concerned citizen on July 27, 2009, at 04:30PM – #2

this seems a bit too nice and tidy. too scripted. i'm sure that happens sometimes, but:

were there other prints in the car?

could the "transient" have entered the car after the murder was committed?

what do the cameras at the atms reveal?

if the transient was on crack wouldn't lily's voice have indicated something?

if there was only one person couldn't lily have run away or called for help each time they visited an atm?

again, this just feels too scripted.

MC on July 27, 2009, at 04:49PM – #3

To people who live in downtown LA it is evident that these "quality of life" statutes are more than necessary. In this situation, it may have saved a potential future victim. Day to day, we see people who are a health hazard to themselves and others behaving grotesquely, in a way that offends the senses and any notion of what civilization is. Yes they need services. But the ACLU is NOT doing any body a favor -not us, not the people literally sleeping in their own sh**--by trying to get these laws off the books.

Robert on July 27, 2009, at 05:05PM – #4

First of all, to the "concerned citizen". They have a tape of him abducting her near the Southwestern Law school. Secondly, how many of these transients on our streets are career criminals like this guy? Thank God the LAPD is on the side of the law abiding residents of Downtown. This poor young girl...I grieve for her family.

JFM on July 27, 2009, at 05:58PM – #5

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area which has a significant homeless population. I feel sure this type of arrest would not have happened there, and thus a killer would still be free. I commend the LAPD for their actions, and I'm sure Lily's parents are at least somewhat comforted by the fact that the man who cold-bloodedly killed their daughter is behind bars. My condolences go out to all who loved Lily, and to the LAPD, keep up the good work. As one who deals with this in SF on a regular basis, and in LA when I am here on business, I can assure you that it is necessary.

Lwe on July 27, 2009, at 10:19PM – #6

A very large percentage of the homeless downtown are career criminals like this guy. That's why for years the LAPD ignored downtown murders thinking they were a means of controlling the criminal population. The gentrification of downtown hasn't affected the homeless population and there are still really bad people out there. By arresting this guy on a quality of life charge the LAPD may have prevented this guy from becoming a serial killer

Bryan on July 27, 2009, at 10:42PM – #7

Bravo to the LAPD. I feel that we need to be as tough on crime as possible. Its unfortunate this CA budget mess will lead to early release of more scumbags from jail.

Cgopat on July 28, 2009, at 02:31AM – #8

I love the comments by "concerned citizen." Already thinking up a defense for a brutal beast of a killer. It's people like "concerned citizen who enables these career criminals to continue to prey on the citizens of our city. Thanks for being so concerned for a cold-blooded killer, "concerned citizen!"

juan r. on July 28, 2009, at 06:14AM – #10

I agree with 'concerned citizen' maybe this guy pawed through the car, after the crime happened.

My point is, when the LAPD brass says it could happen to anyone, I doubt it. You can bet if Bratton had a daughter, her car would have a police radio, maybe a panic button, and the law would be twisted to allow someone so young to carry a weapon.

Tina born in SouthCentral on July 28, 2009, at 08:20AM – #11

He did not go into the car after she was killed. He abducted this innocent girl, killed her and left her so he could go have a beer and probably a hit of crack. He is a monster. He destroyed the life of three people. I cant understand why nobody did not see this pair and find it odd! Now he will have a trial. A jury and her family will have to listen to how sad and pathetic his life has been. Police will be discredited. I hope he gets the Death penalty. I have a three year old daughter and I hope I never have to feel this pain. I am a African American and we too are sick and tired of people like Samuel. And to think California is thinking of early release, better rethink that.

sickofbum on July 28, 2009, at 08:28AM – #12

Can't believe anyone would defend this monster. They have video of him kidnapping the girl!!! Jesus christ. No wonder these criminals are still out on the street. You have whackjob like "concerned citizen" on jury duty that would never convict someone because of their misfortunate in life.

Skid row is bizarro world. I have only been past that area twice and it's like night of the living dead. I can't believe anyone would live in a loft there....cough cough...Little Toyko Loft...cough cough.

joe orange on July 28, 2009, at 09:01AM – #13

The problem with downtown and other parts of Los Angeles, is that we try and create a class-less society. Lower class people do not need to be next door to middle - upper class people. Segregation by class is the natural order of life. Downtown sucks because you have really nice hotels, restaurants, condo's, etc, next to homeless shelters. All homeless shelters/homeless infrastructure need to be move to pomona. That way they can get the help they need, and they are not bothering people who are doing things positive.

Gray on July 28, 2009, at 09:29AM – #14

One of the facts in this story is wrong. Samuel was arrested at 3rd and Los Angeles streets, not 3rd and Alameda.

so on July 28, 2009, at 09:48AM – #16

Why do people jump down others throats when the ask a valid question? If they just read the blog and not the complete article from a news source (I read multiple sources), the whole story is not given in the blog just highlights.
Nowhere in the blog does it say that the police have multiple images of Samuel and Burk together. I always thought that a blog was a place for open discussion not a forum for like-minded people to beat their own drum.

ph7ptzero on July 28, 2009, at 09:49AM – #17

What, no photos of Mr. Samuel? Plenty of poor Lily, the car, police tape. Even Chief Diaz. But none of Mr. Samuel. Why is that I wonder?

Peaches LA on July 28, 2009, at 09:51AM – #18

Let's be clear. The so-called "quality of life" arrest did not "crack" this case. This guy was already on the books for a myriad of crimes. The police had already ID'd the guy and knew he was living at a half-way house. They had his name, had his prints and had his photo. So, even if he didn't eventually return to the house they still would have tracked him down within hours. I'm not commenting on "quality of life" arrests in general, but in this instance, those laws did not solve this case. They already knew who the murderer was.

Masonite on July 28, 2009, at 10:05AM – #19

Concerned Citizen and Juan R., they have video of Samuel abducting Burk near Southwestern and also of him driving the car away with her in the passenger seat. Also, there appears to be video of him physically holding her near one of the ATMs.

When they arrested him for public drinking, they found the crack pipe. They also found blood on his clothes and a key to a Volvo (eventually discovered to be Burk's car). Not sure what doesn't add up in your minds, but that is a heck of a lot of evidence and that is just the evidence released publicly so far.

I agree that he would have probably eventually been aprehended for this, but at least the Safer Cities Initiative got him before he could do more harm including possibly another murder.

Also, LAPD is still conducting interviews, so they don't want to release Samuel's photo until they have interviewed everyone they need to.

downtown loft on July 28, 2009, at 10:44AM – #20

as a resident of barker block (just two blocks from where Lily was found), i was shocked to have such a horrendous crime happen right outside my window.

even though charlie samuel was picked up for an unrelated incident it's nice to know he was not out walking around our neighborhood for several hours or even days.
yes, there are plenty of people in skid row who have had a string of bad luck or should be in a mental health facility but there are also dangerous criminals and if the safer cities initiative prevents even a few crimes then it is worth it in my opinion.

thank you, LAPD, for all of your hard work...i feel safer walking around my neighborhood because of you.

bromike666 on July 28, 2009, at 12:08PM – #21

Hey lets leave concerned citizen alone, he/she is allowed to have an opinion.

So, concerned citizen can you share with us details from your experience being a juror on the OJ trial;-)

H in SFO on July 28, 2009, at 12:39PM – #22

"If there was only one person couldn't lily have run away or called for help each time they visited an atm?" Lily, having previously worked w/ homeless, felt she would control the situation by keeping calm in the presence of a homeless (murderer).

Quality of Life on July 28, 2009, at 01:12PM – #23

Regarding the Quality of Life violations; when I got fed up seeing the same woman urinating on sidewalks I traverse on my way home everyday, I called the LAPD about it, and also inquired about others who commit public intoxication, loitering, sleeping on the sidewalk, and public drug use. Here is the response I received:

"The activity you refer to is a crime. We have various groups of officers working many different details. The crimes you refer to are what we call quality of life crimes. These crimes require round the clock attention. The best way you can help us is by generating calls for service. The response may not be immediate due to the nature of the call but never the less it is important that the call be made. Stopping these individuals without a call for service can sometimes become problematic. You can call our non-emergency line at 877-ASK-LAPD to report this activity. I will also make notifications to the officers responsible for this area and advised them of your concern."

So it is important that downtown dwellers who want to see change, "be the change", and report these activities when you observe them.

NOevidence? on July 28, 2009, at 02:11PM – #24

I hope Concerned Citzen isn't on the juror because he's going to argue that the "blurry" security camera footage is not evidence of murder. According to Concerned Citzen, Mr Samuel was merely showing the young'em how to use an ATM and was set-up by "Da Man" and by his poor lots in life.

"Police detectives pieced together their preliminary account of Burk's slaying from security camera footage that captured the teenager and man at several points as they moved from the law school into the maze of streets in downtown's Little Tokyo and skid row.

With Samuel standing by her side "and in control of her body," Burk tried repeatedly and unsuccessfully to withdraw cash at a downtown ATM using a credit card. The attempts began a little more than 30 minutes after she was abducted, said Det. Thayer Lake, one of the investigators on the case."

Randall BusTard on July 28, 2009, at 02:21PM – #26

I am sure that the new lofties——i.e., all those who have in the past few years that moved into downtown so as to tell their friends how they live on the edge (but tend to whinge in fear when they feel the cut) and yet had no idea about how it once was (I was publishing quite a bit about downtown L.A. well over a decade ago, in Los Angeles Downtown Diaries—and reporting from the thick of it, replete with photographs)——are going to eat up everything they are told about this too-convenient arrest.

Does anyone recall the recently removed Consent Decree? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/07/lapd-consent-decree.html As such I cannot help that whatever may have happened, that these two very rare events happened remarkably close. I may be paranoid, but such notions have led to quite a few investigations during my 20+ years in publishing.

And did anyone CLOSELY read the L.A. Times article? I know that someone in an early comment stated, "They have a tape of him abducting her near the Southwestern Law school." NO, they do NOT. In today's L.A. Times, it is stated, "Moments later the car drove off -- a security video shows Samuel behind the wheel and Burk in the passenger seat, but it does not capture the exact moment of the alleged abduction." So it is not certain what happened nor how. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lily-burk28-2009jul28,0,123041.story They have tape of the two in the motor vehicle. It may be that the bum that was in the car was responsible for young Lily Burk's death. yet we have to remember the Black Dahlia case and all the wrong people framed and arrested by the LAPD 52 years ago. Back then folk couldn't believe there was such well-choreographed corruption in the department then, either.

Moreover, there are the accounts of the telephone conversations reported that took place during the series of events leading up to Ms. Burk's death. On Monday, the L.A. Times reported, "Lily seemed in a rush, her father said, but not frightened. She said she needed money to buy shoes." (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-girl-killed26-2009jul26,0,2024771.story) In today's edition it was stated, "The parents did not hear panic or fear in their daughter's voice, a spokesman for the family and police said." There is a remarkable difference in the two accounts, one that may stand out come the trial.

This is an awful event, to be sure. A young woman with great potential, who may have felt too comfortable and forgiving round the dregs of L.A. may have picked up the wrong person, or been led by him to someone who did the deed. It may have been that someone among those who have been forced to collect in the downtown area but are now being forced out decided to take one last swipe at those they may feel have forced them there and now wish to give them a permanent one-way ticket. (Remember the 1984 Olympics? Who can state the city to which the homeless were forced back then?) It may be that someone finally blew a gasket because of the last few years' campaign to reclaim the place after decades of willful neglect and the release of mental patients (you can thank Ronald Reagan for that—and they did, with a building on 3rd and Spring). Incidents such as these have been on track for a long time owing to the past three decades and longer. It is not a black and white issue, and it will not go away just because a bunch of new people move in and demand the LAPD clean up the place. Just remember, the arrest was an accident, and the LAPD have been very quick to exploit the Safer City Initiative in a way that implies they are less concerned with the murder and more concerned with using it to step up harassment for all the incidents that do not involve murder, crack pipes and drinking in pubic. Far more murders happen on Skid Row than most of you know (I know of at least two that never made the news last year, and I have the photos to prove it), and far less is done when it is another of the thoroughly disenfranchised—and in today's economy, there promises to be loads of former working and middle class folk put onto the streets. It does not take long for the insanity of such a situation to make one insane.

This is not west L.A. nor the Valley nor Ohio. There is much more work that needs to be done than calling 911 and having one's friends come out once a month on the second Thursday night to show them how one lives near Skid Row (or falsely assumes to live in Skid Row, as one dog-walking dude claims to be despite living on the east side of Little Tokyo). I suggest all of you who so blindly kvetch about your new home, LEARN about the town's history. Such incidents as what happened to this promising young lady might be prevented should there be fewer calls for arresting everyone whose behaviour is not liked, and more about reaching out and understanding how it came to be and what can be done to make it better.

I am truly sorry to hear that what has happened to young Lily Burke, and I hope that folk work to see that such n event does not occur again.

poliphilo on July 28, 2009, at 03:30PM – #27

You sound like a stupid lawyer. Only an imbecile would even consider that he didn't do this. Even with the (so far) broken timeline, to suggest that he didn't abduct her, force her to attempt to withdraw money, and kill her is the sign of a weak minded fool. You think you are so smart, but your ridiculously open-minded scenario shows that you do not have the commonsense to see the obvious. What is the cliche? Can't see the forrest for the trees.

Masonite on July 28, 2009, at 03:55PM – #28

Bus Tard,

Sure you can infer that she just let him in her car and take the wheel and was not abducted (extremely doubtful, but still possible I suppose). However, she was still trying to get money out multiple times with him physically holding her. All of this is enough for an arrest. No one is saying hang the guy today, as he will get his trial and I'm sure more evidence will come out including DNA and so forth.

As to your argument that the father is saying two different things about her calls. Neither statement contradicts the other. In both he said she didn't sound frightened.

You seem to take offense to different groups moving into Central Los Angeles (I don't live there myself, but did work downtown in the Mid-90s). Different ethnic and income groups moving into neighborhoods populated by different groups is a part of Los Angeles history (in almost every neighborhood).

As for people getting arrested because someone doesn't like their behavior. I doubt that is occuring on any scale as people get arrested for doing illegal acts (unless there is a corruption scandal like Rampart, which the ACLU or anyone else has not insuated on any scale happening on Skid Row). Peeing on the street is a crime and would not be tolerated in my neighborhood, so I wouldn't expect it to be tolerated Downtown. There is no evidence that the police are responding only to minor crimes like this and are too overwhelmed to do anything about murders or other serious crime.

If you know of a murder that you think did not go reported, I would follow up with the LA Times writer on Homicide Report who tracks all murders in LA County and follow up with her.

wahoo on July 28, 2009, at 03:58PM – #29

Actually, an arrest for crack and paraphenalia is not a quality of life arrest. Possession of cocaine is a felony and paraphenalia is a misdemeanor. Quality of life arrests are for things such as obstructing a sidewalk or stepping off a curb. Conduct which, but for being part of a class, would not be enforced.

Having said that, I am a defense attorney and father of 15 year old girl and so upset over this tragedy. That the suspect was arrested for something else did not speed up it being solved. His prints were already in the system, but it sure made the arrest easier.

wahoo on July 28, 2009, at 04:01PM – #30

Oh, and one more thing. You folks on here who are speculating about this or that like crazy - STOP. You really have no clue what goes into investigating, prosecuting or defending a case. What we in the criminal justice system do day and in day out is diving into the heartbreaking dark side of society. For the most part there are no conspiracies, just dedicated men and women on both side of the courtroom trying to get to a just result.

Robert on July 28, 2009, at 04:29PM – #31

There is a lot of anger out there about this horrible crime. Lily (I love her name) should be a catalyst for more changes in Downtown's skid row and the homeless people looking for homes and not allowing humans to live on the streets. Nobody should be living on the streets....It also would be great to take donations from the DT community and put it toward a scholarship in her name at her school...THE LILY Foundation. Seventeen years old is just too young of an age to die.

Jared on July 28, 2009, at 06:39PM – #33

First, I have no less sympathy for Lily and her family than the next person on this blog. It was a terribly very rare crime that galvanizes the city/community. Second, I value the Los Angeles law enforcement and their good service in the city. Note that not ALL of their service is good, it is at times brutal we can all rationally agree, but I am glad and very thankful that our tax money supports some sort of law enforcement.

With that said though, it is a fallacious argument to equate the city’s quality of life arrest to reap some grand justice venture. It is a fact that this simple arrest contained an alleged murderer. But this article runs along the lines of false causation. The fact that the LAPD caught a transient, looking to get caught in my opinion (my reasoning being walking around drunk near the scene of the crime and not fleeing the area) does not mean that a policy is effective, especially after years of misuse and serious criminalization of the poor. To publish this sort of fallacy on a well-known blog is mediocre journalism at best. In order to insinuate such a claim, as the authors do in this piece, it is based on superficial evidence and is extremely misleading. It actually does a disservice to creating and analyzing sound public policy because you’re implying causation without sufficient amount of data. This piece is full of generalization based on anecdotal reasoning that actually makes it seem that such a policy is worth implementing and does not harm who it promises to protect. Yes, I know it is true that Mr. Samuel would not be detained if not for this measure. But again, publishing this piece and alluding to this public policy as a public benefit distorts actual analysis and public perception.

Lastly, I am disturbed by all the comments made on this story. Except for a few, it seems that most of you support the displacement of an existing population that has been in the downtown area for decades, way before the onset of gentrification. To claim your superiority in downtown to support your lifestyle is extremely appalling. Downtown isn’t your playground to make decisions on who stays and who goes. For those who made comments that disparaged the homeless population, ask yourself why do you think there is a skid row? Is it something naturally occurring? When I moved to downtown I assumed residents were sympathetic to the poor that live. I assumed residents wanted to co-exist and actually work with the original inhabitants. Reading comments from the few here is opposite of what I thought. You should feel ashamed with yourself to think you can falsely control a population in order to sustain your amusement. Again, by neglecting the original residents here generates an artificial community.

FED UP DOWNTOWN. on July 28, 2009, at 07:06PM – #34

Okay, that's it.

I live downtown. I know why they are all here. It is because THIS IS WHERE ALL THE SERVICES ARE, because NO OTHER DISTRICT IN L.A.COUNTY wants to deal with them. They were PUSHED HERE AND OUT OF THEIR OWN DISTRICTS by the OFFICIALS WHO APPEAL TO VOTER DEMANDS. This happened many years BEFORE anyone decided to develop downtown and create homes for those who actually work for a living.

That said, you cannot blame the downtown residents who PAY TO LIVE HERE for wanting more diversification in their community. LESS CRIME, VANDALISM, FILTH, AND QUALITY OF LIFE VIOLATIONS. The drug addicts, ex-cons, homeless, careless, what-have-yous, are concentrated here because no one else allows them wherever they came from.

"Quality of Life" crimes are crimes against humanity and civilized society in general. If EVERYONE behaved like this, what would we have? These people know exactly what they are doing. I feel no pity for those who behave in such grotesque ways when there are alternatives. If you want to rot your body and brains with drugs and alcohol, so be it... YOUR RIGHT TO DO SO. But if your reprehensible behavior is displayed IN PUBLIC, and as a result of it, it impedes with MY QUALITY OF LIFE AS A WORKING, TAXPAYING, RENT PAYING CITIZEN WHO ALSO USES THESE SIDEWALKS AND STREETS, then I am GOING TO CALL AUTHORITIES because the insanity and squalor voluntarily perpetuated by these careless humans is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

AND NO, I am NOT a yuppie who lives in a high-end loft and makes $100,000+ a year. I am THE WORKING POOR, WHO HAS TO SUFFER THESE DREGS OF SOCIETY; WHO HAVE NO SELF-RESPECT NOR DIGNITY, by their own choice.

Jared on July 28, 2009, at 07:31PM – #35

Fed Up Downtown:

You're reasoning is right about why skid row exists. Although what you describe is just the tip of the iceberg. I think it is more important to look at who the poor & homeless are and what they suffer from, which includes personal psychological problems to the most systemic decades-long creation of the working and nonworking poor through public policy and private capital. I agree, downtown residents have the right to the beautification of their neighborhood. But it is the responsibility of those who gentrify to respect institutions and people that are there before you and to keep the positive aspects of their life intact. Contrary to belief, being homeless is not just some chaotic jungle. There are actual institutions within the community. Newer gentrifying residents cannot except to impose their lifestyle one those who suffered here. Gentrifying residents cannot except to create a community on their terms while ignoring the problems of the disadvantaged and not including them in their plans. Newer residents have a right to their neighborhood, correct, but that right doesn’t include castigating and displacing people.

I am always curious why gentrifying residents move to downtown, especially so close to skid row. I assume for it’s burgeoning entertainment and proximity to jobs. But also, I wonder how those you fear and loathe the homeless and poor end up being their neighbors. I commend gentrifyers to not going to the suburbs, but how do you rationalize walking by dozens of poor people on your way to the metro? Do you wish they didn’t exist? Or just not so many?

Last thing, I caution resorting to criminalizing the poor. I think we can all agree that this is a terrible thing to do when we can easily demand the city to treat the poor more humanely.

JJ Hart on July 28, 2009, at 07:33PM – #36

My heart goes out to the family, and praise to the LAPD for getting another of society's minus signs away from the public.

Screw the budget woes and take the chains off the door to the gas chamber. Start eradicating this earth of scumbags - much cheaper than providing 3 squares and a cot, and safer than letting these waste products back on the streets.

Some liberal wonder do that math...the cost of a requested KFC last supper and the price of the gas pellet vs. housing and caring for damaged goods for a lifetime.

Robert on July 28, 2009, at 07:48PM – #37

Wow, Jared..a lot of us have sympathy for those in need. A lot of homeless do not want help or the rules and regulations of a shelter. When my Grandmother lived Downtown in the early 1900's, it was the center of the city. We want our center back and I would love it if every single homeless person had a bed. If the city can supply beds and some of the homeless choose to live on the streets..then I have no sympathy for them. These beautiful historic structures were built for a reason. There are a lot of us who appreciate the Julia Morgan's of the world..their architecture is irreplacable. We can all live downtown...we just don't need the druggies on the streets....and there are a lot of them. The historic core redevelopment is unmasking these incredible structures. We need to support that....and find homes for those in need. The police are protecting most all of those who live in shelters and who are abiding by the law. We are doing the homeless no favors by letting them live their lives in the gutters of Los Angeles.

Masonite on July 28, 2009, at 09:35PM – #38

As I said before I don't live downtown, but I have worked there and it is the center of our city in any case. The homeless have no more rights in this area than anyone else in Los Angeles, just the same as my neighborhood.

With that, crimes are crimes. People should either work to change the laws or not criticize the police for enforcing them. Saying the police are criminalizing homelessness rings hollow with me. There are many homeless downtown who do not get arrested, because they don't scream at people walking down the street or other disorderly conduct, drink or use drugs in public, use the sidewalk as a bathroom (very bad for the environment btw), block access to businesses or residences, etc...

I have worked with and given money to the Union Rescue Mission who works to give many homeless full services. Unfortunately, many of the homeless are not interested in going to a mission, because they enforce basic rules and would rather live on the streets as they wish. That is fine with me as long as they follow the law...

Jadoreserge on July 29, 2009, at 12:38AM – #39

Randall bustard, get over yourself. You are just as bad as the new residents of downtown, i'm sure you love to tell your friends how edgy you are living in downtown if not more because you been there longer. You sound exactly like the kind of snobby jerk you hate yourself.

Anyways, we all deserve to live in a clean safe neighborhood no matter where it is or what class of people are there. There are many lower income residents just as scared walking in shady parts of downtown not just lofties. You can't assume that the older residents living in the hotels don't mind watching people take a crap on the street just because their poor. Dont assume that they are all used to it and can deal with it better than the lofties. Everyone wants to make a better place to live for themselves no matter how much rent you pay.

Downtowner on July 29, 2009, at 02:56AM – #40

The insane "anti gentrification brigade" led by the Bustard strikes again. 17 year old girl gets murdered in Downtown? Blame the working and middle-class people who want to call Downtown home instead of focusing on the real problem, which is the intense concentration of poor, uneducated, mentally unstable drug addicts in our backyard - Skid Row.

And despite an official policy of spreading the burden around the county, we have no less than four homeless housing projects under construction now in Skid Row, with more underway.

It's ridiculous to think that what's happening in Downtown is gentrification. Almost all of these units are converted from EMPTY office space. No masses of poor people are being pushed out simply because, again, no one lived in the old office buildings.

If anything, there's more and more homeless arriving Downtown every day, simply replacing those who actually find stable housing in those brand-new affordable housing developments in Skid Row.

So you homeless advocates might think you're doing a good thing by arguing that they should be allowed to live as they have "for decades," but you're the problem. Time to crack down on these bums and clean this place up.

nanorich on July 29, 2009, at 06:09AM – #41

Yesterday Gov. Arnold announced that they were cutting back on HIV/Aids services, Child Welfare, and home healthcare for the elderly...

and suddenly after a middle class white girl is kidnapped in the Wilshire district, and later found murdered, and the defendant is the wrong race and class....

and the mob gets out the pitchforks and gets upset because their quality of life is being messed with....

this has nothing to do with converted office space, it has to do with people who has been pushed out of public housing, off welfare, out of mental hospitals and group homes...

been not able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps fast enough...or have been one minimum wage paycheck away from the street.

And with cutbacks in funding of their already modest welfare service, I am afraid some of your are going to find yourselves have to step over more of the hopeless...and share the sidewalks with just "inconvenient."

Just because you bought a crappy loft with marble counters and stainless steel appliances you couldn't flip fast enough, doesn't mean that you can warm up the gas chambers to deliver your final solution to your property value problem.

Yes, a lovely young woman is dead, and that is a huge tragedy...

one of thousands of tragedies which are lived out in our streets everyday. But one white girl trumps thousands of "undesirables" any day, right?

I have a question, when you decided to live downtown, were you so blind to your surroundings you didn't notice who lived down here and walked these streets?

I challenge you anyone who says "Time to crack down on these bums and clean this place up." to actually come up with a viable solution to your property value problem.

Because in case you didn't know it, YOU are the one who decided to live in a place which traditionally has been the last stop on the express lane to oblivion.

NOevidence? on July 29, 2009, at 08:31AM – #42

Are you saying the solution is to let these people continue to live in their own crap? Seems to me, the solution would be to get these people the hell as far away as skid row as possible. Built them their own tent city.

Skid row is not living condition and no one, not even crackheads should be living in skid row condition. Why someone chose to pay $700k to live in Skid row, that's another story. Both I think it's the same as the other people on skid rows, only people with mental health problem would pay $700k to buy a Loft in SR.

Jasmijn on July 29, 2009, at 11:51AM – #43

Fed Up Downtown: great post. You summed it up very well. I'm also not a rich yuppie in a "high end loft." I also object to having any call for reform or cleaning up dismissed as gentrification and told, "if you're living downtown, put up with it." Downtown wasn't always like this. If it has been for some decades, that doesn't mean it has to remain that way from now on forever. I'm with Jadoreserge. You can't convince me that anyone actually likes living in filth and danger, or that we're taking something away from anyone by making it better for everyone.

This was a horrible thing to happen. It shouldn't happen anywhere in this city, or any other city. And the "quality of life" arrest may not have solved the case, but like downtownloft said, if it made catching the killer any faster, I say hooray.

Thanks, LAPD. And the greatest sympathy to Lily's family.

Rich Alossi on July 29, 2009, at 12:17PM – #44

As someone who's sick and tired of being typecast by these people like Nanorich as a "rich yuppie" -- despite being nowhere near that -- let me chime in here.

Nanorich, you're completely mixing up your issues. I support raising enough taxes to cover mental health benefits for every Californian who needs it. I support full funding for AIDS prevention and healthcare.

And by the way, Mr. Samuel was in a drug rehabilitation program, one of those social programs you're going on about. Nothing short of locking up this man would have prevented this murder.

You think just because I'm living in Downtown means that I bought a $700,000 loft? Even if I DID, that's no excuse for you to so easily sweep aside the issue of crime that so pervades Downtown.

But don't you DARE start blaming the people who are moving here that somehow they should have known better, that this was to be expected, and that no one should be outraged that anyone - whether they be homeless, a 17 year old girl or a 20-year Downtown resident - was murdered.

Your hatred of the people moving to Downtown is summed up in your last sentence, and you claim that people are up in arms and angry because of property values.

I'm a renter, and I'm pissed off about this.

bromike666 on July 29, 2009, at 12:44PM – #45

Maybe we can get the Fed/City/State to rent all the empty downtown units as section 8 housing.

Homeless problem solved, next topic please.

Rich Alossi on July 29, 2009, at 01:03PM – #47

We need to address the distinction between "poor," "homeless"/"underhoused" and "murderers." That's something a lot of the above posters are confusing, as if everyone on Skid Row is simply down on their luck.

The people trying to get help deserve all the help they can get. But not everyone on Skid Row is trying to get help. It's known as a place where you can deal crack and heroin openly, where you can abuse women openly, where prostitution still occurs and teens from around the area are used as pawns and lookouts in the drug trade. I see this every night.

Let me make one thing clear: The people who prey upon the poor, needy and vulnerable have NO PLACE in this neighborhood. Get rid of the crack dealers, the pimps and the rapists so that those who truly need help can get it. I have no problem calling those predators out for what they are: Scum. Keep that distinction in mind.

Randall BusTard on July 29, 2009, at 02:12PM – #48

poliphilo writes: "You sound like a stupid lawyer." poliphilo, you sound like an idiot college student, which may be why you do not know the difference between an attorney and a lawyer. Until you can exhibit some basic reading comprehension, go away. No, wait, the anonymity of blogs is perfect for incompetent jerks, so pull up a chair and stay a while. Masonite, cite your source: "However, she was still trying to get money out multiple times with him physically holding her." Did you see the ATM video footage? Or was this a fact released by the same "Law enforcement sources" that only yesterday stated that "blood was also visible on Samuel's clothing when he was detained, although it was unclear whether the arresting officers saw it."? (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lily-burk28-2009jul28,0,123041.story)

FED UP DOWNTOWN, when you get done shouting, will you agree that, by your own logic, you are "THE WORKING POOR"? After all, if "DREGS OF SOCIETY; WHO HAVE NO SELF-RESPECT NOR DIGNITY" are living on Skid Row "by their own choice," and you are living there too, then what else might one assume? Since you seem to be making quite a lot of noise (caps in on-line communication is commensurate with yelling, you know), whom should I call about my quality of life on-line being devalued by people who are unable to restrain themselves in a public forum.

With the unemployment boom coming there will be loads more people on Skid Row and wherever such services exist. They will come from the middle class and the working poor, but according to some fed up people, they are heading down that path "by their own choice." (I think that if some fed up people could read, they would know—and I already stated it, above, that Reagan was directly responsible for much of the mess by closing down the places where many of these people stayed so long ago.)

The companies who do it know well in advance how many they plan to lay off and fire, as it is reported more than six months before it occurs, to the EDD. Have a look and see if your firm is on this list that covers all of 2009: http://www.edd.ca.gov/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN.htm#ListingofWARNNotices )

Downtowner, meet Jadoreserge. Jadoreserge, meet Downtowner. You two should get along well, unless there is competition to see which is the more inane anonymous schmuck who will say anything when from behind a monitor while on-line. Your personal attacks and pathetic conjecture can only lead me to state that you are a jerks. I know neither of you can hold an argument in person, so why not shut up while on-line as well? Upset? Next time don't insult people by name, and I won't have to put my figurative foot up yours arses.

For those who insist on making an ass of yourself while commenting about that which you know little, if I failed to address your comments, it may mean they were too stupid to rejoin.

Unfortunately, events such as this will continue to happen—and not just to whose who live (and according to some, deserve to die) on Skid Row. It is extremely upsetting to hear of such events, but until all the resources of those who purchase the pricey places in the greater downtown area do more than complain on-line, not much will happen. Those who live in downtown would do well to stop dialing 911 and start doing something, even if it means gassing the poor.

Then again, as JJ Hart illustrates, cowards still rely on the government to do that for them too, while calling those who do not want such measures "liberals" even as people such as Hart have not the backbone to do anything more than, ahem, dial 911.

vonnb on July 29, 2009, at 02:29PM – #50

Whoa! Third and Los Angeles. That's too close for comfort. LA will have to decide very soon if they want downtown to be a thriving community of residents and businesses who grow the tax base, or if they want it as a repository of the city's problems which it has been for years. I have lived in downtown LA for two years now. We ALL pay a pretty penny in rent and I should NOT have to walk to the corner or down the block to meet single female friends. I support gentrification 100% LA is trying to have it both ways. Maybe if they clean up those trashy shops, illegals and criminal homeless ( not all homeless are criminals) major chains might locate there (I am in TX right now) and DTLA will help lift LA out of the financial hole. "concerned citizen" maybe we should move these people to the Westside or Santa Monica so you can have people pissing on your doorstep or people loitering and looking shady and high. My friend the hot dog vendor got stabbed by a homeless guy over the holidays in front of PE lofts. He gave up on DTLA. They better do something and FAST!

Bo on July 29, 2009, at 04:27PM – #51

Actually, it was mental health advocates who wanted the mentally ill to be released into "Community Care", and who applauded Reagan's moves. But there's no evidence that Samuels was ever mentally ill. He had 10 prior convictions, including armed robbery and home invasion. NOt exactly the poster boy for rehab.

KengiKat on July 29, 2009, at 05:37PM – #52

First let me just say that I am so sorry for the loss of life. It is sad that this has happened and yes the police has done a great job with this case.

However San Francisco P D is no different then LAPD, they do the same type of "targets" and "sweeps" as LAPD. Yes, the police did a great job this time, however this isnt always the case and ALL of us need to fully get this. Homelessness and poverty is not a crime and I wonder how many of would have these feelings had you not paid the high price for the lofts you now live in.

Skid Row has always been dangerous and just because you place more police on the streets and call it a "safe street" doesnt make it safe for all. It is easy for people to make seeping statements of the people of Downtown LA and Skid Row as they sit high in their loft looking down on the people who have been there for years. More police is not the answer.

Once again I think the police did a great job and I am sorry someone had to die at the hands of some dork, but you cant then say all homeless people are the same. I think the ACLA and LA CAN do great jobs as well. All people can improve, ALL PEOPLE including all of us.

KMFDM on July 29, 2009, at 06:21PM – #53

Many of these people who seem downtrodden or mentally ill are often no more than malcontents who want to blame "da man" for all their ills. I live among them, and I see and hear them every day, as they loiter on the sidewalks around here. (And these are the ones who HAVE homes; as in SRO units.)

No one can be helped until they decide to help themselves and take responsibility for their own part in their own misfortune. Oddly enough, most of the men at my job who are of the same ilk have the same bad attitude... the only difference is they have jobs... but they still moan and complain about the same old tired crap...how someone ELSE is treating them unfairly and keeping them down, which is a crock of SH#@! They fail to see that life has its challenges for everyone, not just the self-pitying moaners. Everyone is expected to rise to their own challenges.

So, one does not have to be mentally ill, homeless, nor even unemployed to be a soul-sucking drain on people around him and greater society. Adults are expected to be accountable for themselves no matter the race, education, or income level. If adults don't behave themselves responsibly and maturely, then they need corrections.

j on July 29, 2009, at 07:29PM – #54

can someone please explain the rationale for privileging the rights of the homeless because they have been in downtown longer than the loft dwellers? I see this argument in a couple posts, but don't really understand what it really means or how to weigh it in a discussion~

Yay Police! on July 30, 2009, at 09:03AM – #56

I just want to add that not only homeless or sporadically housed get displaced. That's why there is such a thing as the RSO, Rent Stabilization Ordinance. Landlords must pay tenants several thousands to relocate if they want to renovate occupied buildings.

Also, there are a lot of housing projects for the unstable and homeless going on in this area. I think that will more likely attract more of them to this area. City council needs to spread this sort of thing out or we're headed for a huge increase in the numbers of the needy which means inheriting even more of their societal ills and abberant behaviors.

Back to the main topic, YES; there are many criminals mixed among the druggies and homeless and mentally ill. How to tell them apart; I don't know. But regardless, the bad public behavior needs attention by the police if it is ever going to end.

Jasmijn on July 30, 2009, at 12:34PM – #58

Absolutely: not all those who are homeless are criminals. Equally, not all those who are criminals are homeless. And anybody who commits a crime should be stopped from continuing to do so, no matter what their housing situation.

Yes, we chose to move downtown. Yes, we know it's not the Westside or Ohio or even the Valley. That's why we moved here. That doesn't mean we feel (for various reasons) that the situation, as we found it, was ideal. Maybe our being here displaces some other people (personally, I live in a converted office building; nobody was living here before that), just as their moving here displaced others. We have to live together and make this a place that is safe and comfortable for all of us.

Oh, and regarding property values? A lot of us rent. Lower property values would mean lower rents. We're not pushing prettyfication to protect any financial investments, so let's not make that the focus of this argument.

Russell on July 30, 2009, at 01:14PM – #59

Those are some good points, Jasmijn. Even most of us who own downtown didn't make the choice because they thought it would be a solid investment(and i doubt those who did frequent this site!). Arguing for a safe place to live and work is more than reasonable. Especially when quality of life crimes would not be tolerated anywhere else in the city. Why should it be allowed here?

Jared on July 30, 2009, at 06:09PM – #60

To Jasmijn & Russell. I understand we have several interweaving topics here but I want to make sure I politely and logically clarify your last two points and put this in better perspective. The reason why such “quality of life” crimes have been allowed is because the city, and other municipalities in the region, fostered a policy of containment. The area grew to be founded on lax controls. Though this is unfortunate, this is simply the case when the government doesn’t want to or have the wherewithal to solve social problems. Now that development firms moved in, of course it’s reasonable for middle class people to demand a safe neighborhood, but those demands should be made in their socio-historical context. Homelessness and depravity were tolerated simply because the city leaders didn’t want it existing anywhere else.

I also want to clarify that I’m not saying living downtown automatically displaces people. The nature of adaptive reuse allows this but we can’t forget about secondary effects too that many seem to forget. But when I hear people on this comment stream encourage the outright removal of homeless and poor, that is disturbing news. You can’t sponsor displacement for the sake of public safety, especially since the long history of Skid Row and that it was created to be the way it is. Just because private capital reclaims its former land in the form of residential development, this doesn’t permit uprooting of communities. Converting public land to private use creates exclusionary mechanisms. Old and existing uses have to be taken in consideration because if they’re not, you run the risk, in my opinion shame, of reproducing the inequalities that were created. In other words this means harming again and again the most vulnerable populations susceptible to neglect.

Lastly Jasmijn, you can’t be serious about the homeless moving here displacing others are you? We all know they became concentrated here because downtown was considered an abandoned wasteland and it was the only place to turn to while all the other habitable areas were essentially off-limits made effective by exclusionary zoning, publically funded segregation, and police authority.

You guys have to agree me a little bit don’t you??

Jen Mikosz on July 30, 2009, at 07:20PM – #62

Randall BusTard, you seem driven to construct a scenario where Lily practically commits suicide so you can launch into an anti-Reagan/LAPD screed. Despite your conspiracy inference, I doubt Professor Drooz students are likely to help in Mr. Samuel's defense.

As a descendant of policemen in a rather dangerous town beset upon by left-leaning yuppies AND a crime victim in a scenario that could've easily gone in Lily's direction, I'm afraid her volunteering @ a needle exchange gave her fatal empathy for her killer, whereas if she'd spent her time reading "The Gift Of Fear" by Gavin de Becker she would've run away-no cellphone or purse or car...but alive to watch the sun setting. He probably forgot her by the time he opened his beer. And why? for what reason? I keep thinking of the Elmore Leonard line "ice cream for freaks"

"I am truly sorry to hear that what has happened to young Lily Burke, and I hope that folk work to see that such n event does not occur again." You're a crank & a liar, if but for the ATM's & cell phone the whole thing seems like Sarai Ribicoff Redux; http://www.virtualvenice.info/writings/sarai.htm & in a terribly similiar matter another co-ed kidnapped from an area thought to be gentrified forced to give up her ATM PIN before being bound, helpless as her slashed jugular bled out & left for dead in her own car.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6047978 In these matters only the victim's faces change, with scholarships in their name their only legacy;

dominic on July 30, 2009, at 08:45PM – #63

"Screw the budget woes and take the chains off the door to the gas chamber. Start eradicating this earth of scumbags" says J J Hart. That's a pretty yucky thing to say. The society in which this monstrous act of murder occurred isn't going to be helped by more heartless, barbaric egoism, is it? J J Hart, (and others with similar opinions) - you are exalting your own brand of ugliness and violence over the already horrible murder of a innocent young girl. You know what I mean: don't give us any more of your arrogant bullshit. Lily's murder was horrible. It was due to someone's monstrous behavior. It is also due to the selfish egoistic greedy nature of our society. The only way to truly improve things is to enhance the values of decency, respect and compassion both to all our fellow human beings and to mother earth. Anything short of this is a fools fix.

Jared on July 30, 2009, at 08:59PM – #64

Hi Rich: People are saying or implying to say that we should clear out the homeless. If you read over the comments again, you will find over and over things like (I’m paraphrasing): clear the streets of these dirty people who shit on themselves, move the homeless to Pomona, move the homeless out of Skid Row for their benefit, time to crack down on bums and clean this place up, it would be cheaper to kill the homeless than provide housing and caring for damaged goods, call the authorities for peeing on the sidewalk thereby detaining them and ridding them from the street, get the homeless out so they can stop bothering people doing positive things, assuming homeless are criminals. You are not seeing this in the 60 comments posted Rich? All of this is said by middle class residents who’s lifestyles are constrained by the poor.

True, many are also saying we should remove the criminal element, but also a lot of people are generalizing homelessness and somehow putting a spin on to create the idea that many are criminal. Besides, putting drug addicts and people with psychological problems in prison is a good idea?

Furthermore, enforcing the rule of law in poor communities has a long sordid history Rich. Look at what happened in South Central from the 64 riots, to the crack epidemic of the 80’s, to the city’s fascination of targeting gangs. You have to take these criminal acts into context here, people’s backgrounds and experiences. While rule of law is enforced do you how many civil rights were violated and essentially lifted for periods in time of “warfare”.

Rich Alossi on July 30, 2009, at 09:27PM – #65

Jared: Most of those comments are directed at the criminals, and not the homeless themselves. Criminal behavior by those who are also homeless affects us all, and puts strain on an already unsteady situation. But you're right- and I completely disagree with those who are saying to move the homeless elsewhere (unless it's to supportive housing, which we need to build on a countywide basis).

But you and I differ greatly when it comes to our opinion on 'enforcing the rule of law.' Some may see that as an unconstitutional expansion of police powers, while others, like me, see that as making a neighborhood safe for those who have been living in fear of crime for decades, those who fear for their children and whether they'll be jumped on the way to school or inducted into a gang.

So yes, let's keep the police in check by remaining vigilant and ensuring that homeless people aren't arrested for sleeping on the sidewalk, or arrested for jaywalking. But I will never back down in saying that crimes - real crimes that affect real people, whether homeless middle- or working-class - don't go unpunished. It might be a loaded term, but "cracking down" on quality of life crimes, like drug dealing and pimping, works.

Skid Row is a lot better now than it was several years ago now that drug dealing isn't as tolerated as it was before. Now those who head to Skid Row because they need treatment can actually get it without being exposed to an open-air drug market that is almost surely too easy to resist. So whether that's because the loftees are directing focus that way or whether it's simply because it's time to improve the lives of those who are living on Skid Row either on the streets or in supportive housing, is totally irrelevant.

The point is that LAPD, County Social Services and LA Department of Child & Family Services need to focus on abating the absolutely desperate and inhuman conditions that exist on Skid Row.

Randi M on July 30, 2009, at 10:03PM – #66

Furthermore, enforcing the rule of law in poor communities has a long sordid history

Considering how much criminality has plagued that part of Los Angeles for decades, I'd say the main problem has been the police not wanting to spend much or any time there. They -- as is true of most of us -- don't want to risk their lives needlessly or put more effort into the daily grind of their job beyond what's absolutely necessary. So if they looked at the crime-filled mess of South-Central Los Angeles and thought "I'll leave that nightmare for some other cop, for some other sucker," who could blame them?

In that regard they're not all too different from the social providers and legal representatives who spend time bemoaning the plight of the homeless in downtown, but who when the clock strikes five get in their cars and dash home to their house in Northridge or Brentwood, or to some suburb far, far away.

In Shock on July 31, 2009, at 12:21AM – #67

Dear Mr. BusTard

In a court of law, the man who is charged with this crime will deserve the benefit of all reasonable doubt. But, it would be a great surprise if it gets that far.

The evidence that has been reported is strong - - and you know they never release the best evidence. What do we know? There is video of him in the driver's seat of Lily's car as the car departs. There is video of him "controlling her movement" at at least one ATM. There is video of him exiting her car at the location where she was ultimately found (how else do the police know he exited at 4:52 p.m.?). He was near Southwestern (as reported by another resident of his rehab) before the abduction and was found near the location where she was left. His fingerprints were in her car. When arrested, he had her cell phone. There are reports that he had blood on him.

Sounds like we are getting real close to "beyond all reasonable doubt" to me. But, hey, I am just one of those idiots that doesn't agree with you. Maybe, I have it all wrong. Maybe she was trying to help this guy. Maybe she invited him into her car. Maybe she asked him to drive because she was tired. Maybe he was just making sure that she didn't fall down at the ATM. Maybe, while he was driving her, someone jumped into the car, killed her and jumped out, leaving him to park it and abandon it near some warehouse. Maybe he kept her phone to call for help. Maybe he stopped for a beer because he was simply parched.

You know, I thank God that we have a system where everyone is entitled to representation. I thank God that there are people out there willing to represent the worst of the worst to protect the system and, ultimately, my rights. You may be one of them. I know - yes, I know - that sometimes a good defense attorney prevails because they are capable of having a jury leave their common sense at the door. But, outside of court, talking between "friends," maybe you can bring yours with you.

Randall BusTard on July 31, 2009, at 12:50AM – #68

Eric, I am curious why there is the implication that I need to tone down (your comment to do so was made directly beneath my second comment) and yet such comments as "You sound like a stupid lawyer" and "You sound exactly like the kind of snobby jerk you hate yourself" seem to be fine. I may be passionate in my arguments, but I did not direct them at any one person—as these people whom I quoted (and whose emotional outbursts offered nothing beyond knee-jerk rejoinders) above certainly did. I cannot help but infer that name-calling is fine provided it is on the side of public favour (or religious zealotry), but that reasonable and well-stated arguments that stray from being meek, apologetic and docile are swiftly admonished.

CP on July 31, 2009, at 02:03AM – #69

There is a bit of irony to this tragic even. Deborah Drooz, the victim's mother, does legal work for LA CAN (Los Angeles Community Action Network). LA CAN is a skid row activist group that opposed the gentrification of downtown and the "harassment" of the downtown "homeless." They also oppose the enforcement of "quality of life" crimes by the LAPD, like DRINKING IN PUBLIC. The very crime that led to the capture of the murder suspect! GO FIGURE!

mhr on July 31, 2009, at 07:12AM – #70

Enter the LA Central Public Library after 5 PM if you want see homeless people. They watch TV in the history section alcoves, "shower" at the sinks in the restroom and otherwise make themselves at home. As for why Lily didn't run when she had the chance, my theory is that she felt no danger so comfortable had she become around what we used to call bums. The lack of a sense of danger just may have contributed to her death.

Randall BusTard on July 31, 2009, at 08:39AM – #71

Although a couple of people have commented above on the questionable manner in which this story was reported, I feel the need to point out—again—that the LAPD as well as the author of this article appear to be exploiting this tragic event to forward an agenda. A couple of commentators have even accused me of such things despite not being able to comprehend the nature of the article—which is to promote an unpopular policy (the Safer Cities Initiative) when it is clear that this story is not so much about young Lily Burk's tragic death but about pushing the policy the LAPD so desperately desires after so many years of the city pushing the destitute out of the rest of L.A. and into the catch-basin downtown. The hed of the article sounds as if it were a talking point in a one-sheet from the LAPD.

As a comparison, let us look back a few months to the double-homicide that took the life of Kevin Cohen. Compare the nature of the article, the absence of policy-pushing (might one infer that Mr. Cohen's death did not warrant promoting the Safer Cities Initiative?) and most telling, the absence of comments regarding the state of Skid Row, downtown and all the above bloviations and conjecture that is being used to fill the air by people who anonymously (and from as far away as Texas) offer nothing more than ill-informed opinions. Downtown needs a lot of work, but throwing out the figurative baby with the bathwater is just as foolish as allowing downtown to continue to rot. Too many people with too little understanding of how this came to be are making too much noise about that which they fail to understand. The safer Cities Initiative should come LONG after far more intensive work is done, and such work needs to be executed by the same agencies that made downtown a mess over several decades.

Many people state (on this and nearly every other L.A.-based blog) that downtown Los Angeles should not try following the New York model with regards transit, etc. , yet that is exactly where Safer Cities was conceived and initially executed: in mid-town Manhattan. It is not working save to prepare Skid Row for being cleared out for the time when development in downtown is reinvigorated, and those who have for so long lived on Skid Row—not all of whom chose to be there, and many of whom are clearly mental and should not be on the streets—are doing what any bunch of humans do when they are being evicted: resisting. (The nature of too many anonymous comments by people in downtown who appear to feel threatened by a minority opinion in this very thread bear out this fact: why else the wild accusations and puerile insults?)

j. r. j. on July 31, 2009, at 08:59AM – #72

Why should homeowners and renters and even so-called "yuppies" be made to feel guilty, as though they are the problem, when they are trying to clean up and beautify downtown? God bless anyone who tries to make life better for themselves and their neighbors without harming anyone else.

I'm a homeowner on the west side, a former renter who saved and scraped and worked my ass off for 20 years in order to buy a small home. I pick up the garbage on my street and, yeah, if I see some lunatic pissing in the alley or waving a 2x4 at passerbys I will call the police.

As far as Lily Burk is concerned, god rest her soul. I cry when I start reading about her, but I also get angry as hell that these monsters who have long criminal records and have never tried to rehabilitate themselves continue to take advantage of government services -- living off my sweat and terrifying young people and older folks who are just trying to have a happy life without hurting anyone. I am as liberal as they come, but I will be the first to pull the switch when this monster is found guilty.

Jason on July 31, 2009, at 09:59AM – #73

Bus Tard,

You are a little too sensitive for your own good. Just because Eric put the comment below yours didn't meant he directed at you (he had to put it below someone's).

You seem to think only others should be admonished not you when you stated:

"I cannot help but infer that name-calling is fine provided it is on the side of public favour (or religious zealotry), but that reasonable and well-stated arguments that stray from being meek, apologetic and docile are swiftly admonished."

Yet, you stated the following:

"Your personal attacks and pathetic conjecture can only lead me to state that you are a jerks. I know neither of you can hold an argument in person, so why not shut up while on-line as well? Upset? Next time don't insult people by name, and I won't have to put my figurative foot up yours arses.

For those who insist on making an ass of yourself while commenting about that which you know little, if I failed to address your comments, it may mean they were too stupid to rejoin."

With that, of course you don't think the tone down comment should apply to you at all and only others (of course if you believe you are the expert in this area and everyone else is too naive to comment). I am not going to comment on this anymore as that is not the spirit of this board, but all I can say is you see the world through a different shade of glasses and in my book and I'm sure most others on here, this is the definition of condenscending and hypocritical.

Kat on July 31, 2009, at 10:40AM – #74

i'm a newbie Downtowner (but have been working here on on off for 15 years).

i'm overjoyed at the new-ish strong police presence Downtown and honestly wouldn't feel safe living here without it.

good job cops! i'm happy you're around!

i don't have a problem with "quality of life" stops either. why shouldn't homeless people have to follow the same laws as people who live/rent in homes and apartments?

Size on July 31, 2009, at 10:49AM – #75

Jared -

You do not want the poor to be criminalized or rounded up and pushed out of downtown, neither do I.

However, you make all kinds of assumptions about the people who have moved to downtown and most of those assumptions are as wrong and full of ill feeling as those some people make about the homeless.

It is impossible to have a discussion about the myriad problems faced by the downtown community when either side is made to appear to be saints or villains.

Not all of the homeless are people who are there through no fault of their own or sweet folks who want only to live their lives in peace; nor are they all criminals waiting to prey on the more fortunate.

Not all of those who have moved downtown are folks looking to make downtown a better, more diverse place with room for both the well off and the poor; nor are they all looking to sweep the homeless off the streets and make a killing on reselling their lofts.

I don't know where you live or what good works you do - I don't live downtown and I certainly don't do what I should do in working with the homeless but I often eat in the areas adjacent to Skid Row and have walked many miles through the area (not as a person doing good just as a person who enjoys that part of town). I have never, ever wished for anything to happen to any of the poor residents there. I certainly wish for more and better services for them and from having been very poor in recent times, I know what it takes just to get up and face the world every day in that circumstance.

Do you honestly think we do these citizens any good by not trying to make downtown a better place, which includes improving the area through better off people becoming part of the community? If there were no gentrification would this area not just be a ghetto for the poor? Out of sight, out of mind.

What are you willing to do to help change the situation?

And all of that being written, let's go to the event that started this exchange of ideas:

Lily Burk appears by all accounts to be a person concerned with the fates of those on skid row. I do not think she would have wanted the poor to have been marginalized, nor would she have in any way thought of them as criminals. Indeed, it would appear at this time, that perhaps her openness to her alleged killer may have been part of the reason she did not feel her life endangered. The fact that there are many, many things wrong downtown should not obscure the crime that was committed here.

Erin on July 31, 2009, at 04:02PM – #76

This comment is specifically regarding the argument that Lily did not act out because her work with the homeless made her feel comfortable with Mr. Samuel; consequently, she played a role in her own death.

That is ridiculous, and makes me feel sick. Because Lily volunteered at a homeless center does not mean she trusted or felt safe with a man who likely approached her with a knife and abducted her. What if he held a knife to her back and said “If you scream I will stab you?” What if she was too terrified to think rationally?

I don’t know what her parents taught her, but I know mine taught me that if anyone ever approached me, I should give them what they want so they leave me alone. Maybe she was trying to give Mr. Samuel money so he would leave her alone. Would she have acted any differently if she had never seen a homeless person? If she had been told that all homeless people are sick and dangerous?

There are infinite “what if” scenarios in this incident, and I do not know all the facts; but, it makes me sick to see people placing blame on Lily or her parents due to involvement with a homeless center.

Belinda Gomez on July 31, 2009, at 05:29PM – #77

Well, Erin, maybe your parents haven't given you the right information. Maybe, you should resist. According to those who've seen the Little Tokyo tapes, Lily and her assailant are walking side by side on a sidewalk with other people. She might have felt she was helping him. I think that's tragic. That's not placing blame, but perhaps the takeaway is for women to be more self-protective, even at the expense of thinking about others. Read The Gift of Fear.

Jen Mikosz on July 31, 2009, at 06:29PM – #78

Erin, it seems you're referencing me-and that's cool, but the way I live my life is because of what I'VE experienced and WHAT I've learned from my family. I hate predators-like the homeless guy who held the knife against my friend's throat in the carport of her crappy dingbat apt. building off Venice Blvd & Lincoln. Why? So he could take her purse with the $20 in tips she just made from her lousy waitress gig. So when she asked him if she could @ least have her driver's license back & save herself a trip to the DMV. He told her "no". Why? Because somewhere in his head that robbery quit being about money, & turned into terror, control & the genocide of women.

I never said Lily played a role in her own death, based on the video footage I wondered, rather, what led to her inaction. In a variation on your parents, I was taught by my grandfather, who worked vice & homicide, NEVER EVER go to the 2nd crime scene. Because the 2nd Crime Scene is where you die. Call their bluff, if they want to kill you, they can try their luck there on the spot, which they won't, otherwise it's all about the rape, robbery & torture 'til your dead. Run. Scream. Fight. Flee. You can't be paralyzed, like a gazelle on the African veldt. Or to quote de Becker, crime victims will subject themselves to the most brutal execution over fear of getting punched or stabbed. When the Man With The Knife Or Gun says he won't hurt you, he's a liar already. "What if she was too terrified to think rationally?" What if? We know what the end results are. "If she had been told that all homeless people are sick and dangerous?". It seems that guy was, on a sidewalk full of crowded people in broad daylight is no time to worry about hurting his feelings-once he got her back alone we have a pretty good idea what happend. I wish she reacted accordingly-should she have been volunteering @ a Needle Exchange? It obviously didn't make her streetwise. Otherwise, your main complaint is towards CP noting Lily's mother work on behalf of LA CAN. I don't know about that O. Henry angle-maybe no more ironic than Kathy Fiscus or Amy Biehl. Just read "The Gift Of Fear" & stay safe. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/320146.The_Gift_of_Fear

Jared on July 31, 2009, at 11:36PM – #79

To Size:

I’m afraid you totally missed the crux of my argument and misrepresented my ideas. If you re-read, slowly, and not initially take offense to facts I state as if I personalized them to include you, it’ll make sense to you. In order to accuse me of making assumptions and my argument as invalid, you’re going to have to try harder and actually counter some of the facts I laid out, very explicitly mind you. For example, I never once referred to new downtown residents as “yuppies” and I definitely never once implied that the homeless should live in their current environment. Again, if you re-read my statements, I clearly said the status quo for the homeless is unacceptable. I based my argument on quotations pulled from this very blog made by people I feel who think a little less homeless in their neighborhood boosts its self-worth. Furthermore, I entirely based my argument on simple facts of the processes of gentrification and displacement, which I undoubtedly saw effects from to the reaction of this article.

I can’t emphasize enough, if you want to criticize my statements you need to provide claims of why I’m wrong, accurate claims. Such as, I never said gentrification itself was a wholly negative process. In fact, it can be very beneficial, but only if it is managed correctly and all negative effects are mitigated if not eradicated. Moreover, I’m saying here, with no ambiguity whatsoever, that in the progression of converting space made by new loft dwellers, along with their landlords who own the attractive real estate around here, it harbingers negative aspects of gentrification. This is seen in the various ideas floating about renovation, “cleaning up”, the area. I’m not saying these people are evil, though some are evidently, but these kind of actions foster displacement of existing populations.

I understand all the advantages of economic integration. But I reiterate, plans need to encompass the suffering and go beyond the narrow ideas of calling the cops or cleaning up the streets, that’s some bogus claims that advertently harms the weak.

Back to Baseline on August 01, 2009, at 09:12AM – #80

Can't we all just agree that we want fewer-to-no homeless on the streets? For whatever reason; be it you're a community activist for the destitute, or someone who just wants to feel and BE safer in your own neighborhood, they are both valid.

But let's just all agree: WE WANT FEWER HOMELESS ON THE STREETS.

Shelly on August 01, 2009, at 10:32AM – #81

The preference that there be fewer homeless people on the street is a given. The truly difficult matter is how to achieve that.

Our society is far more accomodating today than it was years ago, with a more elaborate safety net now in place. And yet homelessness has not only remained a problem, it has increased in size and severity.

The interesting and ironic thing is that parts of downtown Los Angeles, and, for that matter, other communities throughout the LA area, did not resemble a hellish version of Calcutta or Haiti even during the Great Depression back in the 1920s and 1930s.

The major difference between then and now?

Some point to changes in policies over 30 years ago, when hospitals for the mentally incompetent were gradually put out of commission. The claim is made that was done to save money. Actually, the impetus behind much of that was the growing belief that people in general, including those with serious mental illness should be able to pursue a "live and let live" lifestyle. So homelessness became a civil rights issue, and has remained so since the 1960s.

Another point: is a lot of homelessness of today traceable to our society not being more generous and compassionate?

So are we in Los Angeles not loving and charitable enough?

If you say "yes," can you apply that same response to the people of San Francisco? But aren't they famous for all the humanitarian gestures they direct at any and every social problem? And yet homelessness is a major problem there too.

JustAnotherDayInParadise on August 01, 2009, at 01:07PM – #82

I've read some very interesting posts on this blog and after reading so many mosconceptions have decided to post my own.

Allow me to qualify myself first. I'm a police officer who has worked downtown for over a decade (long before gentrification). Most of my time is spent in the skid row area. I've arrested COUNTLESS "homeless" people for everything to drinking in public to murder. I've interviewed HUNDREDS of these arrestees to understand more of the skid row culture. I'm also a "loftie." I bought a condo down here 3 years ago to be closer to work. Unfortunately this blog is not long enough for me to cite the evidence for my conclusions, so suffice it to say it has come from years of being immersed in the skid row culture 50-60 hours a week for numerous years. Here is what I have learned.

Most of the residents are not "homeless" in the truest sense of the word. Most are here by CHOICE. It is here that they can receive free food at the missions, thus are able to spend their General Relief, Disability, and Social Security checks on narcotics. They are also here because the crack is much cheaper and more plentiful than most places in the state, if not the country.

A good portion of the residents of skid row are not from LA. Many are in fact from out of state. When asked why they came to LA the reply is often, because California pays more benefits than the state they relocated from, and the weather is good.

Most of those on the streets choose to be on the streets. I'm told that the missions have too many rules, such as: no drinking, no smoking, no gambling, no drug use, no fornicating...basically "I can't do whatever I damn well please while inside the mission."

Most of the drug dealers are from South Central LA. The gang members deliver the drugs in the morning, and throughout the day. They are often distributed to "homeless" who then sell the drugs/crack by the piece in return for a portion of the drugs.

Most of the homless are not mentally ill. Although there are some who truly are, the majority of the truly mentally ill reside in the shelters designed to handle the mentally ill. Most of what appears to be mental illness on the streets is in fact some state of being under the influence.

The large "hotels," like the Cecil, Rosslyn, Frontier, and Alexandria, which have "diplaced" the "homeless" during gentrification were really just havens for drug users, drug dealers, gang members, and prostitutes. They were the source of most of the radio calls for the police. After entering the hotels it wasn't uncommon for the officers to be cussed at, spat at, or have things thrown at them from the floors above while on the stairwell (including human excrement).

There were once filthy porta-johns on skid row for the homeless to use. Unfortunately most were used to deal drugs out of, use drugs in, or as houses of prostitution. The city spent $225,000.00, per unit, to build several self-cleaning toilets (the big green contraptions on some corners). We now have several expensive (and clean) locations where drugs are sold, drugs are used, and houses of prostitution. Most who urinate (and often deficate) still choose to do so on the sidewalk, gutter, or on the side of businesses.

LA CAN (Coummunity Action Network) is a front to protect the narcotics trade in skid row. They ARE involved in the distribution of crack cocaine in skid row, and using the front of a homeless advocacy group, have enlisted the help of many well-meaning westside liberals to protest the safer cities initiative (which has drastically cut into their customer base).

Most of the homeless are on parole or probation, and have VERY LENGTHY rap sheets that more often than not, include violent crimes.

The drug dealers are not afraid of the justice system. When someone is arrested for 11352(a) of the Health and Safety Code (selling narcotics), they are given the opportunity to plea guilty and saying they are an addict. They are then released, often within the week, with three years probation and a court ordered Proposition 36 drug treatment program. The second time the are caught for 11352, it's usually 60-180 days in jail, which they will serve 10%-50% of. The third time, 18 months in state prison serving only 50%. The fourth time, three years at 50%.

To arrest somone for sales is not easy. Many keep the narcotics in their mouth so they can swallow it when stopped by the police, or often in their ass cheeks so when the police get out of their cars the dealer can quickly poke the bindle into their rectum. Most sales arrests are often made using an undercover officer who after the sale, will have the evidence. As a result, many dealers will not sell to someone with all their teeth, wears shoes, or looks like they've bathed in the last three days.

Many of those we arrest for possession of narcotics, possession for sales of narcotics, or sales of narcotics, are enrolled in court ordered treatment programs provided at the homeless shelters.

Here are my conclusions from my observations and what I've learned on the streets (much of the information from the arrestees).

Propostion 36 is a JOKE. How can you expect someone to stop using or selling drugs when you ORDER them to treatment. Their heart is not in it...and they have no intent on quitting.

Why not sell drugs in LA? The chances are you won't get caught, and even if you do, you're going to have to get caught at least three times before doing any amount of time (thanks to our liberal judges).

In most cases "homelessness" is a choice as it provides the freedom to do whatever one pleases.

"Homelessness" is not what it sounds like. Go to a third world country and see the homeless there. They are usually undernourished, skinny, and in rags. Here in LA, take a drive by the front of the LA Mission at 5th and Wall (across the street from the police station. You will see that most of the "homeless" are overweight, talking on cell phones, listening to their portable CD players. Why work when the taxpayer provides so well?

Gentrification is a NOT a bad thing. Go to downtown Chicago, New York, London, Berlin...their downtowns are the showcases of those cities. It once was here. For years now our downtown has been a PIT. Many a time I'd see foreign tourists wandering around, looking lost. When asked if they were lost, they're answer would often include what a hole LA was and their desire to leave as quickly as possible.

The "homeless" are not exempt from the laws which we are all held to. "Homeless" do not have the right to jaywalk (making traffic wait while they take their sweet time crossing against a red light), piss in the gutter, crap on the sidewalk, sleep/block the sidewalk, use drugs (especially in the open) drink in public, panhandle outside stores...and so on and so on. What if that was happening in front of your house or your place of business? Would you not want the police to do something? "Not in my backyard." Well it's not okay in ANYONE'S backyard.

If every community provided the "homeless" services needed for the homeless from that community, instead of shunting them off to downtown LA, we would not have a skid row. If those who are so concerned for the "homeless" provided a spot in their backyard for a homeless person to pitch their tent (and even use their drugs) downtown LA would not have the burden they are currently suffering (put your money where your mouth is).

The bottom line, most of the poor homeless people downtown are in fact there by choice (I'm sure I'll receive a lot of flak for that comment) and most BY FAR come from the criminal element. Don't let the sad face they put on while panhandling you fool you.

I'm sure I'll be labeled by some as racist, a Nazi, a pig, jaded, heartless...and so forth. Well, my observations are real, and my conclusions come from my observations after spending ten years working the streets of skid row. And tomorrow I'll be back out there. You can look for me at 6th and San Julian, or 5th and San Pedro, or Gladys and 7th... Just another day in "the box."

kat on August 01, 2009, at 05:03PM – #83

to: justanotherdayinparadise,

WORD.

and thanks.

I <3 LAPD on August 01, 2009, at 07:46PM – #84

THANK YOU JADIP; for the enlightenment and tenacious work ethic.

As a resident and pedestrian of this hood and these streets, you've confirmed exactly what I believe and then some. Count on me to report QOL crimes whenever I see them... which means I've got you on speed dial.

Funny; you know, I've known people with relatives who were homeless, and they too echoed what you stated. "He can come live with me, but he'd rather be on the street where he can do drugs." Wonder how all that permanent housing for the homeless is going to work out.

P.S. I suspected LA CAN was up to something after I read their manifesto which considers QOL behaviors "normal". Anyone in the business of helping people cannot truly let them go on believing that such uncivilized behavior is normal, much less acceptable.

LAHeat on August 02, 2009, at 07:17AM – #85

Thank You JustAnotherDayInParadise! Truer words never spoken. Your account is extremely accurate!!

And to the "Concerned Citizen" and "Juan R" - you are the type of person that is truly naive and are prime targets for criminals. When that happens, I hope the police who you trivialize are there to prevent serious injury or death!

And to Randall Bustard - do you really believe what you wrote? Did you read what you wrote? Me thinks you protest too much!

Bottom Line: Mr. Samual was, in fact first arrested for a quality of life crime, he was removed from the streets and fortunately was identified as a murder suspect, located quickly in the system, charged and booked.

Safer Streets Initiative does work!

Robert on August 02, 2009, at 07:39AM – #86

Thank you "JustAnotherDayinParadise". In my time Downtown I have spoken with LAHSA, LAPD and the Homeless and I find your very accurate in your assessment. Now that we can admit that we have a problem here, let's fix it. Thank God for the men and women in Blue. Chief Bratton (IMHO) is a no BS guy like the officer who wrote this synopsis. Five years ago I would give cash to homeless...but I learned they have access to 3 meals a day at the shelters...and my money will not go to support their drug habit.

Phil on August 02, 2009, at 02:18PM – #87

Five years ago I would give cash to homeless....

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Good intentions -- as practiced by idealistic but also rather silly and absurdly naive people in the community of social- and legal-service providers, aided and abetted by those with a similar outlook in government -- through the decades have just about destroyed the reputation and liveability of downtown, if not far too many other parts of the city in general.

If one didn't know better, one would think such people dislike Los Angeles, despise the notion of it being attached to healthy, mainstream urbanism, and have been pursuing a goal of making the city a major laughingstock and embarrassment (notorious for cesspool-type conditions) throughout the nation and world.

Randall BusTard on August 02, 2009, at 02:56PM – #88

Now that yet another volley of anonymous slobs have offer their unsubstantiated and ignorant opinions, lemme offer a few items:

1) This is from 2007, when few or none of the authors of knee-jerk comments may have known about the Safer Cities Initiative as well as what it means and fails to do: http://www.thebusbench.com/2007/12/the-envelope-pl.html

2) Quality of Life citations should be handed out at 4th and Main (I have many feet of footage of LAPD and LASD watching certain demographics amble across Main—JAYWALKING—and do nothing) in the same fashion they are at 6th and San Pedro.

3) Toward the last few years of my 15-year magazine publishing endeavour, I was on the 3rd floor of the 548 Spring Building (neé Valuta). LA CAN moved in directly opposite the lifts. In early 2000, I was the victim of an unprovoked attack executed by a schmuck named Matthew Hooker (who was later arrested during his presidential campaign after stalking a couple of celebrities, one of which was Nicole Kidman) as I were awaiting the lift up to the 7th floor (to visit Adam at Feral House Books). The LA CAN people witnessed the incident (they kept their door open whenever anyone was in the office) and did nothing. The LAPD showed up and were told nothing by those who witnessed the event. (Subsequently, they did nothing.) I later found out that the LA CAN people did not want to "excite the aggressor." One wonders how that may be understood.

So, to you anonymous schmoes: keep it up. Know that Yes, I do believe what I write. I understand the grief associated with dealing with an overwhelming international crisis. Every single one of you inadvertently mourned the death of my fiancé when eight years ago in early September she was killed NYC. Despite the circumstances of my personal loss, I did not rail for Guantanamo, nor have I petitioned any of you to support revenge against those who I might suspect might do something to someone else some other time.

On the other hand, I know how to cut my way through the obvious crap that a police agency hell-bent on advancing an agenda at any cost will exploit their normal channels (as a former NY and L.A. newspaperman as well as an underground music reviewer of some 15 years, I know all too well the implicit threat that all police agencies everywhere maintain over people of the press: announce the PR speaking points or be left out of the loop). The civil liberties stripped away and which perhaps all of you complain about, were rescinded under the security after the same sort of incident that lies at the base of this tragic incident. I learned that as a third-generation cop and military candidate who turned down a pending appointment to the Air Force Academy after I had received an endorsement from my then-state Senator.

Bleat all you wish. I am neither the author nor the causation of that about which none of you are doing anything to abate. You failed to rally when Kevin Cohen was killed on Skid Row in early April 2009, and not one of you will do anything to prevent another innocent life like that of Lily Burk from being taken.

However, I can predict that most of you will waste time quarreling with me in a fashion that will assuage yourselves as if you had done something substantial.

Be the Change on August 02, 2009, at 06:04PM – #89

I am being the change by reporting Quality of Life crimes. Yes, I am doing what I can to improve the situation. We should all contribute at least that.

Oscar on August 03, 2009, at 01:48AM – #90

Thank you "anotherday..." For all those morons that feel they are purifying their soul by giving money to the homeless and voting in stupid initiatives that allow drug addicts to do whatever the F*CK they please; why don't you take one of those persons to live in your house if you really care so much? I'm sure the stealing and raping and drug using and socially misbehavior will stop after they realize what a nice and good person you are.

BTW, I'm a liberal but I'm not blind!

MZG on August 03, 2009, at 01:16PM – #91

JustAnotherDayInParadise

Thank you Very much for that. I am with you 100 percent.

Alex on August 03, 2009, at 11:13PM – #92

Eleven conclusions gathered by JustAnotherDayInParadise (AKA: Fact Sheet for LAPD recruits):

1. Most “homeless” in Skid Row are worthless because they buy drugs
2. Most “homeless” in Skid Row aren’t worth helping because they spend their welfare on drugs
3. Most “homeless” in Skid Row exist because they choose to be lazy and buy drugs
4. Most “homeless” in Skid Row like LA because of the warm weather
5. Most “homeless” in Skid Row fake being mentally ill
6. Most “homeless” in Skid Row like to throw shit at good Samaritans
7. Most “homeless” in Skid Row don’t like to use toilets
8. Most “homeless” in Skid Row are protected by corrupt non-profit organizations
9. Most “homeless” in Skid Row are criminals
10. Most “homeless” in Skid Row like to hide drugs in their butt cheeks
11. Most “homeless” in Skid Row enjoy NOT sleeping in a warm bed, using a clean shower, having good food, being close to family, and owning a suburban home.

So does this apply to “homeless” outside Skid Row? Or just within Skid Row? From my understanding, there are about another 60,000 homeless people in LA County.

Does this convince everyone that we must get rid of the “homeless” now?

Or, is this a case where public attitudes towards the “homeless” are learned responses shaped by biased public policies, specifically a fact sheet espoused by the State’s enforcement arm?

It sure is a hell of a lot easier to not think and just agree the “homeless” stink.

CJ on August 04, 2009, at 01:49AM – #93

Nice Spin on things Alex. Where does your expertise lie? You probably gave a dollar to someone begging on the side of the freeway offramp. Maybe you've invited some of the skid row locals into your home to give them a helping hand. Or maybe you drive through skid row with your windows up and your doors locked while commuting to and from work. Maybe you should donate half of your income to the homeless to show that you are truly a good man. That is if you even have a job. I'm sure you've done a lot in your lifetime to benefit society. Bravo to you!

Mmmhmm. on August 04, 2009, at 09:22AM – #95

Compassion is wasted on the voluntarily and habitually wasted. But it's true; they do need education. If they value it; that is doubtful, as seen in the overwhelming evidence.

Been There on August 04, 2009, at 11:05AM – #96

JustAnotherDayinParadise has spent too much time studying under Joe Friday. He puts a lot of what is wrong with Central Division in a nut shell---that's nut as in crazy.

LA CAN is a front for drug dealers? AnotherDay's whining reads like a cheap paperback.

Hey, AnotherDay, maybe it's time for stress leave. You're the source of too much around here.

Alex on August 04, 2009, at 11:23AM – #97

You're right CJ, I am a saint. We have a cocktail party every month in Skid Row, with about a hundred homeless joining us, you should come out.

Sandie Richards on August 04, 2009, at 11:56AM – #98

I just wanted to say that there are many more families with children in the homeless population because of the economy;

AND that a lot of the LAPD officers I know are compassionate and doing the best they can to both ensure public safety and to try to help people if they are able to.

It is a tough situation, and will likely grow worse with unemployment, foreclosures and evictions.

The homeless people we are most likely to notice are people who are mentally ill and/or abusing substances; but there are somewhere between 50,000-100,000 people sleeping on the streets in Los Angeles County every night.

It's everyone's problem and I hope we can support transitional housing and affordable housing so folks are able to find shelter, and treatment where necessary.

Ahem on August 04, 2009, at 10:26PM – #99

JustAnotherDayInParadise is unfortunatly spot on,

Lynn on August 05, 2009, at 12:55PM – #100

It is unfortunate that this so called clerical error lead to this man being allowed to commit another crime. This should make the governor rethink his early release plan for criminals to save money. If he want to free up money and for our prison system then send all the illegal immigrants currently in the California prison system home to their countries now with the stipulation that the must be imprisoned in their countries. Even if the countries in question would not want to agree to this stipulation send them home with a devise that will alert law enforcement if they try to re-enter our country illegally. To release them into society after they complete their jail time is asinine. This would definitely free up both money and space in our prison system.

Jerry on August 07, 2009, at 12:46AM – #101

As terrible as the death of the young woman is, what has happened here is JUSTICE for the parents, the SWPL liberals with their naive distorted view of reality. This is why this story is getting so much play.

Randall BusTard on August 08, 2009, at 03:16PM – #102

Now that another laundry list of anonymous bloggers have believed an alleged Central Division cop (who hates Skid Row but apparently is unable to transfer after working there for more than a decade yet is able to travel frequently to cities throughout Europe; as a former third-generation cop, that tells me quite a bit) because it fits their knee-jerk beliefs, let us reëxamine a choice statement from our policeman pal:

"The 'homeless"' are not exempt from the laws which we are all held to. 'Homeless' do not have the right to jaywalk (making traffic wait while they take their sweet time crossing against a red light)." I take it that Metro busses blasting through red lights along 5th is OK, as are the many tens of certain demographics of daily jaywalkers that traipse across Main back and forth to Pete's and the cafes between 5th and 4th. I have quite a bit of footage of both incidents occurring over the last few years, and I also have on the record Captain Jody Wakefield and Sgt. Pete Foster saying that while LAPD officers should sanction Metro bus drivers, it very rarely happens. Anyone who spends 50-60 hours a week in the box along 5th, 6th and 7th Streets east of Spring Street sees that Metro busses run red lights several times daily. The number of annual sanctions do not even begin to account for the number of times in one day in downtown that this occurs, occasionally in front of LAPD. (Yeah, I have footage of this as well.) An empty Metro bus weighs 20,000 (the articulated busses—such as the #4 line that ran a red at 6th and Hill in late December 2008 and hit a car, which burst into flames and tore the USPS letterbox out from in front of the jeweler store, weighs much more.)

Let us now look at what has transpired over the last few days. wherein are two remarkable disclosures: "Detectives believe [Timothy] Bishop killed [Robert] Burrus by slashing his throat with a broken bottle in a dispute over money..." and this from LAPD Lt. Paul Vernon: “We’ve seen it time and again, that in spite of their condition, many of the homeless Downtown still have a sense of pride among them that they are willing to come forward and report crimes. We solve more murders Downtown because of it.” Need I go on why these two facts need to be known?

Elsewhere, in the , the article about Lily Burk's death, which precipitated this thread, makes a statement that I portended (in an above statement) would be a remarkable fact about this case: "Minutes later, Lily made a similar call to her father, Greg Burk, a former award-winning staffer with the LA Weekly who is now a Los Angeles Times freelance writer. Neither parent found anything suspicious about the phone calls at the time, according to a story in the Times."

And then there is the oddly false statement the LAPD stated in this week's "The Salvadoran-immigrant gang Mara Salvatrucha runs the drug trade on Leeward. It retails a unique form of rock: While most product in the area looks like macadamia nuts, the Leeward brand has the appearance of small wafers, says the LAPD’s [Lt. David] Grimes." As I stated above, I covered the dark side of the downtown area, which included the territory west along 7th and Wilshire, over several years and which I subsequently published in serial form under Los Angeles Downtown Diaries (and, I might add, is geographically represented in the film Cracktown, which takes place in the shadow of the Mayfair Hotel near 7th and Hartford). What I find odd is that Grimes and the LAPD know that 18th Street gang—and the Witmer Street clench in particular, which is EAST of Leeward (the LA Weekly states, "Mortal enemies Mara Salvatrucha and 18th Street, two of the two biggest criminal organizations in California, neighbor each other, with 18th Street’s epicenter mostly west of Hoover and MS’ mostly east," implying that this has been the way since the 1990s)—were responsible for the "unique form of rock" in the form of small wafers. This is no small thing, as much as folk will state otherwise, and any LAPD officers reading this will know why.

Meantime, we have LAPD chief Bratton leaving owing to a number of things few might understand, including his long-time association with one of the authors of the Consent Decree that was recently lifted from the LAPD, an incompetent mayor whose only desire is to launch his gubernatorial campaign, the possibility of more than 40,000 CA inmates to be released (who have no jobs nor any chance of gainful employment, little or no cash and nothing to do except exploit the connections they made in jail or prison after being incarcerated for warrants issued after not paying citations issued for jaywalking and other petty crimes) and a governor who has sold out nearly everyone. Skid Row is going to be larger and worse despite the crackdown that has not been properly implemented outside of having the occasional LAPD-guarded bulldozer team doing morning sweeps east of Main Street. The few who meant to do something are leaving town, perhaps humming that line that Ben Bradlee helped publicize when Watergate was breaking: "Follow the money."

There is quite a bit of b.s. going on, and it is no wonder that the majority of those commenting on this are doing so from the shadows.

Alvin Jackson on August 08, 2009, at 10:21PM – #103

I've seen Randall Bustard post and criticize others quite a bit on this blog. Especially those who would like to clean up a part of the city that's been a blight for years. Yet, I haven't heard a single constructive thing come from Randall.

One thing I notice, he fancies himself some kind of writer. Sorry...he's far from very literate. Instead of criticizing others, maybe he should actually go out and do something (other than videotape and blog). Seems to me RANDALL is what's wrong with downtown LA.

He also claims to be a FORMER cop. That's laughable at best. I guess maybe he thinks it gives him some credibility on judging other cops. Yet he doesn't tell us anything about his stellar police career.