The concern is always about homeless “families.” But what about homeless adults?


While it’s all well and good that the council tomorrow night will be saluting National Family Promise Week, we’ve long noted a particular bias in this subject area that appears to lie directly beneath the official concerns of the City of Burbank. And it’s not just Burbank that has the problem.

Like, what about single homeless adults? Everyone worries about the kids, but what about the older folks who’ve slipped through the cracks? Where are their special programs?

Aside from the woefully underfunded BTAC — which gets used and abused by the scores of outside agencies that hand their charges a bus token or two to send them over to Burbank for help — no one gives a damn about single people without money. Even the Housing Authority actively discriminates against single adults these days in the way they currently award the city’s Section 8 apartment grants. Just try to get one now in Burbank if you’re not a parent and not a vet (it wasn’t always so).

And good luck to finding a winter shelter in the area if you happen to find yourself without one. Those days are long gone. Homeless pets have more of a constituency now than do homeless adults.



Filed under Uncategorized

28 responses to “The concern is always about homeless “families.” But what about homeless adults?

  1. Anony Miss

    Your statement about homeless pets have more of a constituency than homeless adults is so profound. If we see an animal out in the cold, most people at least feel terrible if they don’t try to help. People sometimes get a dollar handed to them and we move on. The fortunate homeless have a car to sleep in.
    I take a class at night and park by a fast food chain to study before. It is shocking how many people go into the restroom and wash their hair, etc. Several are females who people would never believe could be in such a situation. Night after night I see the regulars show up.
    I know a 78 year old woman who sleeps (in her car ) in her daughter’s driveway. The son in law said marriage is tough enough and she can’t be in their house.
    Due to the conduct of some homeless, we as a society have become neglectful of the homeless who need our assistance.

    • semichorus

      Good points. Many people are only a paycheck or two away from homelessness. Older people especially have less of a support system and fewer chances of employment in this ageist “gig” economy of ours. In the old days, General Relief paid enough to stay in an SRO hotel, but it was cut in half in the early 90s, and there are few if any remaining SROs anyway.

      Up until then GR paid $420 a month. That was the equivalent of about $900 in today’s money. Now it pays about $190, for only eight months a year. And only recently was the employment requirement reduced from age 60 to 49.

      Don’t tell this to that horrible “We love Burbank!” Facebook crowd, but Burbank is one of the few if only cities in California (or anywhere else for that matter) that allows people to sleep in their cars at night. There’s no law against it in Burbank, unlike with Glendale, LA, etc. The courts have expanded people’s rights in this area, but Burbank alone of most cities refuses to hassle their homeless about it.

      Good for them. The cops and meter maids all leave them alone by quiet general policy.

    • Just saying

      The fortunate homeless adults have a car to sleep in until police check and discover their car has no insurance and or no curent tax paid sticker on the license plate. After that it is good by car, after all in California you can’t exoect to have or keep anything without paying taxes over and over again and being poor and homeless is no excuse. I am waiting for them to pass a special poor tax to make certain homeless people can’t even afford a cup of hot water.

      • semichorus

        BPD gives three months grace period over the state’s six-month grace rule for expired tabs before they ever start towing. It’s quite generous. So you get almost a year post-expiration before you have to worry. (They’ll still ticket you, but they won’t tow.)

        They also don’t (and really can’t legally and practically) call in an insurance check on parked cars. And they won’t.

        Trust me. Been there, done that in Burbank. The BPD is nice about things, ESPECIALLY compared to every other agency I’ve heard of.

        Again, don’t tell the haters at “We Love Burbank” about this. They’ll all go apeshit.

        • Anony Miss

          This is a perfect example of why I love reading Semi. Some people think the site is too negative but I find it to be so right on. You have no trouble saying positive things when it is deserved.

          • semichorus


            The BPD is actually quite kind to the local homeless. Much of this is due to BTAC and, yes, earlier actions and opinions from Golonski and the older councils.

  2. chad

    Semi, the one or two paycheck away from being homeless will be the undoing of the country. For the last 40 years Americans have perilously moved from being savers to spenders and along the way our real wages have gone down while expenses have skyrocketed. We now have an entire generation of workers who believe this is the way it is an you just live it. Look at the amount of student debt that is crushing young people now.

    • semichorus

      I know. It’s just terrible.

      In 1972 Nixon and the Republicans granted 18-year-olds the right to vote in exchange for also lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18. That began the era of this corporate bloodsucking of young people, who now had to sign their own contracts to take out loans in their name only. What a great deal too for flaky Mom and Dad, who were now also no longer required to help out their college-age kids. After 18 it was sayonara.

      I had a father who well took advantage of this change. I hope he and his family attorney (Burbank’s Gene Radding) are both rotting in hell over these evil, sleazy stunts. The stories I could tell about this perfidy. For example, divorce lawyers everywhere were advising their clients to wait until after 1973 to dump their wives and older children. (’74 is also when”no fault divorce” fully kicked in in California, which for a good number of years completely screwed over the dumped wives. Radding counseled my father to wait until the new law would allow him to have few legal responsibilities to his family, thus seriously harming my mother’s prospects for the future. I won’t even get into the lack of my own back then. It’s just good that I wasn’t fully cognizant of what was really going on at the time, or else — as an old friend once put it– I probably would have started collecting guns and learned to use them .)

      Needless to say, the late 70’s was the beginning of a great era of economic fuckovers. The decline of union power directly led to job impermanence and our modern “gig” economy.

      No union contracts also meant no such thing any more as mandatory rehiring rules after “layoff” events, which has resulted in many companies now using phony “layoffs” to permanently get rid of their older workers — especially those between age 35 and 40 who have no state and federal protections against age discrimination. I hear about people this age suddenly getting “laid off” from good jobs all the time now, and it’s no coincidence. It’s because they’re getting too old. Pre-40 is the big target group for job elimination with no consequences.

      And yet, Americans insist on voting for anti-labor Republicans! Or corporatist Dems.

  3. Burbank09

    Meanwhile from the city of Burbank Face Book page one of the Airport expansion supporters has this to say

    Laura McKinney
    October 23 at 4:40pm
    Some good news in Burbank today. I was at Target and saw two security asking a young guy selling candy to leave. They told me Target has a no soliciting rule and does not allow solicitors outside of their store.
    I didn’t see the scammer lady either so maybe she is moving on too!

    • semichorus

      Great news! We really are total and complete assholes here in Burbank! We make those ugly beggers go away!

      What a bitch. Both she and those errant security guards at Target are going to soon learn that with commons rights also come well-protected First Amendment rights. Like begging and protesting.

      I’m a lot more concerned about more airplane flights overhead than some poor person somewhere asking for money. May she and her ilk rot in hell.

      • Jan

        Laira McKinney is also on that Burbank City page promoting a new terminal and attacking anyone who isn’t supporting the new terminal. The woman is always offended by what others say if they don’t share her views. She really is a dusgusting individual.

      • J.K.

        Oh Semichorus Laura is concerned for everyone’s safety so she so vocal on the Burbank page in support of a new expanded airport. Maybe she is also concerned that beggers pose a safety threat to the image of Burbank ?

  4. Framcisco

    Let’s stand up for our constitution and empty the swamp of Washington DC
    #MAGA #Latinos4Trump

  5. Faux Fuddy Luddy

    sound familiar?

    Long Beach residents critical of plan to add international flights at airport

    Lawn signs are stacked in front of the Long Beach Oil and Gas Department, where critics of a plan to add international flights at Long Beach Airport spoke out against a proposal for a building to screen international travelers. (Hugo Martin/ Los Angeles Times)
    Hugo Martin
    Demand for international flights is on the rise in Southern California but neighbors of the Long Beach Airport are fighting a plan to bring flights from Mexico and Latin America to the regional airfield.

    For nearly two hours, critics of the plan told an airport advisory panel Thursday night that they feared the addition of international flights would lead to more traffic, air pollution, a drop in property values and pressure to lift the city’s restrictive noise limits.

    “There is no guarantee that this won’t expand unbelievably,” said Mike Rodsater, a 30-year resident of Long Beach, at a meeting attended by about 70 residents.

    The opponents spoke at the first public hearing held on a feasibility study to build a facility to screen international travelers and their luggage.

    The demand for international flights in Southern California has grown by 30% from 2010 to 2015, according to the feasibility study by Pasadena-based Jacobs Engineering.

    The demand is strong enough to convert up to eight domestic flights from Long Beach Airport to international flights within five years, the study said.

    If the city of Long Beach agrees to add international flights, it will join Los Angeles International Airport, Ontario International Airport, John Wayne Airport in Santa Ana and San Diego International Airport in offering flights abroad.

    Seth Kaplan, managing partner for the trade publication Airline Weekly, said Long Beach Airport can even try to market itself as a hassle-free alternative to Los Angeles International Airport for international flights.

    “There is plenty of demand from the L.A. Basin down to Mexico, and Long Beach has a great facility,” he said.

    Long Beach Airport currently flies only to domestic destinations. It operates under a noise ordinance that allows about 50 commercial flights per day, and takeoffs and landings can happen only from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Violators of the limits face stiff fines from the city.

    The airport’s biggest carrier, JetBlue Airways, requested the study on the feasibility of adding international flights. The New York-based carrier is interested in flying to vacation spots in Mexico and other Latin America destinations.

    The $347,000 feasibility study found that the noise ordinance does not impose restrictions on the origin or destination of flights to the airport and that serving international destinations would create 1,400 new jobs and generate $186 million in spending in the city each year.

    The Jacobs study said the screening facility, projected to cost $17 million to $21 million, could be paid for by JetBlue and other airlines that use it, along with passenger fees collected from international travelers.

    But neighbors of the airport blasted the report, saying it didn’t address the additional traffic generated by the foreign tourists. They also worried that the new facility would prompt airlines to file a lawsuit to challenge the city’s noise ordinance so they could add more flights.

    “Once this starts, who’s to say when the growth would end,” Long Beach resident Nancy Lopez told the appointed panel.

    Assistant City Attorney Mike Mais told the gathering that adding the international flights and building the new screening facility does not increase or decrease the likelihood of an airline filing a lawsuit to challenge the city’s noise restrictions.

    In the crowded suburbs of Los Angeles, most airport expansion or improvement projects draw strong opposition.

    Even a plan to replace an existing terminal at Long Beach Airport in 2012 drew strong opposition, including a petition signed by hundreds of opponents.

    At Hollywood Burbank Airport, a plan to replace its 1930s-era terminal has been the subject of strong debate for decades in the San Fernando Valley city.

    Another longtime Long Beach resident, Terri Pfost, said airport travelers have been parking on her street and getting an Uber ride to the airport.

    “I don’t think our neighborhood should be remote airport parking,” she said.

    The only supporters of the proposal at the meeting were two JetBlue pilots who live in Long Beach.

    Pilot Raghib Tauqir said jobs created by the airport help support Long Beach businesses such as grocery stores, auto mechanics and movie theaters. He added that Long Beach residents could also take international flights from the airport to visit family abroad.

    “It’s for friends and family,” he said. “It’s not just tourists.”

    The proposal to add international flights will be discussed next at the city’s Economic Development Commission on Oct. 25 before it is presented to the Long Beach City Council on Nov. 15.

  6. Betty

    Because the Burbank Chamber is strongly supporting Measure B and airport expansion I have decided that I will no longer do business at any business that is a member of the Burbank Chamber. So if you go to the Burbank Chamber web page you can look at the entire list of members. Funny how many of my favorite places are already not members but I found something that shocked me. Here it is and it makes me question do our tax payer dollars go to pay Shiff’s membership ? Now I know why he supports airport expansion he is a member so who does he represent is it the chamber or the voters ? Don’t forget many members of the chamber do not even live or vote in Burbank. Here is the listing as it appears in the Chamber Member directory

    Adam B. Schiff, Congressman
    245 E. Olive Ave., Ste. 200
    Burbank, CA 91502

    (818) 450-2900
    Fax: (818) 450-2928

  7. Betty

    Here is the link to the Burbank Chamber member directory, amazing how many outside of Burbank Businesses are members and the city ? Really ? How much does the city pay for memberships are they for every department ?.

    • Carl

      Smart and honest businesses in Burbank save the money and stay clear of the Burbank Chamber. The chamber is out of touch with business and residents.

  8. 91505

    Gee Fruit-toes just said he met with Nancy Pelosi about Burbank wanting a curfew on the sirport. Whoppppeeeee Fruit-toes Pelosi does not represent us and that sure made some big time progress bubba. You are just stupid Fruit-toes.

    • semichorus

      A curfew ain’t ever gonna happen.

      And yes, the main man is Schiff.

      • Andrew

        Never say never on a curfew. The political will is lacking and our reps including Bob Frutos has done next to nothing to push for one. If it was another Cusamano Project like Talapia or a bigger airport Frutos would put in major effort for his friends but when it comes to fighting for citizens Frutos has no balls.

        • semichorus

          Curfew is just bait for a “yes” vote.

          Last year it was their BIG selling point for a new terminal. Then it quietly went away when it proved impossible.

          Now they’re (apparently) trying to resuscitate it for November. Won’t ever happen — which is even MORE of a reason to vote “no.”

          A new $400 million facility that can’t have flights at night? To — at least — help pay for it?

          On what planet?

          If this stupid thing goes through there will be no curfew, but there will be later flights at night. Economically (and practically) it can’t be any other way.

      • Anonymous

        Lost by 4 votes the dude said. Just need a Repub that’s needs a curfew.

        • semichorus

          If Congress ever approved an FAA override the airlines would just sue to get it reversed. For safety/security/operations reasons. And they’d win.

          This is all just tokenism.

    • Doug

      Count on Mr Frutos for nothing, lesson learned.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s