WTF Just Happened To California?!

Because social media spreads the bad news so incredibly quickly, many people have now become fearful. Beachgoers watched in horror as a violent fight broke out this afternoon. This poor little girl is probably going to need counseling and therapy. I want you to feel safe walking our streets.

As recently as Saturday, a person was stabbed during a fight. That's when things really intensified. To show you just how committed I am to this, I'm back in Santa Monica about to meet with the mayor, Phil Brock, to discuss everything in person. If that doesn't deserve a like and subscribe, I don't know what does.

But here's what you need to know. In my previous video, I showed the rampant problems with theft, crime, and substance abuse that's destroying Santa Monica, California. Since then, though, I have become obsessed with the issue. I've done a ton of research, and in this video, we're going to be exposing the reason why this is happening. Because, to be honest, it's quite shocking.

Look, this isn't just a Santa Monica issue. In fact, that's really just the tip of the iceberg. Instead, the root of the problem begins with Los Angeles and, in a way, the entire State of California. Let me explain. A few days ago, Gavin Newsom signed 10 bills that aim to crack down on nearly everything that was discussed in my previous video.

With the first being increased penalties for shoplifting and retail theft. As of now, theft under $950 is considered a misdemeanor, which means theoretically you could walk into a store, steal up to $950 of goods, and then walk out without really any fear of consequence. Especially when most employees are told not to get involved. By the time the police do show up, the suspect is long gone, and a lot of the cases honestly just aren't heavily prosecuted.

This new bill, however, aims to lump all the theft together. So if you're caught stealing $500 worth of goods on day one and then another $500 on day 89, even if it's in another county, all of a sudden that's over the $950 limit and subject to grand theft. This also makes it a crime to possess stolen property over $950, which creates a crime that didn't exist before.

It also allows peace officers to make a warrantless arrest if they suspect somebody is shoplifting. However, apparently, within hours of signing this bill, three 7-Eleven stores were mobbed by a group of thieves in Hollywood. You can't even make this up. So, it's yet to be seen how effective this is really going to be.

Personally, as a former resident of California, I had the question of whether or not these are actually strict enough to make a difference. Because, let's be real, for this to really go into effect, a shoplifter would first have to get caught, likely on camera, with proof. Their items would then need to be counted, most likely across counties, and then the state would have to keep proper records of everything just to be able to prosecute.

Plus, when you consider that shoplifters are only caught one in 49 times on average, I would just be shocked if this made any difference. Separate from that, these bills focus primarily on organized crime and the resale of stolen items, which might not be the entire picture.

Let me explain. Shortly after I posted my first video, I received a very credible email with firsthand experiences of the inner workings of Santa Monica. Now, obviously, they wanted to remain anonymous for privacy reasons, and yes, there is a chance they could be making all of this up. But it seems completely legitimate.

Let me read you what they said: in their estimation, 85 to 90% of the police calls for service deal with the homeless in some fashion. Most of these crimes are committed by mentally ill or drugged-up homeless people, rather than some group of organized criminals, which is something you see a lot in LAPD jurisdiction.

Even though there are plenty of facilities aimed at helping these people, the harsh reality is that most transients are either suffering from severe mental illness or drug use. They then went on to say that it's not an easy fix, and ultimately it needs to be handled on a much bigger level if we're ever going to see any progress.

Like, here's what the Santa Monica mayor had to say about this: “You have to differentiate between the types of crime. We have the crime of stealing the copper out of lampposts, stealing catalytic converters, invading your yard. Almost all of that comes from criminals that are driving in from Los Angeles. I am supporting Prop 36. We can't let people just ruin their own lives and by nature ruin the lives of business people.”

Now, for those that missed it, the key word there is Prop 36, a measure that, if passed, would roll back the provisions that were approved back in 2014 to classify thefts under $950 as a misdemeanor. It would also reclassify certain substances as a felony, with the choice to either go to rehabilitation or go to jail.

However, critics of this bill, including Gavin Newsom, argue that Prop 36 is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars in additional court cases, which some speculate is the reason he signed other smaller bills into law. But considering how much money the state has already spent on other initiatives that have gone nowhere, Prop 36 could actually be pretty good.

This could also be why we have a second initiative coming from the state of California, known as encampment cleanup. I know this might sound a little confusing, but stay with me on this one. The Supreme Court recently ruled that civil and criminal penalties for camping in public are no longer considered cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.

See, before this ruling, local governments were prohibited from criminalizing sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter. But that's beginning to change. Starting immediately, state agencies are allowed to remove homeless encampments that pose a risk to life, health, and safety.

In terms of how much this is going to cost, it's said that California has so far invested more than $1 billion in encampment resolution grants to clean up homeless encampments and address the underlying issues. Keep in mind this is already after they've spent $24 billion to clean up the streets and house people.

For anyone who wants to do the math, with 181,000 unhoused people in California, that equates to an average of $138,000 spent per person. The problem only seems to be getting worse, probably because the state doesn't really audit whether or not any of the spending is effective.

But that's besides the point. In terms of how this relates to Santa Monica, statewide cleanups are already underway, with Venice Beach and other parts of Los Angeles seeing a rather quick revitalization. But Santa Monica, believe it or not, doesn't fall under the same jurisdiction.

Like, just take a look at this map; Santa Monica is its own city, which means they have different rules and regulations outside of the city of Los Angeles, which largely conforms with the rest of the state. This means that Santa Monica needs to apply for Newsom's $3.3 billion in encampment funding, which goes to vote on August 27th.

Otherwise, the rest of Los Angeles could simply force people out and into cities like this. Of course, as of now, Los Angeles has reaffirmed that the county won't use its jails to hold homeless people arrested for camping, but they can force people to move somewhere else. Is that the most effective way to handle the situation? I have no idea; probably not.

So, even though it's a step in a direction, is it the right direction? Well, for anyone curious, here's what Santa Monica's mayor had to say about this a few days ago: “Well, we obviously are in the midst of a crisis on homelessness, but that crisis extends to LA. It extends to many parts of the United States. It's almost impossible to clear every homeless person every night because the movements are constantly shifting.

The question is, when you clear them and you ask them to get up from where they are, where do they go? The amount of money we're spending and the amount of help that we're trying to give is immense, but honestly, it's never enough.”

But like I said earlier, this wouldn't be true reporting without going to the source directly. So, I emailed the city mayor, Phil Brock, to see if he wanted to be a part of the video, and he immediately responded back with a yes.

So, these are questions compiled from other residents of Santa Monica. The first one for you is: why are business owners and citizens afraid to express their opinions and talk about their frustrations?

“They shouldn't be. I'll tell you that, first of all, I meet with residents every single day. They should never be afraid to say how they feel about the city they live in.”

What is your response to people who say you voted for this? “Well, that's a generalization. I vote for safety in the city. Each and every day, I've been fighting for five years before I became on city council to make our city safer, to reduce homelessness, and to make sure this area, this street thrives.”

Why do you feel like prior attempts haven't solved the issue with homelessness here in Santa Monica? “It's tied to LA, tied to the county, tied to the state, tied to the federal government. We've lost the part of accountability for the people who were unhoused on our streets who have come here from other areas. We need to change that, and the state is moving that way.

The Supreme Court changed one of their decisions. We're working with Metro to stop an influx of 50 to 70 homeless individuals at the end of every night, midnight to 2 a.m. They come to the city with nowhere to go, nobody to help them, and then they stay. So, we're trying to change that.”

People receive, if you're homeless in California, you get a basic state stipend which ranges between $700 and $800 a month. “I don't know what it is exactly today, and if you count yourself as disabled, the state may grant you another $1,000 a month. So, I got assaulted here on the promenade a year ago. Yeah, by a guy who would come here two months before from Missouri. Supposedly a municipal official there paid for his fare to come out here, and he received a total, I think, of seven felonies in seven weeks. When he tussled with me, he was yelling, ‘Give me my $1,000, [expletive]. Give me my $1,000 a month!’

Now, I have no power to hand him any money, and obviously, I wasn't, but that's one factor. Another factor is local law. If you arrest someone right now, it's a citation, so that means it's the same as getting a parking ticket. They take it, they wad it up, they throw it away, and they keep moving on their day. That's what happens with shoplifting.

We've had people shoplift from different stores four times in a day. How do you combat that feeling? That's why when you go into Target or Walmart now, everything's behind plastic or glass. That's unacceptable as a society.

So, Prop 36 will change some of those rules. The third time you're arrested for drugs, you will be forced into rehab. Yeah, in addition to that, shoplifting rules will change from the $950 free; that will ramp significantly downward and be counted as felonies more often.

Now, in terms of the 1 million unit homeless shelter, it has been getting a lot of flak for a $125 million total cost. “First of all, it's destined to be 100 affordable housing units, and 40 to 50 supportive housing units. It's not the city spending that money; we're providing the land so that we can get affordable housing built. Because the state of California has required us to build almost 9,000 units, over 6,100 that have to be affordable.

So, that's a different issue. We have to build. We don't have expansive areas of vacant land. So, we're literally going to take probably Bergamont Artstate. We're going to take empty parking lots on Main Street in Santa Monica, anything we can to try and satisfy the state because their law is we have to provide the units.

If we don't provide them starting in 2029, we can get fined about $10,000 a day by the state or they can completely negate our zoning laws and just start zoning themselves. How do you think Santa Monica would be handled or treated differently if it were in a Red State? “They would have pushed all their homeless people out to California.”

What needs to get done in your opinion for the situation to improve? “I need to have a safe city. I need to have an appropriate amount of public safety personnel. I need to have an appropriate amount of social workers on our streets. I need LA County psychiatrists in our city who can take care of people who are having a drug-induced episode.

I need to make sure that the County of LA no longer distributes glass pipes or syringes in three of our parks weekly. I need to make sure that people who do something wrong are arrested.”

What could residents do? “Back me. Back safety in Santa Monica. Back a city that plays by the rules. I don't care if you're a red or blue state, red or blue city. I need us to look at Santa Monica as a treasure. We are a special beachside city that's distinct and unique from Los Angeles. I don't want us to blend in. I don't want us to feel like we're just going from LA to LA. We're a special place. You can feel that ocean breeze on you right now; we're the lungs of Los Angeles. We need to act that way.”

I think a lot of people would look at the value of rents in the city for a lot of the high-end market rate units and think the maximum rent I could increase is $76 or 3%. In most cases, it'll be $77; insurance goes up more than that, property taxes go up more than that. So, there's no way for a landlord to at least maintain their costs.

If they raise $76 a year, do you feel like the rent control is too restrictive? “They only get their return if they sell. That's a bad thing. I'll tell you from my experiences being in real estate, a lot of people are afraid to ever rent their properties because they're so terrified of getting a tenant in there and not being able to get them out or not being able to raise rents to even match their cost. If they could just submit receipts, saying this is how much my expenses have gone up, I want to match this, they're not able to. And so, for that reason, a lot of them are choosing not to rent their property and instead sell it or just keep it empty.”

That's just anecdotally a lot of what I've seen. You're talking mostly about mom-and-pop landlords. I want them to stay here. I want them to prosper. I think they'll take better care of their tenants than a nationwide landlord who doesn't care about the property. So, I've always been concerned about that and I'm concerned about inflation, which has far outreached the rent increases that the city of Santa Monica has given.

We should be able to match expenses. We're not. Thankfully though, not everything is doom and gloom. And as dire as the situation has become, some areas are actually getting a lot nicer. Let me show you. If this looks familiar, that's because this is an area I bought into and documented back in 2017. Back then, I bought a duplex here, fixed it up, lived on one side, and rented out the other.

Even though this is technically the city of Los Angeles, in the last few years, despite everything that we've talked about, the entire neighborhood has improved dramatically. For example, here's what it looked like when I first moved in, and now here it is today. Dozens of apartments and businesses have now made this their home. The entire neighborhood is seeing more demand, and a major reason for this is because, one, it's a lot more affordable compared to other areas of the city, and two, it was declared an opportunity zone, which gave builders a financial incentive to build more units.

That meant the property investment was rewarded; more units are ultimately built. I mean, just take a look at this, and with that comes the opportunity for new retail and restaurants to open up. Honestly, in terms of my own thoughts on the homeless issue, I tend to agree that it needs to be treated with care and compassion. But just from my overwhelming experience so far firsthand, the underlying cause really seems to be a combination of addiction and mental illness.

Sure, I don't doubt that there are people out there who are truly down on their luck, and if that's the case, there should be resources available for rehabilitation, food, and shelter. But ultimately, we've determined that it's better to protect someone's right to refuse service and live on the streets than get them the help they might not be mentally capable of accepting on their own.

That means the problem is very likely to persist regardless of how much money you spend. For instance, I've witnessed people out there who I think are functionally incapable of ever assimilating back into society without severe intervention. To me, this is a national issue that can't be the sole responsibility of whatever city they just happen to end up in. Perhaps there could be greater social safety nets, job training centers, rehabilitation facilities, mental health hospitals, or better conditions for those who need a bed to sleep in.

Another part of California known as Santa Cruz is also experiencing a similar problem. For example, the North Coast Journal of politics found that even when shelter beds are available, sweeps often fail to fill them. People living on the streets of Santa Cruz say the police often tell them to go to a sanctioned encampment where residents sleep in tents to get meals and showers, but many people won't even consider it. Several unhoused people Cal M spoke to said that they don't want to live somewhere with strict rules and a curfew. But here in Los Angeles, one redditor really summed it up perfectly: “Encampment resolutions take people from the street and put them into interim housing, typically at a dilapidated hotel with no case management or services.

These hotels become very dangerous and unhealthy very fast. Most people wind up on the street again within a year. A small portion of those individuals get connected to proper services and permanent housing.”

Separate from that, the amount of money spent on these issues really needs to be tracked to ensure that it actually works in the most cost-effective manner. Like I think we could all agree that spending $1 million a unit is probably not the best use of taxpayer money.

I just think until there's an independent third party overseeing exactly where the money is spent, I can't imagine it changing anytime soon. Even disallowing homeless encampments—I mean sure, it's a temporary solution for residents and visitors, but I can't help but feel like it simply pushes the problem somewhere else where it'll continue to manifest.

I'd also like to mention after speaking with Phil Brock, who is fantastic for coming on the channel, it seems like the issues within Santa Monica are really just like the symptom of a much greater issue, which is the fact that policies within California affect every city within it, and there's only so much they could do on their own without California making some rather substantial changes.

That's why I'd like to end this on a positive note: that things can change for the better, and if all of us as a community continue making small changes over time that influence the greater good of everybody, things will improve. So, let me know what you think down below in the comment section. And as always, if you appreciate me driving all the way to be able to meet with the city mayor, all I ask for is that you hit the like button and subscribe.

It's totally free, takes you a split second. Thank you so much; it would mean the world to me. And until next time.