Why California Cities Spending Millions To House Homeless Is Not Enough
I am a firm believer in charity, helping others that need help, but what California is doing is enabling a population, rather then giving tools to lift themselves out of the crises that has caused homelessness.
By taking away harsh punishments for drug use, more so, doing it in public spaces California instead of correcting a problem has caused it to be much, much worse.
They have created a safe space for drug users, they know if they come to California, not only will they get their needles for free, but also have a space they can shoot up and leave needles
What is worse, this is starting to cause a sanitary issue that is a breeding ground for human diseases not seen since the Middle Ages. This is caused due to addicts and homeless peeing and defecating on the sidewalks and street corners. With the tight living spaces by tent cities and people sleeping in mass on the sidewalks, we see diseases like typhoid on the rise.
This is the problem with this policy, instead of trying to correct the problem that is causing this issue, mainly drug addiction, although there are other causes, such as the exorbitant cost of housing, this has caused what is already a bad problem to become an issue that could explode into a dark ages type of plague.
This is not just a California problem, you also see issues with this in cities that are under Liberal leadership, instead of treating the problem, they try to cover it up by giving safe spaces and throwing cash, this does nothing but make the problem worse. To heal, you need to stop encouraging this behavior.
I am not a big fan of just tossing people into jail for drug use, but I think enabling is not giving help. Instead, it is making what is already bad into something much worse.
There is also the question of resources, you have San Diego creating a huge tent city to house much of their homeless population, but who is going to pay for this all, and why should I as a tax payer pay for something that there is no end to?
I feel that San Diego and other cities would be far better off to invest into treatment problems, it may cost more in the initial cost, but what you would have is a dwindling number of people that you would treating, so long as you set up a problem to help stop use of drugs and not enable or make excuses for it.
San Diego which is leading this idea, they say their goal is to reduce and help, this was started after a recent report by the Department of Housing and Urban Development found the city of San Diego and the surrounding county had the fourth-highest population of homeless people in the country – a crisis prompting city officials to take significant, yet costly, steps to get the situation under control.
San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, a Republican, signed off last week on a City Council-approved $11 million contract to fund through June 2020 three such “bridge shelters” for the homeless and a facility for people to store their belongings. The contract also laid the groundwork for the construction of a fourth bridge shelter.
“We’re taking dramatic action to move homeless people off the streets and get them help,” Faulconer told Fox News. “Our strategy is to connect, support and shelter them.”
The plan includes safe parking zones for people living in their cars or RVs.
While I think the idea is commendable, I think it is doomed to fail because while it treats the problem presented before us, it does not take care of the underlying problem, drug addiction and the high cost of living that is driving the ones not addicted to have little choice but to live in a homeless state.