According to the National Coalition for the Homeless website:
The National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty have chosen the following top 20 meanest cities in 2005 based on one or more of the following criteria: the number of anti-homeless laws in the city, the enforcement of those laws and severities of penalties, the general political climate toward homeless people in the city, local advocate support for the meanest designation, the city’s history of criminalization measures, and the existence of pending or recently enacted criminalization legislation in the city”
First, let me say that seeing San Francisco in the top ten surprised me a little, it being one of the most liberal cities anywhere. Anchorage, Alaska is on the list – probably because of the weather.
Homelessness by someone who has all his faculties is often a choice. There are a lot of folks who choose the anonymity of the streets. There are the addicts of some sort and then there are the mentally ill. At one time, most of the mentally ill were housed in mental hospitals. Granted, that wasn’t always cushy digs, but they were off the streets and out of danger. We’ve always had addicts and people who just don’t want to fit in. We used to call many of them hobos and bums.
Homeless advocates aren’t all that interested in ending homelessness. That would mean they would have to find real work. How can you advocate for the homeless if there are none? “Poverty pimps” is a well deserved appellation for some of these folks.
Bums (yeah I know, that ain’t nice.) are a drag on any city and economy. They use services more than the average person. I’m not against helping people and I give to charities that give homeless people who want to get back on their feet a hand up.
According to the National Coalition for the Homeless:
All people should have equal access to safe, decent, accessible, affordable, and permanent housing regardless of their unique needs or life circumstances.
And most people in the United States do have equal access to housing if they want it. Some may choose otherwise, or some may not be able to care for themselves. Those that cannot help themselves are usually the mentally ill and should be institutionalized if the family is unable (not unwilling) to care for them. (I have a family member who I may have to support the rest of my life.)
It is a societal responsibility to provide safe, decent, accessible, affordable, and permanent housing for all people, including people experiencing homelessness, who are unable to secure such housing through their own means.
Why should I provide a house for someone who is capable of working and earning it for himself? Why should I have to pay for your family member who you are UNWILLING (not unable) to support and help?
You want a home, go earn it. If you can’t because of a physical or mental handicap, we all should help if the family can't – no doubt. But to just give someone a home? Have you ever seen government projects or section 8 subsidized housing?
Giving away doesn’t solve the problem. Making some one earn it usually makes them appreciate things. Enabling homelessness is no cure. Maybe we need to be a bit meaner.
VW
Comments