Progressives don’t believe that people have the seeds of their own destruction within them… they project those onto society and deceive themselves into believing that human nature can be reprogrammed through consciousness raising.
This lie is a version of the Pelagian heresy. The late Poul Anderson, who Michael reminds me of, denounced it in his fiction, especially “Orion Shall Rise”. Every human has to make a choice between good and evil… and those progressives that pave a broad smooth path toward evil serve evil and, I believe, are ultimately consumed by evil.
Oddly enough, Shellenberger insists on sticking to the dogma that high housing prices have nothing to do with homelessness, in spite of overwhelming research indicating that it does. Also, common sense, if I may invoke this. My mentally ill sister lives in a trailer in Twenty-Nine Palms which costs her $400/mo. She can afford this on her SSI and Food Stamps. She would not be able to afford to be housed in expensive San Francisco.
Of course, homelessness has many causes and it is no doubt true that mental illness and drug addiction are both causes of and the result of being homeless. He rightly blames policy changes in the 60s and 70s as the root cause of the explosion of the homeless population while ignoring the huge decrease in funding for HUD, which was the housing provider of last resort. Also, both Progressives and Conservatives supported the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act, which released a huge population of mentally ill into our communities.
Housing First is a policy with a mixed bag. I think the fairest assessment of it from The Manhatten Institute (a right of center policy institute).
Key Findings
1) Housing First has not been shown to be effective in ending homelessness at the community level, but rather, only for individuals.
2) A Housing First intervention for a small segment of “high utilizer” homeless people may save taxpayers money. But making Housing First the organizing principle of homeless services systems, as urged by many advocates, will not save taxpayers money.
3) Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
4) Housing First’s record at promoting employment and addressing social isolation for the homeless is also weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
I am a little confused by Micheal's last statement:
As time passes, many Americans will see the consequence of treating what is fundamentally a problem of untreated mental illness and addiction as a problem of poverty, high rents, and NIMBYs.
I think there must be a "not" in there. I would agree that high rents and NIMBYs are a huge root cause but certainly not the only and probably not the primary cause of homelessness.
Progressives don’t believe that people have the seeds of their own destruction within them… they project those onto society and deceive themselves into believing that human nature can be reprogrammed through consciousness raising.
This lie is a version of the Pelagian heresy. The late Poul Anderson, who Michael reminds me of, denounced it in his fiction, especially “Orion Shall Rise”. Every human has to make a choice between good and evil… and those progressives that pave a broad smooth path toward evil serve evil and, I believe, are ultimately consumed by evil.
Oddly enough, Shellenberger insists on sticking to the dogma that high housing prices have nothing to do with homelessness, in spite of overwhelming research indicating that it does. Also, common sense, if I may invoke this. My mentally ill sister lives in a trailer in Twenty-Nine Palms which costs her $400/mo. She can afford this on her SSI and Food Stamps. She would not be able to afford to be housed in expensive San Francisco.
Of course, homelessness has many causes and it is no doubt true that mental illness and drug addiction are both causes of and the result of being homeless. He rightly blames policy changes in the 60s and 70s as the root cause of the explosion of the homeless population while ignoring the huge decrease in funding for HUD, which was the housing provider of last resort. Also, both Progressives and Conservatives supported the Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act, which released a huge population of mentally ill into our communities.
Housing First is a policy with a mixed bag. I think the fairest assessment of it from The Manhatten Institute (a right of center policy institute).
Key Findings
1) Housing First has not been shown to be effective in ending homelessness at the community level, but rather, only for individuals.
2) A Housing First intervention for a small segment of “high utilizer” homeless people may save taxpayers money. But making Housing First the organizing principle of homeless services systems, as urged by many advocates, will not save taxpayers money.
3) Housing is not the same as treatment. Housing First’s record at addressing behavioral health disorders, such as untreated serious mental illness and drug addiction, is far weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
4) Housing First’s record at promoting employment and addressing social isolation for the homeless is also weaker than its record at promoting residential stability.
I am a little confused by Micheal's last statement:
As time passes, many Americans will see the consequence of treating what is fundamentally a problem of untreated mental illness and addiction as a problem of poverty, high rents, and NIMBYs.
I think there must be a "not" in there. I would agree that high rents and NIMBYs are a huge root cause but certainly not the only and probably not the primary cause of homelessness.