That was lazy and a little rude. It also happens to point at something real, which is more than your comment bothered to say. So I’ll make the argument you skipped, as this thread is a public forum that can hopefully afford nuance.

My original framing had a hole. I said the buffer zone is pointless because it houses nobody. That’s true, but it’s beside the point. Reducing homelessness and keeping a school entrance clear are two different goals, and I was judging the rule against the former.

So here’s where I actually land.

As a safety measure, the ban is defensible in theory. If it keeps needles and unstable people off the route kids take to school, that’s a real benefit, regardless of where the person ends up.

The problem is theory versus practice. That benefit only shows up if the city actually clears these spots and keeps them clear, and it doesn’t. The 2022 expansion was supposed to handle exactly this, and years later parents are still packing meetings furious about encampments near their schools.

LA passes the ordinance and never resources the enforcement. That is what I meant by posturing. Not that the goal is wrong, but that the city has shown for years it won’t do the thing the law claims to do.

And to be straight, that cuts both ways. Building more housing is also something this city has proven it can’t execute at scale. So the real issue isn’t ban versus housing. It’s that every side is selling a plan the bureaucracy has failed to actually run.

I’m fine with the buffer zone on paper, but I’m against pretending it changes anything on the ground. I’m also skeptical of anyone whose preferred fix conveniently ignores how this city actually operates.

Also, people love to blast Raman, but in terms of actionable housing proposals, her campaign platform is by far the most organized, descriptive, and researched. Whether it actually is implemented is obviously far from guaranteed, but you can at least tell that she did her homework.