Skid Row Signage: ACLU Crack Haven

I'm glad you picked this up. Hopefully, this can be a harbringer of real debate about the dsyfunctional nature of Skid Row and the policies which have created it and now maintain it. The ACLU's position is hopelessly misguided and very destructive. The various agencies which make their living off this dysfunctional situation really ought to be held to account. But, until the debate shifts from resource allocation and tactical issues (like porto-potties) to substantive and humane reform, the disaster will continue.

Thank you, ACLU for exploiting another disenfranchised group for the sake of political and egotistical gain. Instead of working with our city of Los Angeles, in expanding homeless shelters and rehabilitation services for the greater good, you have chosen to prolong the human suffering and unsanitary conditions that exist on Skid Row. Thank you, ACLU for giving, rampant homelessness and hopelessness a new lease on life, by allowing the urinating, defecating, and degradation to continue on our streets. You guys bring new meaning to human misery and social blight by granting every American the legal right to use every sidewalk on every street as his or her own personal bathroom, trashcan, and drug dispensary. The idea is that homeless shelters and work transition services are essentially useless, and the only thing a homeless person really needs in life is a panhandling cup, a drug habit, and an undeniable right to enjoy the "Great Outdoors" under someone elses doorstep or storefront. Look at these people, they're so Happy living in squalor and festering disease, enjoying a day of sifting through our discarded trash, and harassing any resident, office worker, or tourist who would step into L.A.'s own 3rd world refugee zone. The handful of homeless people you gathered to represent the greater population really appreciates your macho, tax dollar wasting, petty legal wrangling to continue their lifelong substance addiction and indignity. Cheers to you ACLU hypocrites, long live homeless exploitation !!

> I have to disagree a bit with

Spencer's dislike of the signs' message.

Where does he live? If he's a resident of Skid Row or immediate environs and is willing to put up with the daily nightmares and horrors around there, okay, fine. However, if he's actually ensconsed in some location far removed from that part of town, then I recommend all the problems of Skid Row be picked up and transferred to his front yard.

Armchair do-gooders are no much better than armchair quarterbacks.

He doesn't live downtown but insists on writing misinformed, clueless posts about downtown issues. Once he posted some knee-jerk thing about how filming is killing the downtown renaissance because he couldn't find parking in front of Lost Souls Cafe. When some downtown residents offered suggestions such as parking in the lot a half block up the street, or using public transport, he pooh-poohed suggestions and then denigrated commenters. The guy can't take suggestions or criticism, he even suggested I not read anything he posts onto blogging.la. I recommend that all downtowners do the same or you'll have to exercise all restraint to not want to bash his head in with a two by four.

over on la voice, bert green says it was mcdowell again, and people from la can took down the signs.

Whoa whoa whoa Celia!? You may not agree with Spencer and he may not agree with you, but I don't see how taking the mudslinging low road works to your favor. And the implication, however hyperbolic, of needing to restrain yourself from vengeful violence because of your differing points of view (with, of course, his being invalidated because he doesn't live downtown)? Yikes!

Who are the 'la can people' and why are they removing these signs? Do they find satirical signage offensive? If so, why? Do they find the existing situation on Skid Row offensive? If not, why? Does the ACLU support their actions?

So Spencer doesn't even live in downtown, much less around Skid Row? Where does he live? In some serene, well-protected part of town, far removed from the chaos of LA's mecca for the homeless, deranged, drug-addicted and/or dangerous?

And athough she's the ultimate enabler, Alice Callaghan, apparently unlike Spencer, spends some of her waking hours in the horror of downtown's eastside. However, does she too maintain a residence in another part of LA?

I love all these people who become idealistic and teary-eyed the more miles their lives, including hours spent at their homes and workplace (where is the local office of the ACLU located*?), are from the muck and mire of downtown.

.* FYI: 1616 Beverly Blvd, not exactly in a lovely part of the city, but also not in the middle of the nightmarish environs of Skid Row.

In some serene, well-protected part of town, far removed from the chaos of LA's mecca for the homeless, deranged, drug-addicted and/or dangerous?

Yep. It's a subdivision called Rampart. A serene, grassy paradise in which I get to chase away prostitutes and drug dealers. I keep telling you guys you need to get out of the city and come relax out here in the country with me, but nobody's listening. ;)

Just to be clear (because everybody seems to be up in arms about me "disagreeing" with Richard's message), I made a single comment in pasing about these signs as art, on an art blog. Not as a political issue. The only point that I made, in that context, was that I wasn't really into an anonymous dig at the ACLU. Neither were my riding companions. As Eric suggests, I don't think that's too strange a reaction from somebody that doesn't follow these issues closely, especially given that we only saw two signs.

If anybody's interested, I've posted a followup with notes from both Bert Green and Richard McDowell. You might note that Richard specifically says the intended audience for the work is people coming into the area from outside of downtown.

No, the restraint isn't necessary because of his physical location, it's because his posts annoy or anger me . Don't you get annoyed or angry when someone with a forum consistently posts erroneous information, half-truths or wild speculation that maligns or misrepresents a struggling neighborhood? That's where my comments stem from.

Maybe because this isn't his blog, but he's been a lot nicer commenting here than I've ever experienced.

Alright, I try to rise above these things. It's not like I'm not used to the sort of constant trolling that anyone posting online is subject to. But the consistent and premediated character assasination is really starting to get under my skin. Here are the two whole times that I've EVER interacted with Celia (and/or Jim, who I only bring up because one of Celia's points refers to him): http://blogging.la/archives/2006/06/dcbid_maps_downtown.phtml http://blogging.la/archives/2006/02/will_the_film_industry_kill_th.phtml

I stand behind what I've written and how I've responded, and in one case I very deliberately let a commenter have the last word. I think you'll find that, rather than "denigrat[ing] commenters", I was engaged in healthy debate. You're all welcome to draw your own conclusions. Either way, I'm sure that Eric would rather his comments section stayed on topic, so I'll be refraining from further comment.

Hello! Since I'm planning a trip to L.A. for next december (I'm from Spain, Europe), I've been doing some research. My travel agency suggested a hotel named "Kawada Hotel", 200 South Hill Street, in Bunker Hill, that's way my research led me to this blog :) Even though I've read about all the attractions on Downtown LA, I've also been warned about crime and all that. I don't even live in the States so please understand I might have gotten wrong ideas. I'm a little worried about safety and crime over there. Is that place safe for tourists? Is it a good place to stay or should I look for a different location to book a room?

Thanks a lot (even if I don't get the help I'm asking for hehe...)

veek

My parents stay at the Kawada every year when they visit. It is a budget hotel and nothing fancy. If you stay for a week, you can negotiate an excellent rate with the hotel. They enjoy staying there and find the location very convenient. Grand Central Market and the Red Line are all only a block away.

There is so much for you to see and do in downtown, let alone the greater L.A area, you assuredly won't see it all. Downtown is perfectly safe, although in the evenings the streets can be quite empty. If you're not familiar with the area, this can be unnerving. Skid Row, which is between 5th & 7th and San Pedro and Main, is home to a large concentration of street people and drug dealing. Fortunately, that area is easily avoided.

You will encounter some homeless people in downtown, even if you avoid the "Skid Row" area.

But even in other parts of Downtown, you will be asked for change. It may not be every minute, but you will come across homeless and/or injured people wandering around, day or night. You will also find them at times in Hollywood, Santa Monica or even parts of Pasadena or the San Fernando Valley. Probably not in Beverly Hills though.

This condtion is not exclusive to Los Angeles among large cities in the US. But if you are aware of your surroundings, act like you belong there, and make sure you know where you are, you won't have any problems. Just decline the requests for change politely and keep walking.

Thanks a lot for the information guys. I assume that the "problem" is that the zone, beign a business district, turns into a ghost town when work is over. It's easy to get paranoid when all one reads it's about gangs, drug dealers and such. Anyway I'll try looking for a hotel in a more lively part of the city.

Thanks again