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.
Three Cheers for Governor Abbott
Yesterday, October 2, 2019 Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to Austin’s mayor demanding the mayor do something about Austin’s homeless problem. It has been out of control since the City Council passed a law legalizing overnight camping everywhere – except in front of City of Austin offices. As a result, Austin has been turning into San Francisco South-Central.
And if the mayor blows off the Governor? Abbott pledges to use state authority to clean up Austin if the mayor fails to solve the problem by November 1.
October 2nd is the anniversary of the Battle of Gonzales, when the Mexicans tried to take a cannon issued to the city to protect them from Indian raids. The Texians responded, “Come and Take It.” Hence the Gonzales Flag:
You can read Abbott’s action here:
Today I sent a letter to @MayorAdler about the growing crisis arising from the Austin Homeless policy.
Feces & used needles are piling up & residents are endangered.
If not fixed by Nov.1, I'll use State authority to protect Texans’ health & safety.#txlege pic.twitter.com/KmvEtMW81T
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) October 2, 2019
Keep Austin weird – not insane.
Published in Politics
I get that it’s not a mystery, but getting rid of the support systems isn’t going to house anybody. Is it?
“Them?”
What reason is there to use “them” when referring to an anonymous person? Why not “he” or “she” as these are friends of yours and thus you clearly know the sex of the person in both cases? Or are these friends “non-binary” and it is they who insist on being referred to in the plural?
I say again: housing is not the problem. It’s a symptom, or rather an outcome. And the support systems only work to get people back into what we consider respectable society, when the people involved want to be helped. To be sure, everybody gladly accepts the support, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their lifestyles. Some small percentage do want help. That’s fantastic, and for them, miracles will happen. But most do not. It’s hard to comprehend why anybody would choose to live like that. But the majority of them do.
Many times I’ve asked a homeless person why s/he doesn’t go to a shelter. Usually the answer is obvious at first contact. The second most common answer? “Because they won’t let me in with my Fluffy. Fluffy’s my baby. I’m not going anywhere if I can’t keep Fluffy with me!” And so s/he and fluffy continue to freeze, or sweat, or starve – well, Fluffy never starves. Funny thing about dogs.
Just like alcoholism and AA, most people aren’t willing to change their behavior until they are forced to admit that they are at rock bottom, and even then they have to finally, once and for all, make the change. Just as family members of alcoholics become enablers, and only delay the alcoholic’s reaching that rock bottom, we now see a monstrous example of the government establishing itself as the greatest enabler of all time.
Most Section 8 housing in the U.S. have rent subsidies based on household income and total number of family members. For the homeless with jobs, you’d have to see what their take-home pay is, and how they’re allocating it.
My brother lives in Texas and frequently travels to Austin. I would love for Texas to remain a state that values conservative principles. This is a step in the right direction.
I know a guy who is now legally blind (can’t drive) and barely mobile. He is divorced and his children have abandoned him. He can still see well enough to use his smartphone and computer, which is just well enough to work from home for a pittance. Without assisted housing of some sort, public or private, he would be on the street.
A variety of circumstances can lead to homelessness. And even the undeserving are best kept off the street at the expense of others. Depending on how they are provided for, such gifts can be practical and agreeable to most.
As usual, I’m skeptical of the assumption that private practices can’t provide more efficiently, reliably, and personably than government programs… if unburdened by regulations.
My impression is that the sort of housing and locations are more relevant than general housing availability. As that American Conservative article about Utah’s system suggests, it helps to reside somewhere with helpful neighbors, rather than a den of crackheads. I have been through many “projects” over the years. Security and a pleasant environment are necessary to preserve hope for a good life. Productive people can’t get going if they are repeatedly robbed or vandalized by their neighbors.
Perhaps governments could allow for exemptions to construction regulations to lessen expenses and allow that money to be reallocated to more important standards of living, like security. Poor people don’t need eco-efficient homes, for example.
Not my issue.
The local housing authority where I am divides it’s clusters into elderly/disabled low income housing and low income housing for people who are younger and able to work, but either aren’t working in jobs that can afford higher rent, can’t keep a job for whatever reason, or simply are part of the permanently unemployed and on government assistance. It doesn’t do anything for those who follow the law in the latter housing, but have a neighbor who local law enforcement know by first name, but it does keep those who are less able-bodied safer.
No.
Thomas Sowell pointed out long ago that when governments raze ‘substandard housing’ the people who used to live there have to scramble to find non-substandard housing which is of course more expensive, and often beyond their ability to afford.
It’s probably pretty easy to guess which of the homeless would be most likely to get back on their feet and which won’t, but is unlikely that government workers are in a position to triage by likely outcome.
This is like asking me if the answer to traffic congestion is to get rid of roads, and if I agree. Is it?
Meaning it’s a goofy premise. I’m not hiding something in code words here, if you were wondering. It’s goofy and unserious.
How does the old adage go: What happens when you subsidize something?
Answer: You get a lot more of it.
Hm.
Well, it would certainly move all that congestion somewhere else.
What am I missing? Genuine question, I’m not being deliberately obtuse, it’s coming naturally.
So if we want less homelessness and also more affordable housing in areas where people have a chance of getting a job, why not subsidize that kind of housing?
If the stats are right:
30% of homeless people in Australia have a mental health or addiction issue – which means that 70% of homeless people in Australia do not. Clearly homelessness is not purely a function of mental health issues or addiction.
And
30% of homeless people in Australia are employed. So again, clearly, just employment is not enough to resolve the issue for people.
On the principle of using leftwing cliches and shibboleths against leftists, I’d go with Hoovervilles. Not for the children, but for the benefit of the greybeard leftists still among us.
Certainly from the homeless point of view there isn’t just one problem.
From the city with crap on its streets, though, the problem is pretty singlular and the solution is clear as well.
How about from the country’s perspective?
It’s not actually the country’s problem – not in any practical sense. More to the point; it’s not a problem that can be solved at a national level unless you employ cattle cars and that’s not our bag.
Getting rid of government support systems would allow some people to be housed. Some people might say those non-governmental systems were inadequate. They were certainly inadequate in meeting the goals of leftist governance, but they didn’t necessarily do a worse job than is done now. And governments went to work to restrict their activities and put them out of business unless they agreed to do things the governments’ way. We see that sort of behavior even now when individuals try to feed the homeless.
Why not, indeed. A good part of the answer of why not is that it’s a corrupt system – providing corporate welfare for the construction of expensive housing for the well-off so long as a few units of more affordable housing are constructed, too.