The Solution To Homelessness Isn't Virtual Signaling Its Long Term Solutions

Earlier this year, a legal clinic that advocates for unhoused in Quebec filed a lawsuit against the town of St-Jérôme, Que. seeking to overturn a ban on erecting makeshift shelters on public property. If successful, Quebec will join BC and Ontario which have already issued similar rulings.  

Meanwhile, city councils in the US may soon find out what the Supreme Court thinks about the issue as it takes up Grants Pass v. Johnson case. Lost in these battles is that neither outlawing nor permitting homeless encampments solves the problem of homelessness.

Activists seem more concerned with word games (ex. urban camping), hurt feelings (unhoused vs. homeless), and excusing unlawful and anti-social behavior than with solving the problem. Cities, however, are equally culpable as a failure to address the problem is simply a failure of will as Gavin Newsom demonstrated when he managed to clean up San Francisco in advance of the APEC Summit in November. 

Apparently, when faced with international embarrassment it is possible to do something.

Newsom’s efforts were not permanent solutions, as tearing down encampments just forced the homeless to move elsewhere. The homeless issue should be a major concern for all citizens as it harms both individuals and society.  

Those experiencing “homelessness were more likely to report poor mental health than the overall population,” (38.0% versus 17.3%) experience substance abuse issues (38% abuse and 26% abusing drugs), and “are nine times more likely to die from an opioid overdose than the general population.” Homeless encampments are also associated with arson, public health issues, and petty and violent crime, to name just a few.  Solving the homelessness problem will require money, public and political commitment, and overcoming the many arguments put forth by activists.  

Despite what activists may say, neither living on the street nor using drugs are human rights. Rights come with citizenship, but responsibilities do as well. We are all required to obey reasonable laws, and prohibitions against public drug and alcohol use, sleeping on the sidewalk, and defecating in the street are clearly reasonable.  

Want some new merch while supporting free speech? Check out our store! Wrong Speak Flat Bill Cap

Likewise, engaging in petty crime and assaulting fellow citizens cannot be permitted if we are to remain a civilized society that takes the safety of its citizens seriously. Activists demands that the homeless be called unhoused or engaged in “urban camping” accomplishes nothing but gives many the perception that activists are on the side of the homeless and are working towards a solution when in fact these word games do little but make activists feel good about themselves.  

Word games attempt to manipulate the public and slow progress toward real solutions, but it is in excusing anti-social and criminal behavior where activists cause the most harm. Activists argue that those doing drugs on the street should not be incarcerated as “drug addiction is a disease.” If so, drug addiction is like getting lung cancer from smoking; it is caused by personal choice.  Addicts must be shown compassion but we must keep personal responsibility and choice in mind as well. The only activist cry that holds any weight is “where else can they go?”  However, all that is required to solve this problem is money and will.  

The obvious, and simplest part, of the solution is to build more housing.  From a logistics standpoint, building housing for the homeless should be easier than other types of housing as aesthetics, locations, and resale value will not be issues.  Broadly speaking the homeless fall into three categories with some overlap, the unfortunate, those with mental issues, and those with substance abuse issues and the last two will require housing not unlike minimum security prisons.  The more difficult task will be sorting people into the appropriate categories.

Large mental institutions began to disappear in the 1980s and 90s as mental health advocates began to demand mental health care that was “person-centered, and available in the communities the people lived in.” At the same time, society became more concerned with mistakenly incarcerating the mentally healthy (false positives) than with mistakenly releasing the mentally unhealthy (false negatives).  

The more expensive “person-centered” approach to mental health combined with types of “preferred” diagnostic errors led to an increase in the number of people with mental health issues who no longer received the necessary treatment. These two issues must be addressed by returning to a model that leverages larger mental institutions and by rebalancing the type of diagnosis errors that are permitted (i.e. increasing the chance of false positives).

After institutionalizing the mentally ill for treatment (the term “institutionalizing” may make some uncomfortable, but “sanitizing” the term does not change what is being done), society will need an approach to dealing with those addicted to drugs and compulsory drug treatment must be the approach. 

A tiered approach can be used starting with fines and/or a minimum time in rehab for those caught abusing drugs in public for the first time, with longer “sentences” for repeat offenders. This may strike some as harsh, but society must balance what is best for the individual and what is best for society.  Is a life of mandatory supervision in what amounts to a minimum-security facility better than living and abusing drugs – and likely overdosing - on the streets?  It is a difficult question but from a societal standpoint, the rights of the many outweigh that of the individual who cannot or will not be rehabilitated in much the same way as society’s rights trump those of the criminal.

The last group, “the unfortunate,” are the easiest to deal with as “all” that they require is a roof over their heads and access to the social safety net that is available to all citizens. Logistics aside, the challenge here will be convincing taxpayers that footing the bill for the necessary housing is less costly in the long run than letting the homelessness situation continue to fester and possibly grow larger.

If what I have suggested strikes you as obvious, the question you should ask is “why isn’t it being done?”  If it strikes you as harsh then I’m open to other solutions with the caveat that arguing that “living, defecating, and possibly overdosing on the streets” is a human right does not count as a solution.

Despite what activists may say, the majority of the homeless are not down on their luck but rather deeply troubled individuals who need help.  Advocating harm reduction policies or engaging in word play to redefine homelessness as “living rough” or living on the streets as urban camping accomplishes nothing besides providing activists with a sense of moral superiority. It is virtue signaling which does more harm than good.  If it is a form of compassion, it is a coward’s compassion.  

Difficult problems require difficult decisions.  Doing nothing and endlessly moving the homeless from neighborhood to neighborhood are equally useless.  We need an approach that considers the difficulties many experience with drugs and mental illness while balancing the need for personal responsibility and the rights and safety of taxpayers. Thomas Sowell rightly stated that there are not solutions, only trade-offs.  It’s time to trade excuses for personal accountability, virtue signaling for treatment, and useless activity for long-term solutions.

Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.