This is also related to the broader problems of blue state/city governance where we are losing a lot of population and businesses partly due to quality of life issues and partly due to less “bang for your buck” (high cost of living not being justified by better services and job prospects). Turning our heads from these problems won’t make them go away.
Star Trek has always been aspirational to me. We should never stop striving to be a society that hasn't forgotten the vulnerable. The Vulcan philosophy of 'infinite diversity in infinite combinations' offers a future worth pursuing. A future that treats all people with the dignity they deserve, and one that recognizes the rewards that come with that commitment. Instead, we find ourselves fighting each other while wealth consolidates among a select few. Another thing that strikes me every time I rewatch 'Past Tense' is Dax's storyline working alongside a benevolent billionaire. That's not science fiction — that's fantasy!
I grow weary of people saying that being unhoused is a choice. May I posit that for some it’s the only choice much like the performer you met who found security deposits draconian. Most situations are a tragic confluence of a myriad issues from job loss, insufficient income and mental illness to name just a few.
I wish I had the magic answer to solving this problem but we’re moving further away from any solution with rents moving faster than income.
And, the people causing this will bitch and mention bootstraps or some stupid crap. If you’re a billionaire you could solve the issue but they’d rather sneer and deride. Not caring? Yeah that’s the biggest part.
A thoughtful and well-written piece. It's a choice to not house the homeless, to not ensure all have access to healthcare without having to declare bankruptcy or to start a Go Fund Me page, and to not ensure that no child goes hungry. As that commie hippy said 2000 years ago, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Or more specifically for this situation: "For where you spend your money, that is what you think is important."
There is no excuse other than selfishness, apathy, and greed why we can't do something for homeless people and mentally ill people. Something compassionate.
And yes, maybe hospitals are required for some, but there's no excuse to throw them in a hospital and cease caring. Constant and vigilant oversight to ensure compassion and mercy are practiced is needed.
For others, there is no reason why we can't build more housing and offer terms to people based on income. And if they have no income, there is no reason why we can't get them an income through a jobs program. And no reason why we can't offer ownership of those housing units applying their monthly rent (however little it is) to equity in the apartment or condo or small house. And no reason why we can't have community services: psychiatric, medical clinics, pharmacies, community centers, social workers, safe spaces for children in those housing units or communities.
We can solve this goddamned problem. We just have to fucking care.
We have the wealthiest society that has ever existed. To accept that there's a growing number of people who are homeless is a deliberate choice. And a whole lot of people just retreat into judging those who are on the street. There aren't enough permanent beds and all the social services are fucked. Americans also love to kick people when they're down, so they make social service acquisition as painful as possible.
We could house the homeless but we choose not to, as a national priority. Now there is going to be a movement where the pricktator says something to the effect of "I don't want people to have a house if they didn't work so hard."
I think it's definitely an issue of choice but ultimately it comes down to who makes those choice? I'm not sure even liberals are supportive of the government making lifestyle choices for the homeless (esp those with drug addiction) but that can lead to a conflict of "rights." The single woman in the same shelter with a violent drug addict has a right to safety. It's a very complex issue.
Also, if we allocated the same funds to providing affordable housing and healthcare for everyone, that we jettison down the defense department rathole, or in politically. motivated military actions, we could solve these problems tomorrow but our so-called leaders don't and won't!
You are 100% correct that we choose not to. We collectively blame and shame the mentally ill, and those who lack the ability to effectively contend in the working world. We think those are examples of unworthiness and personal failures of will. As if the guy walking down the street talking loudly to himself, or the demons in his head, CHOSE to be that way? Or the working person who suffers a major medical event that sends him/her and their family so deeply into debt that it becomes hopeless and they all end up homeless, somehow chose their situation?
We value competition as a society, but then we collectively shit on the inevitable losers. The reality is that we do NOT care, and we do NOT agree with the simple proposition that society and politics should exist as a force for good for all. We are so far from that idea that we should be embarrassed at our primitive nature.
And guess what they’re still feeding them I’ll be at not great food, but they’re still throwing money at it anyway. That $ could be used to better societal effect.
Also, I do not think it is necessarily about lamenting the loss of gritty cities when people push back on criticism of NYC and SF. Rather it is this: from 1975 to 2025 NYC and SF went on a FIFTY year run of wealth creation and success. NYC really used to be like the French Connection and now it is really like Sex and the City. Meanwhile, every place between Houston and…the Atlantic Ocean remains horrible. But we get handwringing about the work still to be done in NYC and SF. NYC and SF are the successful parts of this country! Not that they dont have a long way to improve across all kinds of metrics, but, my god, I see way more articles about them than the horrors between Philly and Pittsburgh or NYC and Buffalo…
Consider framing this as a problem of “left libertarianism”. Just like we have left and right NIMBYs, there are left and right libertarian impulses. “Let them sleep in the subway,” whatever rationale is explicitly advanced, is essentially a statement of a libertarian ethos no different from an expansive idea about gun rights and patronizing virtual forums that welcome bigots in a way that we would never accept IRL…
If liberals don’t address the problems of homelessness and crime, people are going to let the conservatives do it. Look at the societal reactions to urban life in the 1970s and 1980s. Bernard Goetz became a hero to many, as Daniel Penny did more recently.
Only a fool would lament the loss of “gritty” cities (they’re welcome to spend some time in Baltimore if they still want that). It also—to use an overused insult—shows their privilege. The urban poor certainly don’t like having to live in fear of everything from harassment to serious crime.
Homelessness is a hard problem to solve, but “accept it” is not much of an answer.
This issue is coming to a head everywhere. Someone is going to have to make the unpopular-with-progressives argument that a) there is nothing empowering about living out in the elements with a disease that hijacks your brain, and b) people have a right to clean and safe public areas like parks and subways. Being mentally ill and homeless is NOT A RIGHT, nor is it a "choice". Unfortunately the blue areas most afflicted by this are also the ones most likely to be cowed by far left activists (see: Portland, OR). We have to start approaching this in different ways for the benefit of all concerned.
I don’t see myself as a far left activist. Living in Eugene, Or, just an hour south of Portland, we have a huge homeless population here too. I object to the camp sweeps that come with no notice, throwing people’s few meager possessions in the trash and leaving them with nothing, and nowhere to go. I object to hiding the homeless so people can ignore the suffering. I object to people ( illionaires) having far more resources than they can use getting tax breaks while people go without basic necessities. I object to children sleeping in cars, and the chaos it causes in their lives.
I object to fact that we have the wealth as a society, but we give ever more to the already rich.
In the 80s, homelessness was not rampant. The disbanding of mental institutions under Reagan (to free money for tax breaks for rich people) put tens of thousands of mentally ill people on the streets. Since then, as wealth has shifted upward, the problem has grown. I’ve watched it, in my lifetime. I’m not saying it’s easy to solve, but we created it with policies that marginalized people on the edge. In Eugene, we have a housing first shelter and several communities of tiny homes that get people off the streets and rebuilding their lives. But it costs money. And there’s not nearly enough spaces for all who need one. Until we’re willing to tax the rich (like we used to) we won’t have enough. Look at what’s happening under Trump- programs to care for the disabled and poverty-stricken are being dismantled or massively underfunded. This has been the pattern under every republican administration. And now, we have a massive homeless population.
This is also related to the broader problems of blue state/city governance where we are losing a lot of population and businesses partly due to quality of life issues and partly due to less “bang for your buck” (high cost of living not being justified by better services and job prospects). Turning our heads from these problems won’t make them go away.
Star Trek has always been aspirational to me. We should never stop striving to be a society that hasn't forgotten the vulnerable. The Vulcan philosophy of 'infinite diversity in infinite combinations' offers a future worth pursuing. A future that treats all people with the dignity they deserve, and one that recognizes the rewards that come with that commitment. Instead, we find ourselves fighting each other while wealth consolidates among a select few. Another thing that strikes me every time I rewatch 'Past Tense' is Dax's storyline working alongside a benevolent billionaire. That's not science fiction — that's fantasy!
I grow weary of people saying that being unhoused is a choice. May I posit that for some it’s the only choice much like the performer you met who found security deposits draconian. Most situations are a tragic confluence of a myriad issues from job loss, insufficient income and mental illness to name just a few.
I wish I had the magic answer to solving this problem but we’re moving further away from any solution with rents moving faster than income.
And, the people causing this will bitch and mention bootstraps or some stupid crap. If you’re a billionaire you could solve the issue but they’d rather sneer and deride. Not caring? Yeah that’s the biggest part.
A thoughtful and well-written piece. It's a choice to not house the homeless, to not ensure all have access to healthcare without having to declare bankruptcy or to start a Go Fund Me page, and to not ensure that no child goes hungry. As that commie hippy said 2000 years ago, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." Or more specifically for this situation: "For where you spend your money, that is what you think is important."
There is no excuse other than selfishness, apathy, and greed why we can't do something for homeless people and mentally ill people. Something compassionate.
And yes, maybe hospitals are required for some, but there's no excuse to throw them in a hospital and cease caring. Constant and vigilant oversight to ensure compassion and mercy are practiced is needed.
For others, there is no reason why we can't build more housing and offer terms to people based on income. And if they have no income, there is no reason why we can't get them an income through a jobs program. And no reason why we can't offer ownership of those housing units applying their monthly rent (however little it is) to equity in the apartment or condo or small house. And no reason why we can't have community services: psychiatric, medical clinics, pharmacies, community centers, social workers, safe spaces for children in those housing units or communities.
We can solve this goddamned problem. We just have to fucking care.
It's maddening to the extreme.
We have the wealthiest society that has ever existed. To accept that there's a growing number of people who are homeless is a deliberate choice. And a whole lot of people just retreat into judging those who are on the street. There aren't enough permanent beds and all the social services are fucked. Americans also love to kick people when they're down, so they make social service acquisition as painful as possible.
We could house the homeless but we choose not to, as a national priority. Now there is going to be a movement where the pricktator says something to the effect of "I don't want people to have a house if they didn't work so hard."
I think it's definitely an issue of choice but ultimately it comes down to who makes those choice? I'm not sure even liberals are supportive of the government making lifestyle choices for the homeless (esp those with drug addiction) but that can lead to a conflict of "rights." The single woman in the same shelter with a violent drug addict has a right to safety. It's a very complex issue.
Also, if we allocated the same funds to providing affordable housing and healthcare for everyone, that we jettison down the defense department rathole, or in politically. motivated military actions, we could solve these problems tomorrow but our so-called leaders don't and won't!
You are 100% correct that we choose not to. We collectively blame and shame the mentally ill, and those who lack the ability to effectively contend in the working world. We think those are examples of unworthiness and personal failures of will. As if the guy walking down the street talking loudly to himself, or the demons in his head, CHOSE to be that way? Or the working person who suffers a major medical event that sends him/her and their family so deeply into debt that it becomes hopeless and they all end up homeless, somehow chose their situation?
We value competition as a society, but then we collectively shit on the inevitable losers. The reality is that we do NOT care, and we do NOT agree with the simple proposition that society and politics should exist as a force for good for all. We are so far from that idea that we should be embarrassed at our primitive nature.
I think the conservative "solution" will involve all of those ICE camps. Confinement and forced labor for private prisons.
And guess what they’re still feeding them I’ll be at not great food, but they’re still throwing money at it anyway. That $ could be used to better societal effect.
Also, I do not think it is necessarily about lamenting the loss of gritty cities when people push back on criticism of NYC and SF. Rather it is this: from 1975 to 2025 NYC and SF went on a FIFTY year run of wealth creation and success. NYC really used to be like the French Connection and now it is really like Sex and the City. Meanwhile, every place between Houston and…the Atlantic Ocean remains horrible. But we get handwringing about the work still to be done in NYC and SF. NYC and SF are the successful parts of this country! Not that they dont have a long way to improve across all kinds of metrics, but, my god, I see way more articles about them than the horrors between Philly and Pittsburgh or NYC and Buffalo…
I think you're missing the bigger point here.
Consider framing this as a problem of “left libertarianism”. Just like we have left and right NIMBYs, there are left and right libertarian impulses. “Let them sleep in the subway,” whatever rationale is explicitly advanced, is essentially a statement of a libertarian ethos no different from an expansive idea about gun rights and patronizing virtual forums that welcome bigots in a way that we would never accept IRL…
If liberals don’t address the problems of homelessness and crime, people are going to let the conservatives do it. Look at the societal reactions to urban life in the 1970s and 1980s. Bernard Goetz became a hero to many, as Daniel Penny did more recently.
Only a fool would lament the loss of “gritty” cities (they’re welcome to spend some time in Baltimore if they still want that). It also—to use an overused insult—shows their privilege. The urban poor certainly don’t like having to live in fear of everything from harassment to serious crime.
Homelessness is a hard problem to solve, but “accept it” is not much of an answer.
This issue is coming to a head everywhere. Someone is going to have to make the unpopular-with-progressives argument that a) there is nothing empowering about living out in the elements with a disease that hijacks your brain, and b) people have a right to clean and safe public areas like parks and subways. Being mentally ill and homeless is NOT A RIGHT, nor is it a "choice". Unfortunately the blue areas most afflicted by this are also the ones most likely to be cowed by far left activists (see: Portland, OR). We have to start approaching this in different ways for the benefit of all concerned.
I don’t see myself as a far left activist. Living in Eugene, Or, just an hour south of Portland, we have a huge homeless population here too. I object to the camp sweeps that come with no notice, throwing people’s few meager possessions in the trash and leaving them with nothing, and nowhere to go. I object to hiding the homeless so people can ignore the suffering. I object to people ( illionaires) having far more resources than they can use getting tax breaks while people go without basic necessities. I object to children sleeping in cars, and the chaos it causes in their lives.
I object to fact that we have the wealth as a society, but we give ever more to the already rich.
This is solvable. It is so unnecessary.
You know, if it were easily solvable, it would have been solved by now.
In the 80s, homelessness was not rampant. The disbanding of mental institutions under Reagan (to free money for tax breaks for rich people) put tens of thousands of mentally ill people on the streets. Since then, as wealth has shifted upward, the problem has grown. I’ve watched it, in my lifetime. I’m not saying it’s easy to solve, but we created it with policies that marginalized people on the edge. In Eugene, we have a housing first shelter and several communities of tiny homes that get people off the streets and rebuilding their lives. But it costs money. And there’s not nearly enough spaces for all who need one. Until we’re willing to tax the rich (like we used to) we won’t have enough. Look at what’s happening under Trump- programs to care for the disabled and poverty-stricken are being dismantled or massively underfunded. This has been the pattern under every republican administration. And now, we have a massive homeless population.
A major problem is, a lot like supply-side, many, many Americans believe you can torture someone out of homelessness.
I don't know if torture is the word, but there is a belief that if people just do what they're supposed to this wouldn't be a problem for them.
Beatings will continue until morale approves dontchaknow.