The majority sentiment in our large US cities, especially on the west coast, seems to be that tens of millions of people ought to have significantly reduced quality of life rather than thousands of people have their freedom curtailed. Even if that freedom is being used in ways that are not only degrading quality of life for the tens of millions but not even creating especially great quality of life for the thousands.
We’ve prioritized autonomy so much that we’ve ended up in a miserable equilibrium for all involved.
The only things progressives have to offer is maybe if we spend just a few more tens of millions; maybe if we throw just a few hundred more well intentioned social workers, drug counselors, and psychologists--then those few thousands will choose a different path. Because obviously the universe is a just one and there’s never any tough tradeoffs to be made. If only everyone cared as much as we progressives (aka good people) wouldn’t life be so glorious?
It's not simply a matter of public sentiment. Federal courts have consistently ruled that cities can't criminalize homelessness, or involuntarily commit people to mental institutions if they don't present an immediate risk. Changing this might require a Constitutional amendment.
What is the “non-progressive” solution to homelessness? As far as I can tell, it’s “I don’t care where you stay, but it can’t be here,” which is obviously not an actual solution in a global sense.
Enforcing basic property rights is a good start. “I’m sorry sir or madam, but this is some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world, and you may not just pitch a tent here on the sidewalk. If you refuse to remove yourself then we will remove you.”As you say, this is not a total solution to the larger problem, but it’s a start.
Any difficult problem needs to be broken down into pieces and analyzed piece by piece, and I posit that this is the clear and obvious part of any serious solution. Logically, I can only see two other possibilities.
1) We solve homelessness and criminality once and for all, such that nobody would even attempt to pitch a tent on property that isn’t theirs without permission, or else would willingly remove themselves once their error were pointed out to them. I hold that this is impossible, and though we should always strive for perfection, we must recognize and account for our limitations.
2) We keep the status quo, where vagrants are not forcibly removed and instead are allowed to live dispersed throughout the city.
If I’m missing another possibility here, then somebody please point it out to me. Note that I’m purposefully leaving out any discussion of where those that are forced to leave should go, which admittedly must be a part of any solution but is not the part that I’m interested in for now. Additionally I accept that there is plenty to debate regarding precisely how enforced removal should be carried out; for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that everyone should be given fair warning and a chance to leave at their own accord, and violent force should be kept strictly to what’s minimally necessary to enforce the rules.
Am I wrong to think that enforced removal is necessary to any serious solution? And if so, can somebody explain to me why I’ve never heard of a “progressive” solution that grants this point and incorporates it into its plan?
Police will generally enforce private property rights by forcibly removing trespassers (although it sometimes takes a while). The problem is that homeless people usually occupy public property. Police can prevent them from doing certain things like blocking sidewalks but otherwise they have the same legal right to be on public property as anyone else.
Even for occupation of public property, the application of state power is extremely selective. Abandon or live in a beat to shit tent on public property, get arrested and have your private property destroyed by the state. Leave a $50,000 BMW in a bike lane because you're too self important to find a legal parking spot, and at best you'll get a ticket. Most of the time you might not even get that much.
The fact that only one of these will be on the receiving end of state violence really underscores how little the excuse of "you're occupying public property" has with the expected outcome.
> “I’m sorry sir or madam, but this is some of the most expensive real estate in the entire world, and you may not just pitch a tent here on the sidewalk. If you refuse to remove yourself then we will remove you.”
I mean, this is what they do in a lot of cities (albeit not San Francisco), except it’s usually far less polite than this. It’s not uncommon to see LAPD breaking up homeless camps and destroying their possessions (funny how selective property rights are), and it’s not exactly fixed the problem in LA.
At best it tends to push them towards cities that’ll not abuse them arbitrarily, at least until the voters in that area vote in a police chief that’ll be “tough on crime” and they’re turned out, repeating the cycle.
> Am I wrong to think that enforced removal is necessary to any serious solution?
Yes, because it’s what we’ve been trying for about half a century and it has failed miserably. At best it results in us playing hot potato with them between different cities. At worst it involves illegal application of state violence against the poor and powerless.
It’s genuinely hard for me to understand how “enforced removal” could possibly be seen as a solution for homelessness. Maybe if your goal is to stop seeing the problem, perhaps. But it’s not exactly a solution; are the homeless going to stop being homeless after you’ve “removed” them? Or are they just going to be dumped somewhere else after getting roughed up by the cops a bit?
> If I’m missing another possibility here, then somebody please point it out to me. Note that I’m purposefully leaving out any discussion of where those that are forced to leave should go, which admittedly must be a part of any solution but is not the part that I’m interested in for now.
There’s a good reason why I accuse a lot of people of not actually wanting to solve the problem, but rather make it happen out of sight. It’s rare to have someone say it so nakedly though.
Maybe you should focus less on where they should go, and more on rehabilitating as many of them as possible back into society? If they had homes in which to secure their possessions, maybe fewer of them would feel the need to camp out on the property you seem so concerned about? Or better yet we can take a look at what policy changes have caused the homeless population to grow and change those, so that fewer of our fellow human beings end up on the street? Just a thought.
Institutionalization. I’m all in favor of nice institutions and every effort at rehabilitation but if you are in such a condition that you can’t go about your life without ruining those of everyone around you, then society is entitled to protect itself by removing you.
I certainly haven’t seen my preferred solution, just building them houses, done for fifty years. Sure sounds like you’re asserting that my preferred plan hasn’t worked despite it not having been tried at all and therefore asserting that the only choice is your plan.
What I’ve seen is fifty years of increased incarceration, police spending, and soaring housing prices.
We’ve prioritized autonomy so much that we’ve ended up in a miserable equilibrium for all involved.
The only things progressives have to offer is maybe if we spend just a few more tens of millions; maybe if we throw just a few hundred more well intentioned social workers, drug counselors, and psychologists--then those few thousands will choose a different path. Because obviously the universe is a just one and there’s never any tough tradeoffs to be made. If only everyone cared as much as we progressives (aka good people) wouldn’t life be so glorious?