Well, lying down, urinating, defecating, and (hopefully only occasional) vomiting are all pretty integral parts of existing, for human beings.
If people have nowhere to do these things in private because they’re homeless, they’re going to do them in public.
I don’t fault anyone for not wanting public spaces to be used for sleeping and urinating and defecating etc., but I fault them for just taking it out in hostile complaints about “the homeless” instead of acknowledging that homelessness is a societal problem that’s complicated to fix.
I think a big part of the problem is that it seems like a lot of the homeless aren’t interested in remedying their situation. Maybe they’re mentally ill and don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, maybe they don’t want to give up drug/alcohol use, or something else.
And many people don’t really want to just pour money onto the problem of helping people who aren’t willing to help themselves or be helped.
I mean, what do you do with someone who isn’t willing to use the services that are available and who persists in messing stuff up and ruining things for everyone else?
Yup. And, that’s the problem: such thinking becomes toxic, as it presupposes that everyone is able to – and should – pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. And, by extension, it has created a belief that anyone who may need assistance is lazy, unmotivated, just plain stupid, or trying to steal something. It’s made the country, as a whole, selfish, unkind, and cruel.
Any reasonable sized population is going to have members that cannot function for a variety of reasons: mental health, physical or mental disability, (severely) physically sick, addicts, etc. Pragmatically it doesn’t matter why or if they ‘deserve’ help – they will exist, they need a safety net, and that costs money. It’s part of the cost have running a civilization – just like roads, post offices, and air traffic control.
Money needs to be poured or you have the problems we see today.
This is a problem with “cliff benefits”, where you either qualify or don’t. Graduated benefits (easier with money than with something hard to split up, like housing) allows benefits to slowly phase out as you need them less and less. The problem is that to make it work, that means giving benefits to a huge fraction of the population, which is expensive. (And some people will both be paying taxes towards that benefit and also receiving it. Which is true of some popular benefits, like Medicare, fwiw.)
I think it’s probably worth it, and this is why i like universal basic income. It means that everyone can improve their lot by working, or by working more, rather than having a bunch of people in a situation where if they pull themselves together or find a good job or… They find themselves worse off.
I’m not arguing that there needs to be a safety net, but the issue is more one of consent and/or decision making on the part of the mentally ill/homeless.
I mean, it’s really tough to involuntarily commit someone to a psychiatric institution for any meaningful length of time, and it’s impossible to compel them to take their medications, many of which have side-effects they don’t like.
So how DO you deal with someone who’s unwilling to be medicated, unable to be committed, is homeless, and misbehaves? And at what point is it no longer worth it to throw good money after bad?
You clean up after them just like we do after a flood or earthquake. Some people are going to fall through the safety net – they’ll go off their meds, start drinking again, etc. There’s always going to be some people making a mess, but it’s important that we don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and stop funding services for those that it is working for just because it doesn’t work for everyone.
There are not many of them. Solve the easier one first, like the program I mentioned. Then the next hardest- men (mostly) who could live okay in cheap free housing.
Now you have got 70-80% off the streets, and then the problems will become more clear- along with solutions.