These homeless advocates can be their own worst enemies. They demand things that clearly are impossible, that there’s no money to pay for, that can never happen. And then, when they don’t happen, the advocates blame everyone but themselves.
Take the situation in Sacramento where, by all accounts, homeless encampments are almost as bad as here in Oakland. The city has offered to house 3,600 homeless people each year by investing $100 million to develop 20 “priority sites” where “The City will proceed to provide beds, spaces and roofs.” (This would be in addition to housing homeless people in existing motels and houses.) The so-called “Master Siting Plan” was announced by Mayor Darrell Steinberg on Aug. 4.
It’s a smart plan, and a way forward. At the very least, it shows Sacramento is serious about getting rid of the encampments—which voters detest—and bringing a modicum of management to the problem, unlike Oakland, where authorities remain paralyzed. But as soon as Steinberg announced the Siting Plan, homeless advocates denounced it as not good enough.
What are their objections?
1. They want each of the sites to have access to public transit.
2. They want “amenities” provided—not just a bed, a roof and four walls, but all sorts of other things.
3. They want the 20 sites to be equally distributed across the city. Steinberg’s plan calls for the majority of them to be in poorer neighborhoods where people of color tend to live.
4. And the advocates insist that Sacramento won’t really be serious about ending encampments until the city guarantees “truly affordable housing.”
Steinberg responds to these demands in the only rational way by saying, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” But, of course, homeless advocates aren’t rational.
Let’s look at each of their objections. Access to public transit sounds okay, but transit isn’t as ubiquitous in Sacramento as it is in, say, San Francisco. Even in Oakland, there are vast areas where tent cities could be relocated that are not close to transit, e.g. the former Oakland Army Base in far west Oakland. By insisting on access to transit, the homeless advocates are radically limiting the potential places where homeless people can live.
What are the “amenities” they insist upon? Each advocate has a different wish list, but in general they want (a) individual rooms for each person, with bathrooms, (b) hot and cold running water, (c) full-kitchen facilities and (d) other furnishings, such as couches, dressers and bookshelves. Some advocates want each unit to have cable T.V. and WiFi. Now, if we’re going to be real about providing shelter, common sense would tell us that homeless people are not going to get all these things. Some working people don’t even have all these things! But common sense requires rationality, which homeless advocates tend not to have.
Equal distribution across the city sounds nice. America is a democracy, so we should all get to make the same sacrifices. The problem here is as old as human nature. People who live in nice neighborhoods don’t want homeless people next door. You can call this nimbyism, or greed, or whatever you want, but it’s real; and politician have got to take heed. If Sacramento officials get bogged down in the tall weeds of negotiating with every neighborhood about what is allowed, and everybody gets their panties in a bunch, then nothing will get done. So put the sites where there’s the least opposition. Steinberg is right: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Finally, I’ve been saying for years that the dumbest thing you hear from homeless advocates is their demand that the city building affordable housing for all homeless people. As I’ve said over and over, that is never going to happen. It’s a unicorn! No responsible public official would even propose it. It’s easy for Monday morning quarterbacks to sit at nextdoor.com and insist on affordable housing, but those people have never had to make actual decisions based on reality. Mayor Steinberg knows that Sacramento doesn’t have that kind of money. Libby Schaaf knows that Oakland doesn’t have that kind of money. London Breed knows that San Francisco doesn’t have that kind of money. No city in America has that kind of money. Still, that doesn’t stop the homeless advocates from demanding it anyway. They’re not rational.
The end result in Sacramento is bickering that is simply stalling the Master Siting Plan. The Mayor has presented a perfectly good, plausible approach. It should be immediately implemented. Instead, the irrational people who advocate for the homeless continue to insist on unreal things that have no chance whatsoever in the real world. They are their own worst enemies. They’re also, ironically (although they’ll never admit it), the enemies of the very people they say they’re trying to help.
Steve Heimoff