Anatole France famously noted “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
I’m recently back from Seattle, a city controlled by and populated by righteous Trump-hating Democrats. They are fulsome in their expressions of support for the vulnerable, especially the homeless, who have literally nothing. The only thing that stops them from funding homes for these homeless individuals is their refusal to reduce their personal consumption of new cars, vacation trips, morning avocado toast, etc.
What’s the result? Next to my $325/night gleaming new hotel (Hyatt Regency), itself adjacent to the gleaming new office towers of the Amazon HQ(1?), a woman was begging on the sidewalk, a 5-year-old child in her arms, just as one might see in India. The nearest Bank of America promised safety for the LGBTQ, but couldn’t insure its own safety without a Latin American-style armed guard next to the front door (he in turn was wearing a bulletproof vest).
Walking around downtown at sunset, I passed a homeless person settling down in a building alcove every few minutes.
Given the apparent lack of any assistance other than kind words, thoughts, and prayers that these folks are getting from Democrats, is it fair to say that their life experience would be the same if everyone in Seattle were tomorrow replaced by Republicans? If so, does that show a “majestic equality” between nominally different political philosophies?
Related:
The effort to make cheap housing illegal is indeed bipartisan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_room_occupancy
Traveling in the Andes mountain regions of Peru and Bolivia, common housing for people that didn’t have much was cinder block buildings where the occupants had a single room, and showers and toilets were shared. It seems likely that such housing would be optimal for the current homeless people, and more affordable where land costs are low, probably not downtown SF, Seattle and NYC.
“In 2018, the City of Seattle is investing $77.6 million in services to assist single adults, youth, families, domestic violence survivors, seniors and veterans currently at risk of or experiencing homelessness. The City of Seattle invests in services that provide emergency shelter beds, motel vouchers, food and meals services, day centers that provide showers, laundry, and a safe place to rest, as well as programs that help persons experiencing homelessness find jobs and permanent housing, and proactive programs that help individuals and families avoid eviction. HSD also funds programs that specifically serve school children and young adults experiencing homelessness.”
So you’re saying that if all those programs were eliminated ( since Republicans do not support any social services ) that homelessness would not be worse than it is now?
Exactly! Here in Los Angeles we have approved billions of dollars of bond measures to help the homeless. Just like field of dreams, if you build it they will come! Our streets are much worse than Seattle or any other 3rd world country I have been too. “Shelter beds, motel vouchers, food and meals services, day centers that provide showers, laundry, and a safe place to rest” all attract the homeless much like food to cockroaches. If we as a community decided to jail the homeless they would go elsewhere but we don’t…. so I trip over the 3 bums camping in-front of my multi million dollar home.
From the Dallas/Ft. Worth Texas area. We only jail them if they ask for assistance or block someone in the street (begging is illegal, but you can ask for work). We also regularly clear out tent cities under our bridges. You cannot block access to a building. We have shelters, they are always full. Our city leaders are happy to give you a free bus ticket to a more homeless friendly city!
I forgot to add that it’s really hot here in the Summer and cold in the winter, so you really don’t want to me homeless here.
I have always wondered if we took the money spent on all the separate support programs for the poor and then coordinated them, could we build towns and cities which would house the poor, feed them, educate them, train them, and put them to work in their own cities? Am I too idealistic here? The 1950’s were a great time for America because we drafted literally every adult male and “educated” them during WW II to follow rules and be soldiers. They came home from the war trained, and ready to work and our economy flourished as the greatest generation trained by the hardships of war, went to work. Even after the war, the boat raised all people’s living for conditions, because every working class person could repair a car, drive a truck, lay bricks, cook, do something that paid a wage. Even the poorest could own cars and buy homes. We sent a generation of men to work through the GI bill. No one complained about crowded classrooms or poor conditions, they just learned, graduated, and worked. My father took some classes in Army tents. Without a World War can we somehow re-create that?
Those older generations know what a hardship and taking responsibility is and took it upon themselves when they failed in life. The newer generations have been spoiled by false promises by politician and free giveaway from the government that is now expect more of it.
Give a man a free fish and he will come back for more. Give a man a fishing net and he may learn to feed himself.
Better to lend a man the money for a fishing net, with a high interest loan which is not dischargeable through bankruptcy.