobby the<br>
Los Angeles City Council to repeal 41.18 anti-sit-lie law<br>
to preserve or restore its taxpayer paid funding.<br>
QUARK<br>
Then instead of the mayor having deliberately issued a <br>
executive order extending one year enforcement zones to <br>
five years we have a defective computer database that <br>
fails to show the start date of each enforcement zone <br>
so we do not know when it expires. <br>
JUDGE<br>
Quark, You were not auithorized to defend 41.18<br>
Your job is to defend Prop A only.<br>
QUARK<br>
If the administrator of Prop A promised that its money would<br>
not be used to enforce 41.18 could you overlook the vote <br>
percentage requirement and let it pass?<br>
BRUNT <br>
Suppose that 98 per cent of the Homeless Industrial Complex<br>
funding comes from Prop A and 2 per cent comes from the <br>
General Fund. If Prop A is allowed to survive then there <br>
is a risk that more general fund money might be available <br>
to spend on enforcing 41.18 anti-homelessness law so 41.18<br>
would then be getting at least INDIRECT help from Prop A.<br>
JUDGE     <br>
In order to be sure that money from ANY proposition <br>
including proposition A is not wasted enforcing 41.18<br>
anti-sit-lie law it is essential that the Los Angeles <br>
City Council fully legislatively REPEAL 41.18 <br>
anti-homeless enforcement zones act of 2021.<br>
With the laws one year time limit greatly exceeded <br>
either accidentally or intentionally it is impossible to<br>
trust that Los Angeles could keep any potential promise<br>
to not waste money on enforcement until after 41.18 <br>
is completely repealed.<br>
EDDINGTON<br>
As of Friday, December 27th, 2024 there is still no known <br>
progress twoard getting 41.18 repealed by the L.A. <br>
City Council.<br>
The prosecution rests its case.<br>
JUDGE<br>
We now proceed to closing arguments.<br>
QUARK<br>
I have invested a lot of money in the Homeless <br>
Industrial Complex and the radio promised me that <br>
Prop A does not need a 2/3 supermajority vote because <br>
it is a protected exemption CITIZENS INITIATIVE that <br>
only needs a simple majority vote to pass. <br>
JAKE<br>
  It is extremely unfair for any city council to prohibit <br>
outdoor sitting or lying or sleeping and the           <br>
Los Angeles 41.18 anti-sit-lie law desparately needs to be repealed.<br>
BRUNT<br>
Striking down Prop A will greatly reduce funding for enforcement of <br>
41.18 anti-homeless law and then with less money for enforcement <br>
it should then be easier for the Los Angeles City Council to <br>
fully REPEAL the 41.18 anti-sit-lie enforcement zones act of 2021.<br>
WORF<br>
The 2/3 supermajority vote requirement of California Proposition 13<br>
is a lot more than just a technicality. It is a WEAPON of great <br>
power that can be used to STRIKE DOWN any non-educational tax <br>
including Proposition A that has less than a 2/3 vote. <br>
Klingons do not ignore weapons. Klingons use weapons in battle<br>
whether on the battlefield or in a courtroom. Recognize that <br>
California Proposition 13 is a weapon that has earned the <br>
respect of the Klingon Empire. <br>
There is no honor in 41.18 and it must be repealed. <br>
BENJAMIN<br>
If the Homeless Industrial Complex would have lobbied the <br>
Los Angeles City Council to have repealed 41.18 and gotten it<br>
repealed before the vote certification date of December 2<br>
  2024 then it is extremely likely that nobody would have <br>
noticed that the radio announcement of a citizens initiative<br>
called Prop A passing with only a simple majority vote <br>
actually conflicts with the very detailed Proposition 13.<br>
The Homeless Industrial Complex is losing Prop A because<br>
of its excessive delay in lobbying the L.A. City Council to<br>
repeal 41.18 before vote certification day.<br>
Continued failure to repeal 41.18 will cause additional <br>
punishments. The Federal Government is being asked to<br>
repeal Section 8 vouchers so more money can be spent<br>
on SSA COLA.<br>
Additional punishments will occur until 41.18 is repealed.<br>
JUDGE<br>
This Case is hereby submitted to the three jurors.<br>
(Scene 5. interior. Defiant 74205)              <br>
(TV monitor on screen. Announcement of verdict.)<br>
JUROR<br>
On the charge of needing a 2/3 supermajority vote to pass<br>
we find the defendant Prop A GUILTY.<br>
Prop A got only 57 per cent of vote instead of 67 per cent so<br>
we hereby STRIKE DOWN Los Angeles County Proposition A of <br>
November 5, 2024.<br>
Based on the CHEVRON RULING we find that 41.18 enforcement zones<br>
that are more than one year old are beyond what the legislative<br>
branch Los Angeles City council has allowed in the text of the law.<br>
We also find that every 41.18 anti-sit-lie enforcement zone sign that<br>
is more than two years old is criminally in CONTEMPT of THIS COURT!<br>
The Los Angeles City Council has a right to repeal 41.18 and we hope<br>
it will soon exercise that right.<br>
This concludes the case of Cardassia V. Los Angeles County Prop A<br>
homeless sales tax of 2024.<br>

In conclusion Prop A deserved to be struck down. The required 2/3 vote was not acheived. There would have been too much risk that money would have been wasted enforcing the very unfair anti-sit-lie law.

replyflaglike

A	A	A
xyz	xyz
serif	sans