“There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.”
― Thomas Sowell
Earlier this year, a legal clinic that advocates for unhoused in Quebec filed a lawsuit against the town of St-Jérôme, Que. seeking to overturn, the town’s ban on erecting makeshift shelters on public property. If successful, Quebec will join British Columbia and Ontario which have already issued similar rulings. City councils in the United States which are facing similar issues with homelessness may soon find out what the Supreme Court thinks about homeless encampments as it takes up Grants Pass v. Johnson case. Lost in these battles is the fact that neither outlawing nor permitting homeless encampments actually solves the problem of homelessness.
I have never hidden the fact that my sympathies lie more with the cities and the taxpayers than with the homeless nor my general contempt for activists. (example posts) Activists seem more concerned with word games (ex. urban camping), hurt feelings (unhoused vs. homeless), and excusing unlawful and anti-social behavior (ex. addiction is a disease) than in solving the problem. Cities (provinces, states, etc.), however, are equally culpable as a failure to address the problem is more a failure of will than of solutions. Don’t believe me, just ask California governor Galvin Newsome who managed to clean-up San Francisco in advance of the APEC Summit in November. Apparently, when faced with international embarrassment it actually is possible to do something, albeit short term.
Newsome’s efforts did not solve the homeless problem as tearing down homeless encampments just forces the homeless to move elsewhere. The homeless issue should be a major concern for all citizens for two main reasons, individual and societal well-being. Society should be judged on how it treats it’s least fortunate and allowing people to remain homeless causes terrible harms to individuals. Those experiencing “homelessness were more likely to report fair or poor mental health (38.0% versus 17.3%) than the overall population,” and substance abuse is a major concern with approximately 38% abusing alcohol, about 26% abusing drugs and the homeless “are nine times more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general population.” Crime associated with homelessness also harms individuals and society as a whole. Homeless encampments are associated with arson, public health issues, petty and violent crime (both within and external to the encampments) drug abuse, and mental health issues to name just a few. Solving the homelessness problem will require money, public and political commitment, and overcoming the many foolish arguments put forth by activists.
Despite what activists may say, neither living on the street nor using drugs are human rights. Rights come with citizenship, but responsibilities do as well. We are all required to obey reasonable (and sometimes unreasonable) laws, and prohibitions against public drug and alcohol use, sleeping on the sidewalk, and defecating in the street are clearly reasonable. Likewise, engaging in petty crime and assaulting fellow citizens cannot be permitted if we are to remain a civilized society that takes the safety of its citizens seriously.
Activist demands that the homeless be called unhoused or engaged in “urban camping” accomplishes nothing but gives many the perception that activists are on the side of the homeless and are working towards a solution when in fact these word games do little but make activist feel good about themselves. Word games are a real problem as they attempt to manipulate the public and slow progress towards real solutions. However, it is in excusing anti-social and criminal behavior where activists cause the most harm. Activists will often argue that those doing drugs in the street should not be incarcerated as “drug addiction is a disease.” Perhaps so, but even if it is true, drug addiction is similar to getting lung cancer from smoking in that it is caused by personal choice. This is not to say that we should be indifferent to the suffering of addicts, just that we must keep personal responsibility and choice in mind as well. The only activist cry that holds any weight is “where else can they go?” Finally, a question that demands an answer. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), all that is required to solve the problem is money and the will.
The obvious, and simplest part, of the solution is to build more housing. I can hear you all ready, “thanks Einstein.” Yes, we are in a housing crisis in Canada and yes, we can’t build housing fast enough, but I said it was fixable not that it was easy or fast. From a logistics standpoint, building housing for the homeless should be easier than other types of housing as aesthetics, locations, and resale value will not be issues. As distasteful as it may be, think of building a prison. Sadly, this is not a bad way to think of it for other reasons. Broadly speaking the homeless fall into three categories with some overlap, the unfortunate, those with mental issues, and those with substance abuse issues and the last two will require housing not unlike minimum security prisons. The more difficult task will be sorting people into the appropriate categories.
Large mental institutions began to disappear in the 1980s and 90s as mental advocates began to advocate for mental health care that was “person centered, and available in the communities the people lived in.” At the same time society became more concerned with mistakenly incarcerating the mentally healthy (false positives) than with mistakenly releasing the mentally unhealthy (false negatives). The more expensive “person centered” approach to mental health combined with types of “preferred” diagnostic errors led to an increase in the number of people with mental health issues who no longer received the necessary treatment. These two issues must be addressed by returning to a model that leverages larger mental institutions and by rebalancing the type of diagnosis errors that are permitted (i.e. increasing the chance of false positives).
Institutionalizing the mentally ill for treatment (the term “institutionalizing” may make some uncomfortable, but “sanitizing” the term does not change what is being done), will reduce the homeless population to “the unfortunate” and those who abuse drugs. Society will need an approach to dealing with those addicted to drugs and compulsory drug treatment must be the approach. A tiered approach can be used starting with fines and/or a minimum time in rehab for those caught abusing drugs in public for the first time, with longer “sentences” for second/third/etc. time offenders and ultimately with lifetime incarceration for those who cannot be rehabilitated. This may strike some as harsh but there are two factors at play, what is best for the individual and what is best for society. Is a life of mandatory supervision in what amounts to a minimum-security facility better than living and abusing drugs – and likely overdosing - on the streets? It is a philosophical question which can ultimately only be answered by the individual but from a societal standpoint the rights of the many outweigh that of the individual who cannot or will not be rehabilitated in much the same way as society’s rights trump those of the criminal.
The last group, “the unfortunate,” are the easiest to deal with as “all” that they require is a roof over their heads and access to the social safety net that is available to all citizens. Logistics aside, the challenge here will be convincing taxpayers that footing the bill for the necessary housing is less costly in the long run than letting the homelessness situation continue to fester and possibly grow larger.
If what I have suggested strikes you as obvious, the question you should ask is “why isn’t it being done?” If it strikes you as harsh then I’m open to other solutions with the caveat that arguing that “living, defecating, and possibly overdosing on the streets” is a human right does not count as a solution. Despite what activists may say, the majority of the homeless are not down on their luck but rather deeply troubled individuals who need help. Advocating harm reduction policies or engaging in world play to redefine homelessness as unhoused and living on the streets as urban camping or “living rough” accomplishes nothing besides providing activists with a sense of moral superiority. It is virtue signaling which causes more harm than good. Activists may argue that it’s a form of compassion, but if it is, it’s a coward’s compassion. Difficult problems require difficult decisions. Doing nothing and endlessly moving the homeless from neighborhood to neighborhood are equally useless. We need an approach that takes into account the difficulties many experiences with drugs and mental illness while balancing the need for personal responsibility and the rights of business owners and taxpayers. Thomas Sowell rightly stated that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. It’s time to trade excuses for personal accountability, virtue signaling for treatment, and useless activity for long-term solutions.
You are right when you say that "a failure to address the problem is more a failure of will than of solutions...just ask California governor Galvin Newsom, who managed to clean-up San Francisco in advance of the APEC Summit". Virtue signaling is indeed the coward's approach, and its attempts to make its practitioners feel better about themselves cause more damage than the issue itself.
I think the statistics you present showing higher percentages of homeless who experience poor mental health and/or substance abuse, and your extrapolation that they result from the trials of homelessness itself, are only partially true. There is also a large segment of that population which became homeless as a direct result of those conditions in the first place, which is another reason for stronger intervention, less acceptance of such self- and societally-destructive behaviors, and better mental health initiatives.
Many might take umbrage with your comparison to a minimum security prison ("Now you want these folks in PRISON?!), but it is obvious you mean with regards to functionality and not (initially) lack of freedoms. It is an attempt to think outside the box to find solutions which are currently lacking, and is certainly deserving of study at the very least. Activists, come up with something better before you throw stones.
I do think many - myself included, sometimes - disconnect from one of your suggestions on principle, despite recognizing its practicality. "Convincing taxpayers that footing the bill for the necessary housing is less costly in the long run than letting the homelessness situation continue to fester" might, when the math is calculated, actually balance out or even cost society less overall. But like so many entitlement programs, the concern remains that many will abuse the nature of those programs, and that such abuse will become more pervasive as the growing desire for a "free ride" continues to enhance the number of recipients of such social benefits. Eventually, the numbers of those who receive surpass those who pay, and everything collapses in upon itself.
We need to be more proactive, and ignore the bleeding hearts who are all talk and no actual solution. THAT is real compassion for the afflicted, and also better for society at large.
Oh, yeah, activists. I used to have a positive association with activism, and considered myself intermittently an activist (eg: when volunteering for some political change, like ending support for the Contras in Nicaragua).
But then "activist" became chic, and the majority of some young generations self-identify as activists and therefore morally superior. That is, it become a status enhancer. And their causes also have become more dogmatic on average.
Today, when somebody calls themselves an "activist", that signals to me that they are most likely deeply into confirmation bias and an untrustworthy source for contextualized information. That is, activist => can see only one side of the issue. Not always, but for the most part.