Get In Touch

hear 🙉 see 🙈 🙊 
Outside Your Lines
   For Steve Hilton 
You made a word,
then gave it weight,
pressed it against my skin
and called it fate.
You wrote its meaning,
drew its frame,
then looked right through me
and saw only a name.
When every road points back
to what you say I am,
how do I find my own way
through a world that knows your map?
You narrow every doorway,
then ask why I stay small.
You leave one name to answer to,
then wonder why I don’t answer at all.
But I did not write your definition.
I did not agree to its terms.
I will not become your judgment
just because the whole world learns
to repeat it.
You do not get to invent the word,
decide what it implies,
then hold it up against my life
and call the difference lies.
I refuse to color inside lines
I never chose to draw.
There are colors you have never seen,
parts of me you never saw.
Your label tells me how you look.
It does not tell you who I am.
You cannot close a book
you’ve never held open in your hands.
If you made the word
and chose all it could mean,
why should I believe
it holds everything in me?
Keep your definition.
I have a life to name.
I am not here to fit your word—
I am here,
and that is not the same.

You see Mr holding the problem isn't the homeless it's your perspective about them! So enough is enough you don't get to treat people like they're not even people and then expect them to respect your property?? 
But don't worry sir there's a very easy solution....
And I don't mean the simple concept of just don't be a f****** dick like you can be a dick without being a f****** dick you know? 
THE HUMANITY-FIRST PARTNERSHIP
Bathrooms. Water. Rest. Jobs. Housing.
A practical proposal for Los Angeles.
To: Mayor Karen Bass and Steve Hilton
Subject: Replace the criminalization of survival with accountable business partnerships that reduce hardship and avoidable public spending.
THE BASIC QUESTION
What if Los Angeles paid to prevent survival-related problems instead of repeatedly paying to respond to them?
People without homes still need bathrooms, drinking water, sleep, safety, and opportunities to earn a living. When those necessities are unavailable, the consequences fall on everyone: people living outside, businesses, neighborhoods, sanitation crews, emergency responders, and police.
The proposal is simple: give participating businesses a financial reason to help meet basic needs, require clear standards, and measure whether the program reduces costs and improves people’s lives.
THE PROBLEM
A person cannot postpone a biological need indefinitely. When every restroom requires a purchase, someone without money may have no realistic place to go.
A citation does not create a bathroom.
An arrest does not create housing.
Moving someone down the street does not provide water, sleep, or employment.
Enforcement can still be necessary when someone threatens others or deliberately damages property. But it should not be the default substitute for basic public services.
THE PROPOSAL: FIVE CONNECTED PARTNERSHIPS
1. PUBLIC RESTROOM ACCESS
Offer participating businesses a fixed payment, reimbursement, or legally authorized tax incentive to make their restrooms available without requiring a purchase.
Participation would require:
• Clearly posted access hours.
• “Public Restroom — No Purchase Necessary” signage.
• Working toilets, handwashing facilities, soap, and toilet paper.
• Reasonable cleaning and safety procedures.
• Respectful, nondiscriminatory access.
• A public map showing available locations and hours.
Payments should reflect verified access and reasonable additional costs—not simply a promise to participate.
2. DRINKING WATER, ICE, AND HEAT RELIEF
Reimburse participating businesses for providing drinking water and, where practical, ice, shade, or cooling access.
The goal is to make basic hydration and heat relief available before someone reaches a medical crisis.
Businesses should have clear operating rules, reimbursement limits, and a reliable contact for assistance.
3. MANAGED REST AND SLEEP SPACES
Create designated places where people can rest without repeatedly being forced to move.
Depending on the property and required approvals, these could include shaded daytime seating, supervised rest areas, or permitted overnight spaces.
Any overnight or tent-based site would require appropriate sanitation, accessibility, fire safety, staffing, and operating approval.
This is not a proposal for unmanaged camping on every business property. It is a proposal for voluntary, properly supported alternatives to sleeping wherever a person can avoid being moved.
4. EMPLOYMENT PARTNERSHIPS
Offer hiring and retention incentives to businesses that employ people experiencing homelessness.
Support could include:
• Paid training and lawful wages.
• Transportation assistance.
• Help obtaining identification and employment documents.
• Connections to case management and housing assistance.
• Incentives tied to sustained employment, not just initial hiring.
Employment must be voluntary. Bathroom access, drinking water, and shelter should not depend on someone being able to work.
5. THE 10-ROOM HOTEL PARTNERSHIP
Invite hotels to provide up to 10 rooms—or another agreed number—for interim shelter under negotiated agreements.
Participation would require:
• Payment or incentives tied to verified room-nights.
• Rates that account for actual operating costs and demand.
• A nonprofit or public partner responsible for services and coordination.
• Clear maintenance, safety, and liability arrangements.
• A genuine pathway toward permanent housing.
Average hotel vacancies do not guarantee that 10 rooms will be available every night.
If rooms are needed for paying guests, any transition must be planned in advance with another safe placement available. Participants should not be abruptly sent back outside because demand increases.
THE FINANCIAL CASE
This proposal targets several kinds of spending at once:
• Police response and documentation.
• Avoidable transport and booking.
• Court and prosecution work.
• Street sanitation and human-waste cleanup.
• Emergency medical responses.
• Business security and repairs.
• Repeated displacement without a lasting resolution.
These are potential savings—not amounts we can honestly promise before a pilot measures them.
We do not currently have verified Los Angeles counts of public-urination enforcement contacts, a confirmed arrest-escalation rate, or a reliable total for vandalism committed specifically by people experiencing homelessness.
Those missing figures must not be replaced with assumptions presented as facts.
OFFICER TIME IS A REAL RESOURCE
A police encounter can involve dispatch, travel, multiple officers, documentation, and sometimes transportation or booking.
Preventing an unnecessary encounter frees that time for other public-safety work.
For illustration only:
If an avoided encounter would have used two officers for one hour, it frees two officer-hours.
At an assumed fully loaded personnel cost of $75–$100 per officer-hour:
• 1,000 avoided encounters free 2,000 officer-hours, valued at $150,000–$200,000.
• 2,500 avoided encounters free 5,000 officer-hours, valued at $375,000–$500,000.
• 5,000 avoided encounters free 10,000 officer-hours, valued at $750,000–$1 million.
These are hypothetical workload values—not verified LAPD costs, predicted encounter counts, or automatic cash savings.
Officers normally remain on salary. The immediate benefit may be more time for serious crimes, emergencies, and investigations.
Actual budget savings would require reduced overtime or other spending that the City can genuinely avoid.
Do not add these personnel values to an arrest-cost estimate that already includes officer labor. That would count the same expense twice.
WHAT WOULD A RESTROOM PILOT COST?
Consider an illustrative program—not a proposed final budget:
• 100 participating businesses.
• $500 per business per month.
• Annual business payments: $600,000.
Administration, inspections, additional staffing, and other support would cost more.
To claim that this program pays for itself, the City would need to show that actual avoided expenditures exceed the full program cost.
Even if it does not immediately reduce the budget, it may still produce valuable benefits: cleaner streets, accessible bathrooms, fewer confrontations, and more officer time available for serious public-safety needs.
The public deserves to see those benefits reported separately from cash savings.
HOW THE HOTEL INCENTIVE SHOULD WORK
A proposed 35% incentive needs a clear definition.
Thirty-five percent of what?
• Approved operating expenses?
• A negotiated room-night value?
• A qualifying tax liability?
Those are different policies with different costs.
For illustration, a 35% credit on $100,000 of eligible expenses would provide a $35,000 credit, assuming the hotel could fully use it.
That alone would not cover the $100,000 expense. Public room payments, other funding, and documented business benefits would determine whether participation is financially attractive.
The earlier claim that a hotel would reliably net $125,000–$330,000 annually was not established. It should not be used as a promised return.
The goal is a fair agreement that makes participation viable without overpaying or guaranteeing profits.
DIGNITY, RESPECT, AND PROPERTY PROTECTION
Treating people respectfully can help create conditions for cooperation and reduce unnecessary conflict.
A person who has somewhere to use the bathroom, drink water, rest, and ask for help is being offered an alternative—not simply another demand to leave.
Participating spaces can also create opportunities for paid maintenance work, neighborhood stewardship, and shared responsibility.
But homelessness does not mean someone is destructive, and providing basic services does not guarantee that vandalism will disappear.
Property damage must be measured, not assumed.
The pilot should track:
• Documented repair expenses.
• Security calls and costs.
• Sanitation complaints.
• Conflicts at participating locations.
• Experiences of businesses, neighbors, and participants.
Any claimed reduction should be compared with conditions before the program and, where feasible, similar locations outside the pilot.
ACCOUNTABILITY FROM DAY ONE
Launch a 12-month pilot with a published evaluation plan.
Track:
• Restroom availability and access complaints.
• Water and rest-space services delivered.
• Verified hotel room-nights.
• Employment starts and retention.
• Housing placements and returns to homelessness.
• Relevant police contacts and officer-hours.
• Overtime and other expenditures actually avoided.
• Cleanup, security, and repair costs.
• Total payments, tax expenditures, administration, and staffing.
Separate City costs from County costs.
Separate taxpayer savings from private-business savings.
Separate actual cash savings from staff time redirected to other work.
Do not count the same benefit twice.
THE ASK
Mayor Karen Bass:
Convene City departments, participating businesses, service providers, and people with lived experience of homelessness to design a coordinated pilot.
Identify which funding tools are legally available and which require City Council, County, or state action.
Steve Hilton:
Support state-level consideration of carefully designed incentives for public restroom access, hydration, employment, and hotel shelter partnerships.
Any proposed 35% incentive should have a defined cost basis, spending cap, verification process, and independent evaluation.
Both:
Make the results public. Expand what works, change what fails, and do not promise savings that have not been demonstrated.
THE BOTTOM LINE
This is not a proposal to excuse threats, violence, or deliberate property damage.
It is a proposal to stop using enforcement as the first answer to needs that enforcement cannot meet.
Give people a bathroom before issuing a ticket for having nowhere to go.
Provide water and a safe place to rest before a preventable crisis becomes an emergency.
Help businesses offer employment and shelter under agreements that are fair, safe, and accountable.
Then measure the results honestly.
The question is not whether every act of compassion produces an immediate profit.
The question is whether Los Angeles can spend more intelligently, prevent avoidable harm, and give people real alternatives to surviving on the street.
Dignity and fiscal responsibility do not have to compete.
A well-designed program can pursue both.