Some People Choose to Be Homeless

Townhall.com ^ | August 18, 2015 | Debra J. Saunders

[Kaslin]

The Obama Department of Justice argued last week that a Boise, Idaho, law against "public sleeping in a city without adequate shelter space constitutes criminalizing homelessness itself, in violation of the Eighth Amendment." In a statement of interest filed in federal court, the Obama administration asserted that banning sleeping and camping in public places constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." Republican candidates, please take note.

Mike Journee, spokesman for Boise Mayor David Bieter, described his city as "a fairly progressive island in a deeply red state." Bieter is trying to address homelessness, Journee told me, "from a holistic standpoint" -- and with compassion. That said, the Obama statement is "misguided" in that it is based on a notion that "those experiencing homelessness have no recourse and we are willy-nilly criminalizing this by writing tickets for people who have no options. That is not the case."

Homeless advocates have a mantra: No one chooses to be homeless.

I'm sure that's true for some people, but there are homeless individuals who make a series of self-destructive choices that inevitably lead them to homelessness.

"We fundamentally disagree that people don't have a choice," quoth Journee. Some "are choosing not to avail themselves of the services that are here." They congregate in camps where "there's inevitably conflict. There are inevitably public health issues. There is also illegal activity." That's why Boise police make arrests.

In this story, it depends on what the meaning of "adequate shelter space" is. Homeless advocates and the Obama administration have a high standard. Eric Tars, senior attorney for the National Law Center on Homeless & Poverty, which first filed the lawsuit against Boise in 2009, told me, "It's not OK even if there are enough shelter beds." And: "Not all people are able to access shelter beds." A city fails his test if there are available beds in a religious shelter that proselytizes; that violates a homeless person's First Amendment right to religious freedom. A veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder or a victim of domestic violence might feel "threatened or uncomfortable" in a crowded shelter.

I asked Tars: Does that mean anyone can pitch a tent on San Francisco's Market Street and the police can't do anything? He answered, "Anyone who needs a place to stay to survive should be able to shelter themselves as best they can."

Tars is right about the downside of law enforcement. Arrests can tarnish a homeless person's record and hence his or her ability to get a job. Law enforcement is expensive. It doesn't always work. Local governments should look for common-sense prescriptions that reduce homelessness. Tars points to a successful housing program in Salt Lake City. The key, he said, is to provide housing -- perhaps without preconditions, such as that those given housing not use illegal drugs or alcohol. Do that and "in the short term, you do have to tolerate the tent cities a little bit longer."

Those tent cities are breeding grounds for crime. So why is it that the only people who really get a choice under the Obama administration's regime are the people who make really bad choices?

[Smokin' Joe]

I think that modern life is extremely and unnecessarily complex.

I agree.

I would say at least 80% of that complexity (maybe more) is the fault of the government.

Yes....and no. Most of it is keeping up with the latest already outmoded and 'last version, incompatible with the new improved version' technology we either impose upon ourselves or have imposed upon us by the lemmings running or using the 'new, improved, (incompatible with earlier versions), next big thing'.

We can choose not to deal with computers and cell phones and other gadgets...

Not if you want to keep your job, not if you want a client's work. Depending on what you do, sure some of that is government driven, but a lot of it is pushed by the new kids on the block, who don't run the older versions because they were in diapers when they came out.

At some point they force the change, by weight of numbers, and you either 'upgrade' or get out. At that point, the next version is on the way because there is no manufacturer's support for the older version (no matter how good it was) and the new version is already probed and hacked.

The biggest difference the homeless have (at least the ones who are sane) is that they reached the point where they got out sooner and decided it wasn't worth the effort to be eternally chasing their tails to try to get ahead.

The other trend is that we increasingly live in a surveillance nation: increasingly, every thought, every action, every movement you make is tracked; every word you type, every e-mail you send/receive, picture you upload, item you download, movie you watch, e-book you read, every thought you express, how much you make, how you made it, what/where you spend it, item you buy, where you bought it--even the things or articles you just paused over in the great electronic catalog of things and ideas we call the internet--all of it is recorded somewhere.

That is the price we pay for the trimmings, convenience, and comfort of prosperity, our velvet covered cybernetic chains.

While their lot may not be ideal, the homeless are invisible to that. In that sense, they are far more free than you or I.

[Marko413]

I 2nd all that with you!