[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
National News See other National News Articles Title: San Francisco Homeless Insider Tells All Authored by Michael Shellenberger via Substack, Why progressives defend and finance open drug scenes... n my new book, San Fransicko, I describe why progressives create and defend what European researchers call open drug scenes, which are places in cities where drug dealers and buyers meet, and many addicts live in tents. Progressives call these scenes homeless encampments, and not only defend them but have encouraged their growth, which is why the homeless population in California grew 31 percent since 2000. This was mostly a West Coast phenomenon until recently. But now, the newly elected progressive mayor of Boston, Michelle Wu, has decided to keep open a drug scene at Mass and Cass avenues, even though it has resulted in several deaths from drug overdoses and homicides. Progressives defend their approach as compassionate. Not everybody who is homeless is an addict, they say. Many are just down on their luck. Others turn to drugs after living on the street. What they need is our help. We should not ask people living in homeless encampments to go somewhere else. Homeless shelters are often more dangerous than living on the street. We should provide the people living in tents with money, food, clean needles, and whatever else they need to stay alive and comfortable. And we should provide everyone with their own apartment unit if thats what they want. But this harm reduction approach is obviously failing. Cities already do a good job taking care of temporarily homeless people not addicted to drugs. Drug dealers stab and sometimes murder addicts who dont pay. Women forced into prostitution to support their addictions are raped. Addicts are dying from overdose and poisoning. The addicts living in the open drug scenes commit many crimes including open drug use, sleeping on sidewalks, and defecating in public. Many steal to maintain their habits. The hands-off approach has meant that addicts do not spend any amount of time in jail or hospital where they can be off of drugs, and seek recovery. Now, even a growing number of people who have worked or still work within the homeless services sector are speaking out. A longtime San Francisco homeless service provider who read San Fransicko, and said they mostly agreed with it, reached out to me to share their views. At first this person said they wanted to speak on the record. But as the interview went on, and the person criticized their colleagues, they asked to remain anonymous, fearing retribution. Why Housing First Failed The main progressive approach for addressing homelessness, not just in San Francisco but in progressive cities around the nation, is Housing First, which is the notion that taxpayers should give, no questions asked, apartment units to anyone who says they are homeless, and asks for one. What actually works to reduce the addiction that forces many people onto the streets is making housing contingent on abstinence. But Housing First advocates oppose contingency management, as its called, because, they say, Housing is a right, and it should not be condition on behavior change. But such a policy is absurdly unrealistic, said the San Francisco homeless expert. To pretend that this city could build enough permanent supportive housing for every homeless person who needs it is ludicrous, the person said. I wish it werent. I wish I lived in a land where there was plenty of housing. But now people are dying on our streets and it feels like were not doing very much about it. The underlying problem with Housing First is that it enables addiction. The National Academies of Sciences review [which showed that giving people apartments did not improve health or other life outcomes] you cited shows that. San Francisco has more permanent supportive housing units per capita than any other city, and we doubled spending on homelessness, but the homeless population rose 13%, even as it went down in the US. And so we doubled our spending and the problem got worse. But if you say that, you get attacked. How did progressives, who claim to be evidence-based, ever get so committed to Housing First? Malcolm Gladwells [2006 New Yorker article] Million Dollar Murray, really helped popularize this idea, the person said. But it was based on an anecdote of one person. It works for who it works for but is not scalable. [Governor] Gavin [Newsom] made a mistake [as San Franciscos Mayor 2004-2011] which was that we stopped investing in shelter. But thats because all the best minds were saying, This is whats going to work. One of the claims made defenders of the open drug scenes is that people who live in them are mostly locals who were priced out of their homes and apartments and decided to pitch a tent on the street. In San Fransicko, I cite a significant body of evidence to show that this is false, and that many people come to San Francisco from around the U.S. for the citys unusually high cash welfare benefits, free housing, and tolerance of open drug scenes. The insider agreed. People come here because they think they can. Its bullshit that Only 30 percent [of homeless] are from out of town. At least 20,000 homeless people come through town every year. Talk to the people on the street. Theres no way 70 percent of the homeless are from here. Ask them the name of their high school and they guess, Washington? The one around the corner? But you cant even talk about that without being called a fascist. The people living on the street suffer from serious addiction, this person said. During the first point in time count [census of homeless population] in 2007, one-third had a disability, mental illness, or addiction, while last time, it was over two-thirds. The population fundamentally changed, whether from the drugs, or the time on the street. It doesnt matter because a lot of the problems on the street are drugs-related. Neither San Francisco nor any other municipality can solve the housing policy without changing federal policy. Life in the open drug scenes is brutal, this person confirmed. Most homeless encampments are not communities but have paper-thin relationships based on their disease. Its hard to have healthy relationships when youre just trying to keep your head above water because youre so dope dependent. What San Francisco and other progressive cities are doing isnt working. People in those encampments have food brought to them, port-a-potties brought to them, and all they need to do is put drugs in their arm all day. They get really really sick and they die. Portugal didnt make it so you can do whatever you want. The consequences of your action are treatment driven, but there are consequences. Here there are no consequences. And so we make it worse. This person was harshly critical of San Franciscos Department of Public Health for allowing drug overdoses to rise to over 700 per year. They say, Its not our fault because its fentanyl. But its only gotten worse. This person stressed they were in favor of harm reduction policies like giving addicts clean needles in exchange for them giving back dirty ones, but not just giving out needles. Im all in favor of needle exchange, but not of needle distribution. Ask people to return the needles theyve been given. There are people who dont have it together enough. I get that. But when you tell people were going to give you whatever you want, to do whatever you want
Sleeping on a sidewalk is a crime. There are things you cant do. You cant shoot up on the street. The laws are there for a reason. Open drug scenes look like natural disasters, but they are the result of specific city policies. These policies including giving money, food, and drug paraphernalia to addicts to support their addiction. But even if progressives didnt give people those things, many addicts would still live in open drug scenes. As such, the main reason homelessness is so much worse in progressive West Coast cities is because progressives hotly oppose efforts by cities to close the open drug scenes and move addicts into shelters and rehab. By blocking the closing of open drug scenes, which is referred to as clearing an encampment, people in need of help dont get it. The San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness recently [July 2021] protested an encampment clearing where a woman was pregnant, the insider told me. As soon as everybody left, the woman went into a shelter, after having been on the streets for three months. She went indoors. Its like, What are you fighting for? The right of this person to stay on private property and be pregnant? One of the questions I tried to answer in San Fransicko was when it was that street addicts started living in tents. I concluded that it started with the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, when progressive activists in San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities lived in tents in front of government buildings to protest capitalism. This person confirmed this account. Youre right that the tents popped up after Occupy, they said. But it wasnt just that the Occupy activists gave the homeless their tents. It was that the homeless saw well-heeled whites sleeping in tents. It got moralized. The most influential homeless advocate in San Francisco, and perhaps the United States as a whole, is the head of the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, Jennifer Friedenbach. Over the last three decades, Friedenbach has taken control over San Franciscos homelessness budget and other policies. She blocks the closure of open drug scenes, calls people who disagree with her fascists and racists, and organizes protests at the homes of politicians. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
If people want to take drugs, let them. No harm done, maybe they die or maybe they don't. Either way it is of no importance.
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|