Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Destruction of Civil Society
We were in Washington over Christmas and noticed pup tents all over the place. This wasn’t the case three years ago when we attended the podcast summit. I realize that the homeless problem doesn’t have simple solutions, but allowing people to sleep overnight in parks and elsewhere will lead to many problems. The defund the police movement disproportionally affects poorer communities. George Soros has funded the election of prosecutors who are not enforcing laws. It appears that the solutions posed by the broken windows movement are being ignored, and our cities are returning to the widespread lawlessness we lived through from the 1960s-80s.
This is in front of Union Station.
Published in Policing
Soros may be a problem, but was not per se “the” problem. The voters that support anti-law enforcement were the problem.
Homeless encampments in public places serve several purposes, if you want to be cynical. They afflict the comfortable, who need to be reminded of systemic inequity. They display the heartless failure of the current system to care for all. They let the compassionate sorts feel very bad for someone else, and hence better about themselves for being the sort of person who cares. For the political class, they are stark proof that more money should be poured into the organizations that have failed to deal with any of the problems that result in tent cities.
The solution is to ban them, put the mentally ill into humane institutions that can treat them, provide a course of treatment for the drug addicts who want to get clean, perhaps consign the chronically addicted to vast state-run dormitories where they can stay insensate without fouling the public square, and run the drifters out on a vagrancy beef or offer them hots-and-cots in exchange for public service.
We had some of those encampments in public parks when the city decided to permit them, and they were cesspools of drug markets, prostitution, rape, and criminality that washed into the surrounding neighborhoods.
I don’t disagree with these solutions. However many homeless do not want treatment for their substance abuse nor did they want treatment for the mental health. The problem is that at some point you have to make a decision to take away somebody’s liberty is the way somebody’s liberty based upon their mental health problems or isn’t or the addiction. And the past I thought this was perfectly reasonable thing to do but now I no longer trust government to be able to make that decision at all.
It still say band these These camps interests the people for trespassing.
I agree!!
All living things face decay. Some decay is reversible, curable diseases, accidental injury and some isn’t. What purpose is served by allowing any of it to be spread out on the streets and subsidized? If we gather it in protected places how do we organize folks to actually care for them, determine who can be helped and who can’t? I suppose the difficulty is why we just gave up and turned them loose, letting people with family deal with those who can.
Anyone of sound mind who wants to get off the streets in the United States can. We have social agencies that provide that service.
Homeless encampments consist of people who don’t want to get off the streets or who are mentally ill. Of those who are of sound mind, you forcefully evict them from those encampments.
Of those who are mentally ill, including drug addicts, you force them to get treatment, and that means taking their liberty away.
There it is. You have to use force.
In discussing the problem, too many conservatives don’t want to directly confront that issue. It needs to be put front and center. I understand libertarians are philosophically opposed. I understand that progressives are also.
But that is what needs to happen, and any discussion about solving the problem needs to include that issue prominently. Enough nicely nicely.
I would re-open mental hospitals and loosen the rules (not eliminate, loosen) for involuntary commitment of the mentally ill. “De-institutionalization” was a cruel farce; those with means do their (our) best to provide long-term institutionalization for our mentally ill and addicted loved ones; all the De-Ins people did was deprive the poor of at least some simulacrum of that care. At the moment, there aren’t enough beds for those who want them: Start there.
One of my guys had what I thought was a brilliant idea: If you get Narcan’d for an overdose? You’re gone—addiction treatment for a minimum of a year. “Oh, but people might not seek treatment!” Narcan, for those who don’t know, is what keeps an overdose victim from dying. (I carry Narcan now, for God’s sake!) If you’re having Narcan squirted up your nose, you’re in no shape to resist treatment, and with extremely rare exceptions, it means that you’ve got a problem you need long-term help, bigly, to solve.
Having worked directly with these populations for years, I am very sympathetic to forced treatment. I have seen it work in Mental Health and Drug Courts.
I prefer that approach, frankly. Wait until the person has violated laws and then use that to deprive them of liberty, because you have the power now thanks to their crimes. I don’t want the state to have more power to decide someone is of unfit mind and lock them up. We had that in the past, and it was abused.
Now, repeated trespassing ought to be enough.
I have a side question – where are all of the tents coming from? It used to be that the typical encampment under a highway overpass would have some tarps and old blankets strung up, but very few tents. Now – in Portland at least – it is tents as far as the eye can see. Who is providing them? Pretty sure the homeless folks aren’t lining up at REI to buy them.
Downtown Portland Oregon is similarly afflicted.
Yes, as I recall it was in the early 1970s that the do-gooders passed legislation to de-institutionalize those with mental problems. The end result of this “humanitarian” policy was that many people who were unable to care for themselves and lacked family support were dumped out onto the street. This, I believe, was the root of the homeless problem in our cities as the mentally ill homeless are now joined by those addicted and otherwise unable or unwilling to care for themselves. As in so many situations, good intentions have only exacerbated the problem they intended to solve.
Well, if they come in and steal those tents, who is stopping them? Law enforcement?
And yes, homeless advocates are also providing them, most likely, along with free needles for their drug habit.
Didn’t take much googling to find an example. Again, starts as a noble thought, ends up massively contributing to the mountains of trash.
I have another side question: Where the people who inhabit those tent cities find sanitary facilities. Or do they all do as in San Francisco and use the sidewalks and gutter (for the fussy ones)?
A couple of weeks ago I was binge-watching videos about bicycle wild camping in the U.S. and Europe–more in Europe than the U.S. One thing that’s hardly mentioned is sanitary facilities.
https://www.kgw.com/amp/article/news/local/red-port-a-potties-meant-to-help-portlands-homeless-spark-anger-vandalism/283-52d38add-41fa-459f-a9d0-7162c8c83012
But I can definitely tell you that many have no qualms about urinating at passerbys.
The parks were and are made for and paid for by parents and their children. It is incumbent on the city’s employees to safeguard those parks for those parents and children.
It they want homeless encampments on public lands, I would suggest they start with the governors’ mansions.
I think you bring up an important point that is being almost totally overlooked – most of the homeless are on the street because they want to be. The idea of living on the streets is so abhorrent to most people because they cannot imaging living without modern conveniences. But there is a small percentage of people – overwhelmingly male, who can tolerate it and even prefer it to the rat race of having to make a living in our technically advanced material world.
I know there are some hard luck cases where people are victims of circumstance, but how do you explain this – The vast majority of homeless living on the streets are men despite the fact that a much greater percentage of women are poor? Women, for obvious reasons, prefer not to live on the streets as much as men do. Hence they find themselves shelters and other accommodations instead of highway underpasses and tent cities.
The difference might be partly explained by women – especially those with children – being given preferential treatment (which is fine with me).
Interesting perspective. I will keep it in mind.
@jameslileks should keep in mind that it was not only in the Soviet Union where people were declared mentally ill and institutionalized for political reasons. It happened in his own state of Minnesota back in the late 19th century, in Otter Tail County. (My articles about that case are not on-line right now, but I really should get around to putting them back. I don’t remember if I ever wrote about my researches on the topic at the Minnesota Historical Society, though I didn’t come up with much there that was germane to that aspect of the case.)
It’s good to do as you say and distinguish situations where crimes have been committed, although given the fact that everyone probably commits at least three felonies a day that isn’t a huge bar. Look at the disproportionate treatment of those involved in the January 6 disturbances.
There are less women in the streets because they have something of value to use to get off.
Sorry to say, but it is true.
Women tend to have more and stronger social relationships than men do, so they’re likelier to have a friend to stay with.
Also, “Fewer”.
I’m not especially familiar with the genre, but there are some YouTube videos by or about people who “camp” in tents in California because housing is too expensive. They have jobs, but they can’t afford the price of housing. I don’t know if that happens outside of southern California, though.
Not really what I meant.
My experience with these populations is that women on the streets trade sex to get off the streets.
Some men do to, with other men, but sex with a women has a higher value.
Your population is “people on the street”. But women may be less likely to end up on the street in the first place.
I know this one. My wife corrects me on it all the time. That’s what wives are for!
I was watching an episode of Mythic Quest the other day and this was brought up by one of the characters.
Also, it’s been a thing in the PIT for a while.
It occurs to me that my comment may have come across as dissing Bryan’s comment. On the contrary, I am heartened that somebody is thinking about how to institutionalize where appropriate while also preventing abuses.
True freedom means that people can opt to rot or vegetate (whether by their own choice or by a lack of choices or will or whatever).
In times past, they mostly did that out of sight. Regardless, they have to do it somewhere.
Yes.
Because they can trade sex for a place to stay.
It is the experience of 2 decades in the business talking.