> The past 20 years of the "compassion" approach
According to research, the problem is rising housing prices, not compassion. Human rights are also not compassion. It's sick how trendy it is to disdain compassion, human rights, and any other good.
You seem like more of a danger than the many unhoused people I've encountered -- including people I talked to last night and this afternoon, people I see every day. They aren't talking about locking up everyone like you - which I personally think would be a better step for society. (Don't worry; unlike you I don't think I should have the power to lock up people because of my personal feelings.)
You may laugh it off, but that shows the reason behind your proposal. You have more power than they do, so if you don't like them you abuse them. They same goes for the WSJ.
While this might be true for the homeless population as a whole, I suspect the parent is talking about the people with mental illness and/or substance abuse problems. Making rent 20% cheaper or whatever isn't going to magically make them get better.
Honestly we don't have to intellectualize this very much. A child can understand this. If housing is more expensive it will be harder for people to afford it! And people who can't afford housing become homeless!
Might as well propose that we eat the homeless and mentally ill. Then we can complete the Jonathan Swift proposal and go back to the real world.
It then becomes a question of preventing harm. Releasing the individual back onto the street seems like a recipe to have the same harm occur again. Putting a crazy person in jail seems harmful as well. Which is where your parent commenter's suggestion comes in...
We (as in Western Civilization living in post-Enlightenment liberalism) can't purport to respect human dignity and self-determination and also criminalize homelessness. And that's what jail is, criminalization. There is no "non-criminal" jail. In the United States, you can't be criminalized without due process, because fundamentally, a basic western human right is the right to personal dignity and autonomy.
Criminal recidivism is a problem. Some homeless or mentally ill people will be recidivist criminals. They should be punished for their crime after being afforded due process and any defenses thereto (e.g. lack of mental capacity). There are ways to handle criminal recidivism (in CA, famously, there's the "three-strikes" rule against multi-time felons). Apart from hardcore criminal-justice reformers, nobody disagrees with the idea of punishing crime according to the nature of the crime and increasing punishment for recidivism.
Being homeless is not a crime. Nor is it a crime to have mental illness. There are ample failures (drug war, lack of safety net, unwillingness to regulate predatory housing/investment, lack of accessible mental healthcare, social stigma, etc.) that cause homelessness/mental illness. All of which are indictments against society at large. It is anathema to a free, liberal culture to cause the problem and then punish it criminally.
To say that society only intervenes when a crime is committed is reductionist and wrong. There are plenty of civil remedies that restrain conduct (e.g. an "injunction"). More broadly, the government restrains conduct all the time for non-criminal matters (taxation, zoning permits, most financial or environmental regulation, intellectual property laws). Different efforts to restrain activity have different methods of enforcement. Including involuntary civil commitment. But for the reasons mentioned above regarding due process and personal autonomy, only crime is enforced by jail time.
We cannot claim to be a free, law-abiding, liberal democracy rooted in Western ideals and at the same time carte blanche suggest that "jail" is a categorical solution to homelessness and mental illness, as the parent commenter suggested. The type of thinking that the parent commenter proposed is anti-democratic, anti-western, and candidly, fascist. There are plenty of places people can move to if they want to live in that type of society, but none of them claim to be Western in design.
Second, assuming you're genuinely curious and not simply trying to spread misinformation my answer would be to greatly reduce inequality. In my corner of the world housing has exploded in price. Healthcare is also very expensive. I don't see "hordes of drug addicts" I see Hoovervilles. For some reason we're not moved to help the destitute like we once were. Perhaps it's because we view them as "drug addicted zombies." So much for "love thy neighbor."
>… my answer would be to greatly reduce inequality
We’ve been screaming the same tune for over a decade at this point. Equality is a problem but it’s a parallel issue. Doing the same policies, but louder, is not a good faith proposal because it’s just repetition of what doesn’t work. Many, and indeed I would posit most, do not want your or my help to live as a “contributing member of society”. Some are so far gone they’re not in the position to even make a choice.
Perhaps I've been "screaming the tune" for a decade but in that time the cost of housing has gone up dramatically. In 2009 I rented a 2-br apartment in Capitol Hill for $1,600 -- parking included. In 2019 I rented a studio apartment in the same neighborhood for the same -- parking not included. I can produce examples like this all day.
My point is, we haven't successfully tackled the problem of inequality and affordability. In my opinion, we must tackle the root problem if we hope to resolve the issue long term. We can do that _and_ address the symptoms in parallel. However if I had to bet, my money is on housing continuing it's inexorable rise over the next decade, pushing further people into destitution.
I've tried to respond in "good faith." Your turn.
And then there's the huge sub-problem of people who are chronically homeless, drug-addicted, and visible.
Large efforts at simply improving access to housing are likely to make a large dent in the larger homelessness problem, but may not be effective in addressing people with long-standing drug addiction and behavioral disorders. Many/most have behaviors that are incompatible with conventional housing.
The solution for this subgroup is going to be a lot more complicated.
I agree with you. There is more than one piece to the puzzle. We seem to agree that housing is one of the bigger pieces, though. So let's start there and make some progress for a change. Let's not throw our hands up, like some in this thread, and say we've exhausted this approach and it's time for the stick.
For the rest, we'll have to go case-by-case. For the most recalcitrant, anti-social cases we may need the stick in the end. Hopefully by that point we can say the system isn't pathological. Regardless, I suspect the cases on that end of the spectrum will be less "homeless" and more "criminal."
These people we’re talking about will all be dead by the time any of yours or my pet ideas to increase housing supply come to fruition. And yet, in the here and now, there’s a continuing escalation of health and safety issues that, again, don’t go away if rents suddenly drop.
I've explained what I believe to be the root of the problem. You have not. I've explained some ways we might ameliorate the problem. You have not.
It's difficult to have a conversation when the interlocutor won't state their positions and take a stand. Even more so when they accuse you of "screaming" and acting in "bad faith."
I'm left to infer what you're thinking. I imagine it's that inequality is not linked to the rise in homelessness. (I disagree.) That people are more susceptible to drug addiction than before. (I'm very skeptical.) And that if we punish people more forcefully the problem will be resolved. (I doubt it, but that's not to say we can't protect our public spaces more vigerously.)
If I pegged you wrong, I apologize and look forward to being corrected. If not, then let's agree to disagree.
> That people are more susceptible to drug addiction than before.
Maybe somewhat; but a bigger part of it is that what was a problem spread throughout the US was successfully exported by the rest of the country to a few west coast cities.
> And that if we punish people more forcefully the problem will be resolved.
No, I don't think anyone is saying that. But adding housing isn't enough.
Homeless shelters successfully use inability to stop using drugs during length of stay as a predictor of violent, antisocial, and destructive behavior. You can't just place these people in housing units without a lot more scaffolding, support, and treatment.
"Housing first" works very well for 85%+ of homeless people, but treating this like it's one homogenous problem isn't going to be successful. If you try to just cram the rest into housing, they're going to still end up disrupting streets and causing property damage.
> protect our public spaces more vigerously.
Chasing the chronically homeless and ill from place to place isn't what I want. That game of musical chairs is what we do now.
Yes. There. Is.