Is San Diego Finally Facing Reality About Homelessness
by John Lawrence
In an article by Scott Lewis he finally sheds some light on what should have been obvious to most observers of the homeless situation. Fact: Homeless people would rather live in a tent on the street than in a shelter. It's not hard to figure out why. They want privacy, pets, their own space, consumption of beverages of their own choice. He writes, "It turns out, unhoused residents are a lot like people who have homes. They want privacy. They want, though, to be close to community. They like pets. They like being together with loved ones. And yes, some of them like to do drugs or drink. All of these things, however, can be restricted or difficult in a congregate setting." Make sense? I have long advocated that local governments set aside city owned land so that homeless people could set up their tents and have some basic social service like portable toilets, showers and storage. In addition social workers could provide them with their services like the city so often says they want to do. So why don't they do it especially if they are in one or more centralized location off the streets and somewhere that can be made into a more sanitary setting. Did I mention dumpsters? By the way the city actually did that temporarily during the hepatitis crisis in 2017.
So here is my solution, and then I'll tell you why it will never be implemented. Set aside land for free campgrounds just as a city sets aside land for parks. These should be open to all people not just the "homeless" at some snapshot in time. The financial savings from not building lumber and concrete housing would be immense. These campgrounds should have basic services like rest room facilities and showers. Also trash collection and security. The homeless can provide their own tents as they already have which are strewn all over public sidewalks. This solution accomplishes two very important goals: 1) it provides a marginally better lifestyle for the homeless with much better sanitary conditions and 2) it gets the homeless off the streets and sidewalks letting the general public feel safe in using them again. The money saved in police and hospital resources would probably more than pay for the minimal services provided. In addition social worker services in terms of mental health, drug counseling and job search might be provided as they say they want to provide today.
So this solution would make both the general public, who could reclaim the streets and sidewalks, and the homeless, who would have a marginally better and more sanitary life, better off and the whole scenario could be implemented on a very cost effective basis. Why would it never be implemented in America? Here's why. It heightens the fear among politicians and especially conservatives that the homeless population would continue to grow unabated as more and more people would choose to live in a campground than to pay exorbitant rent. Landlords would lobby politicians because they would fear losing their tenants. People on the lowest rungs of the financial ladder would lose their fear of becoming homeless as a free or almost free solution to housing in lumber and concrete becomes available. Most of the homeless already have rudimentary transportation i.e. bicycles. This gives them access to bus routes which can get them around the city. Most have some income which they use for food at fast food places which, while not nutritious, at least keeps them from starving. So my solution would not necessarily include food services or transportation services but it could.
Scott writes:
"The mayor doesn’t want to accommodate them in a safe camping village, Laing says, because the city and providers cannot afford the support personnel needed to keep it safe. But he has also proven incapable of winning the war on the tents in the streets.
"If you’re losing a war and wasting money fighting it, it may be time to rethink it.
"The people on the streets are telling us they want space to set up their own lives.
"Whatever dollars we spend forcing them to consider our approach instead may be better spent keeping them safe and clean as they pursue their own."
Really? "The city can't afford the support personnel needed to keep t safe." Yet they can afford $800K in overtime pay to deal with homeless problems on the street. Hospitals can afford millions of dollars in emergency room treatment for homeless for which they are not reimbursed. Businesses can afford homeless camping out in front of their doors. Is the city being penny wise and pound foolish? You bet they are. They get millions of dollars to build shelters which the homeless don't want to live in. Yet they can't afford some basic campground facilities on a vacant lot? Oh I see. The Kampgrounds of America would lobby against something for free which is a profit making enterprise for them. Yet the state of California can offer almost free camping in Cardiff, Sweetwater County Park, Campland on the Bay and elsewhere. Plenty of almost free campgrounds are available. The state, county and city could create more at minimal expense compared with brick and mortar facilities. And it might even bring down the price of rents.
The authorities should take note of Scott's article and do the right and inexpensive thing staring them right in the face. It would get homeless off the streets thereby making them safe for ordinary pedestrians. It would bring more people to local businesses that happen to be in neighborhoods where the homeless have set up tent camps. It would provide a sanitary location for the homeless to set up their tents. It would provide ready access to the homeless for social workers who would be there to deal with the problems that landed them up homeless in the first place. Instead of police being called to deal with homeless problems all over the city at random locations, on site security could minimize demands on police. It seems like a no brainer. I'm glad Scott finally called out the stupidity of the local, county and state authorities on this matter. I would also increase tourism in America's Finest (Potentially) City.
