How many news articles have I seen in which homeless people refuse shelter because the place they’re offered isn’t to their liking?
Their complaints are varied. “I can’t bring my cats.” “My stuff gets stolen in those places.” “I prefer the streets.” Not all homeless people are that picky, but a lot are, and my conclusion from years of watching the news is that most of the people still on the streets are the picky ones. They seem to want a private apartment, rather than a congregate setting, with a door that locks. Perhaps a full kitchen, and don’t forget the Wi-Fi and free cable T.V.
The reason this is important is because we’ll never end encampments as long as we allow homeless people to have a say in the matter. And as long as they have a say in the matter, a lot of them will insist on remaining in the streets and parks. We know that our city government lacks the courage to truly follow up on anti-encampment ordinances. Yes, on occasion they’ll clear an area, but the tents and shanties come right back. The homeless people understand how weak local government actually is. They know that, under its current leaders, Oakland will never actually crack down on them. They’ll never go to jail, never be forcefully institutionalized under a 5150 decree, never have to pay any consequences at all. So we’re going to stuck with this situation for years on end, unless and until we have elected leaders brave enough to actually solve problems. If we can agree on anything, it should be obvious to everyone by now that throwing money at homelessness resolves nothing. Government—state, county and city—has thrown hundreds and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at the problem, but there are more homeless people than ever. The public suspects, rightly, that the majority of government programs for the homeless are scams. But the problem isn’t as intractable as it seems. It’s only hopeless as long as we allow the delusion to exist that we can buy our way out of this crisis. But we can’t. Not when each unit of shelter costs as much as $1 million, and the population we’re dealing with—homeless people—is so irresponsible.
Lee’s “plan” for homelessness—if it can even be called a plan—is laughable. Oaklandside reports “Lee has raised concerns about using enforcement efforts that displace homeless residents without ensuring there are places to house people.” Since “enforcement efforts” are the only thing that will ever end encampments, Lee is calling for permanent encampments in Oakland. She’s also pretending that the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass decision never happened. In legal parlance, this is called “nullification,” which Dr. King warned us about: the attempt by unscrupulous politicians to disregard court rulings so that they can continue their nefarious activities. (We’re seeing this same nullification by Donald Trump.)
Lee also, says Oaklandside, “wants to build 10,000 units of affordable housing in Oakland by 2030.” Sure she does. It’ll be easy: just plant some money trees and harvest the money. What’s Oakland’s budget deficit--$100 million? $280 million? Maybe Lee will just defund OPD, the way she’s always wanted to, to build those “units.” And what will she do when the homeless people say, “No thanks, I don’t want your stinking units, I want to stay in (choose one: Lakeside Park. Under the freeway. By the BART tracks)”?
Clearly, with her “progressive” ideology that always favors lawbreakers over innocent citizens, Barbara Lee is the most unsuitable person to run for mayor in many years. We hear lately that she’s sinking in the polls, as voters watch a pitifully unprepared, tired old hack who can barely put a sentence together that’s not a total cliché. At this rate, Loren Taylor will win comfortably. And then we’ll hold his feet to the fire.
Steve Heimoff