Great Commentary on the Homeless Situation in SF

I wanted to share this commentary by Malcolm Greenhill, which was just sent
to those who follow his investment ideas. He correctly points out that the
prevailing belief that government should be responsible for helping the
homeless diminishes support for (often more effective) private assistance
efforts. A few years ago, I heard that SF was spending $200 million per
year on services for the city's homeless. Undoubtedly, the lion's share went
to a few thousand street people who we constantly see in the parks and
commercial streets.

I believe there are two incremental measures libertarians should support to
reduce the number of people living on the street:

(1) Property tax credits for donations to charities that help the
homeless. The idea is that if you contribute $1000 to a charity that
provides social services, you could pay $1000 less in property taxes. The
size of the credit would be limited to only the percentage of property tax
that finances social services in SF. If a significant number of people used
the credit, the social services budget would be cut proportionately.

(2) Outright privatization of sidewalks in commercial areas (this is
already the case in the area around Embarcadero Center) or allowing
businesses in a given area to form Business Improvement Districts which
could enforce code of conduct rules, like no shopping carts and no sitting
or lying on sidewalks. SF already allows Community Benefit Districts, but
they lack policing power.

I suspect that a lot of people in SF are fed up with the homeless situation
and it is a clear case of governmental failure. Seems like a great issue
for the SFLP, but not one that has gotten much attention.

Marc

This is definitely a winning issue for San Francisco Libertarians and one
that we should push. It might actually get some of us elected.

I travel all over the country and nowhere have I seen nearly as many
obviously homeless people sleeping on the streets or pushing shopping carts
etc. as here.

New York City used to have a big homeless problem with thousands sleeping
on the street every night, especially in the Bowery area. Now, it has been
years since I saw even one. (They do still sleep in the subway cars,
however, in spite of police efforts to chase them out.)

I do not know where the homeless went, but we should study this and do the
same thing.

Of course the source and cause of the problem is all these bleeding-heart
liberal programs to "Help the Homeless". When they find out all these
wonderful programs to help the homeless, they come here for all the free
benefits they get. The San Francisco Bay Area does more to help the
homeless than any other place, and therefore we get more homeless people
here than any other place.

Sam Sloan

Sam and Marc,

  Some thoughts interspersed with your comments below...
  

This is definitely a winning issue for San Francisco Libertarians and one that we should push. It might actually get some of us elected.

  Yes, many San Franciscans want to see homeless people off the streets. However both their desire (to have these people removed from public spaces) and the means they would employ (a taxpayer-funded government effort of one kind or another) are un-libertarian. We need to find a better approach.

I travel all over the country and nowhere have I seen nearly as many obviously homeless people sleeping on the streets or pushing shopping carts etc. as here.

New York City used to have a big homeless problem with thousands sleeping on the street every night, especially in the Bowery area. Now, it has been years since I saw even one. (They do still sleep in the subway cars, however, in spite of police efforts to chase them out.)

I do not know where the homeless went, but we should study this and do the same thing.

  How can we know that we should do the same thing, if we don't know where they went, or whether it was voluntary? Imagine someone in Austria in the mid 1930s writing, "Berlin used to have a big problem with Jews all over the place, but on a recent trip to Germany I could hardly find any, except in the railway cars. I do not know where the Jews went, but we should study this and do the same thing."

  I'm not saying homeless people in the U.S. are being sent to concentration camps, or that you'd be okay with that, only that we should be very careful what we embrace without knowing the details.

Of course the source and cause of the problem is all these bleeding-heart liberal programs to "Help the Homeless".

  I would say that the main source of homelessness are government rules and programs that create and perpetuate poverty -- zoning laws, prohibitions on various types of economic activity, anti-development rules, employment regulations, taxes, etc.
  

When they find out all these wonderful programs to help the homeless, they come here for all the free benefits they get. The San Francisco Bay Area does more to help the homeless than any other place, and therefore we get more homeless people here than any other place.

  I'd like to see a comprehensive list of those benefits, and how they compare to benefits used by middle class people, like college loans, home loans, Medicare, etc.

Sam Sloan

I wanted to share this commentary by Malcolm Greenhill, which was just sent to those who follow his investment ideas. He correctly points out that the prevailing belief that government should be responsible for helping the homeless diminishes support for (often more effective) private assistance efforts. A few years ago, I heard that SF was spending $200 million per year on services for the city’s homeless. Undoubtedly, the lion’s share went to a few thousand street people who we constantly see in the parks and commercial streets.

  You really think the lion's share of that $200 million a year (or whatever the amount is) went to "a few thousand street people"? I think you're dreaming. I'll bet the lion's share of that money goes to well-paid people working in government and in non-profits that get government funding.

I believe there are two incremental measures libertarians should support to reduce the number of people living on the street:

(1) Property tax credits for donations to charities that help the homeless. The idea is that if you contribute $1000 to a charity that provides social services, you could pay $1000 less in property taxes. The size of the credit would be limited to only the percentage of property tax that finances social services in SF. If a significant number of people used the credit, the social services budget would be cut proportionately.

  That would be a good libertarian reform.

(2) Outright privatization of sidewalks in commercial areas (this is already the case in the area around Embarcadero Center) or allowing businesses in a given area to form Business Improvement Districts which could enforce code of conduct rules, like no shopping carts and no sitting or lying on sidewalks. SF already allows Community Benefit Districts, but they lack policing power.

  In other words, handing over public assets to the rich and powerful, to better enable them to discriminate against the poor and homeless? No thank you. Actual aggression by the homeless -- aggressive panhandling, urinating on the street, stealing shopping carts, etc. -- is already illegal. Libertarians should NOT be seeking to criminalize people for simply using carts or for sitting or lying on the sidewalk.

I suspect that a lot of people in SF are fed up with the homeless situation and it is a clear case of governmental failure. Seems like a great issue for the SFLP, but not one that has gotten much attention.

  Yes, a lot of people in San Francisco do not like seeing homeless people on the streets, or being asked for change. A lot of them don't like seeing chain stores, either. If there is a "sacred cow" in this discussion, I think it is the idea that it's okay for government to use aggression to discourage peaceful behavior which many find annoying or "inappropriate".

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

P.S. - I generally agree with Malcolm Greenhill's observations below, except I don't think that religion has to be part of the equation for successfully helping the homeless, any more than I think it has to be part of the equation for recovering from alcohol addiction. Having some kind of moral/spiritual framework undoubtedly helps, however I don't think the metaphysical component is the one that matters.

You make great points. Thank you.

The homeless people I used to see in New York were Bowery bums
sleeping on the streets usually with a bottle of Sneaky-Peet sticking
out of their pockets.

I think they must have more shelters for these people now.

It seems to me that the homeless in San Francisco are predominantly
young people in their twenties who seem perfectly happy and healthy
and just prefer to be permanently homeless. I have not told you about
a tragedy in my family. My daughter Jessica died last year at age 22
of Neisseria meningitidis. She died in New York but she had been
living in San Francisco gaming the system. She had been living off of
student loans and never going to class failing all her subjects. She
was never actually homeless but she was doing things to take full
advantage of the system. I think she would have been a lot better off
if these programs that she took advantage of had not existed.

Sam Sloan

Sam,

  I'm very sorry to hear about your daughter -- what a tragically young age to go. I hope that she had some good experiences in San Francisco during her brief time here.

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))

Hi Sam,

I can't even fathom what it must feel when one's child dies. Thank you for sharing that tragedy, and for your insight. Yes, if the services are there, people will use them, mostly to their disadvantage. Most of us libertarians do not do enough of a good job to communicate that view point.

Marcy

Sam: Thanks for your supportive comments and please also accept my condolences on the premature loss of your daughter.

Starchild: Thanks for your feedback. I would like to take issue with a couple of your points. You say:

"In other words, handing over public assets to the rich and powerful,
to better enable them to discriminate against the poor and homeless? No thank you. Actual aggression by the homeless -- aggressive panhandling, urinating on the street, stealing shopping carts, etc. -- is already illegal. Libertarians should NOT be seeking to criminalize people for simply using carts or for
sitting or lying on the sidewalk.

Yes, a lot of people in San Francisco do not like seeing homeless
people on the streets, or being asked for change. A lot of them don't like seeing chain stores, either. If there is a "sacred cow" in this discussion, I think it is the idea that it's okay for government to use aggression to discourage peaceful behavior which many find annoying or 'inappropriate'."

Here are my thoughts:
   (1) Privatizing things does not have to equate to handing assets over to the rich and powerful. Indeed, if you believe this, you might have to oppose the privatization of everything. I don't see how that comports with libertarianism.
   (2) Possession of shopping carts on the street is against California law because it constitutes possession of stolen property. A supermarket doesn't spend hundreds of dollars on a shopping cart so that it can be removed from the premises. All shopping carts on SF streets should be returned to the supermarkets from which they were taken. As we all know, SF police do not enforce this law.
   (3) I agree that simply being filthy and lying on the street are not forms of aggression and cannot be illegal under a libertarian system. At the same time, I think most people would not welcome these behaviors in their private spaces. If more of the world was private - as libertarians should advocate - it would be harder to find places to exhibit offensive public behavior.

Finally, I want to make a comment with respect to strategy. I don't see how the SFLP can gain significant support by emphasizing just the progressive-friendly aspects of our ideology. Progressives don't need us here: they have plenty of the real thing and don't have to bother with our concerns about coercive redistribution. SF continues to have an undercurrent of poorly represented and poorly articulated conservative thinking. This issue provides an opportunity for us to tap into that.

Pervasive homelessness is a failure of decades of progressive policy. Progressivism has been the default position in the Bay Area for a long, long time. It is thus the conservative view in the truest sense of the world. As radicals, we should be seeking to question and overturn this popular wisdom.

Marc

I have agreed with Marc's assessment of LPSF's strategy for the last ten years. Progressives do not need our help, since they have plenty already in left-wing SF. Additionally, they unequivocally reject our fiscal conservatism; therefore hoping to turn progressives into libertarians is delusional.

Marcy

My point, which I believe to be valid, is that there are more programs
to "Help the Homeless" in place in San Francisco than in any other
city in the world that I know of. Therefore, it makes political sense
for the Libertarian Party to try to bring some balance to the
equation.

Sam Sloan

Marc and Marcy,

  The notion that we've been pursuing a progressive-friendly strategy for the past ten years is certainly news to me, and I suspect the progressives would consider it news to them as well. I seem to recall quite a few LPSF ballot arguments against government spending supported by those on the left.

  In the cases where we have found agreement (supporting decriminalization of prostitution, opposing the ban on people sitting/lying on public sidewalks, etc.) we have taken our stands because they were in accord with libertarian principles, not to help progressives.

  Nor do I think it is accurate to say that progressives unequivocally reject our fiscal conservatism. Matt Gonzalez and Jeff Adachi might be the two most notable examples to the contrary, but many others identified as progressives have taken fiscally conservative stances on various issues -- Dennis Herrera and Aaron Peskin have strongly opposed the Central Subway project, David Campos has been trying to limit the city government's liability for costs associated with the America's Cup event (see e.g. http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/bay-area/2012/02/america-s-cup-agreement-flux ), etc.

  Some further comments to Marc's thoughts on the homeless issue interspersed with his response below...

I have agreed with Marc's assessment of LPSF's strategy for the last ten years. Progressives do not need our help, since they have plenty already in left-wing SF. Additionally, they unequivocally reject our fiscal conservatism; therefore hoping to turn progressives into libertarians is delusional.

Marcy

>
> Sam: Thanks for your supportive comments and please also accept my condolences on the premature loss of your daughter.
>
> Starchild: Thanks for your feedback. I would like to take issue with a couple of your points. You say:
>
> "In other words, handing over public assets to the rich and powerful,
> to better enable them to discriminate against the poor and homeless? No thank you. Actual aggression by the homeless -- aggressive panhandling, urinating on the street, stealing shopping carts, etc. -- is already illegal. Libertarians should NOT be seeking to criminalize people for simply using carts or for
> sitting or lying on the sidewalk.
>
> Yes, a lot of people in San Francisco do not like seeing homeless
> people on the streets, or being asked for change. A lot of them don't like seeing chain stores, either. If there is a "sacred cow" in this discussion, I think it is the idea that it's okay for government to use aggression to discourage peaceful behavior which many find annoying or 'inappropriate'."
>
> Here are my thoughts:
> (1) Privatizing things does not have to equate to handing assets over to the rich and powerful. Indeed, if you believe this, you might have to oppose the privatization of everything. I don't see how that comports with libertarianism.

  Privatization can be done without simply handing over public assets to the rich and powerful, but you proposed "allowing businesses in a given area to form Business Improvement Districts which could enforce code of conduct rules, like no shopping carts and no sitting or lying on sidewalks" which would be a clear example of wrongly allowing well-heeled business interests to essentially buy from government the power to exercise special control over public space.

> (2) Possession of shopping carts on the street is against California law because it constitutes possession of stolen property. A supermarket doesn't spend hundreds of dollars on a shopping cart so that it can be removed from the premises. All shopping carts on SF streets should be returned to the supermarkets from which they were taken. As we all know, SF police do not enforce this law.

  Criminalizing the peaceful possession of shopping carts in public spaces is contrary to libertarian principle. Not every shopping cart is stolen by any means. Grocery stores replace their carts from time to time, stores go out of business and sell off their equipment, etc. I presume that many of those old carts eventually find their way into the hands of the homeless.

> (3) I agree that simply being filthy and lying on the street are not forms of aggression and cannot be illegal under a libertarian system. At the same time, I think most people would not welcome these behaviors in their private spaces. If more of the world was private - as libertarians should advocate - it would be harder to find places to exhibit offensive public behavior.

  At one time I more or less accepted the traditional libertarian idea that everything should be privately owned, but I don't agree with that any more. If that were the case, then the concept of rights would become meaningless. You would have *zero* rights except on your own property, only those considerations that property owners agreed to extend to you. I believe that there should be ample public space in every community where people can gather on an equal footing, and where the free exercise of rights that libertarians generally regard as fundamental -- the right to free speech, to free exercise of religion, to assemble, to keep and bear arms, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to enjoy due process of law, to be free from requirements to incriminate oneself to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. -- shall not be infringed. In fact if these and other basic rights are inalienable, that means they follow you everywhere.

> Finally, I want to make a comment with respect to strategy. I don't see how the SFLP can gain significant support by emphasizing just the progressive-friendly aspects of our ideology. Progressives don't need us here: they have plenty of the real thing and don't have to bother with our concerns about coercive redistribution. SF continues to have an undercurrent of poorly represented and poorly articulated conservative thinking. This issue provides an opportunity for us to tap into that.

  I believe that a key part of the Libertarian Party's strategy ought to be to balance our appeal between the left and the right. And this means right now there is a greater need for outreach to the left, because the party has been trending to the right (see e.g. the 2008 presidential ticket, the continued prominence of Wayne Allyn Root, and the likely nomination of another former Republican as this year's LP presidential nominee). I also don't see a strong defense of civil rights being well represented here in SF any more than fiscal conservatism is well represented. Even the Bay Guardian, the leading advocate of leftism in San Francisco, bought into the idea that nudists should be required to put down towels before sitting nude on public benches -- an absurd kowtowing to public irrationality and prejudice on the issue.

> Pervasive homelessness is a failure of decades of progressive policy. Progressivism has been the default position in the Bay Area for a long, long time. It is thus the conservative view in the truest sense of the world. As radicals, we should be seeking to question and overturn this popular wisdom.
>
> Marc

  Pervasive homelessness is a failure of statism, not just of the progressive variety. Who supports laws against sleeping in vehicles? Who supports enforcing limits on building occupancy? Who opposes the building of denser housing in sparsely developed parts of the city like the Sunset district? Who supports zoning laws that limit which buildings can be used for residential purposes? All of these statist restrictions contribute to limiting the housing supply and thereby increasing homelessness, and all of them are generally supported by moderates and conservatives in this town.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

Hi Starchild,

The fiscal conservatism of the likes of Adachi and Herrera is way short of what is needed to get the city, state, and country out of deep financial holes. We supported Adachi because that's all we had. The fiscal conservatism of the folks to whom we direct our one and only person-to-person outreach effort via Pride is miserable. I do not hope to make Libertarians of any of them.

However, I still hope to convince a few progressives of the obvious folly inherent in attempting to cure homelessness by attracting more of it. If I were homeless, would I migrate towards a city that had generous homeless programs and a tolerant population that allowed me to sleep wherever I wanted? I would think so. Once this is understood, maybe the Aha! moment of self preservation might kick in, and some progressives might not be as willing to bring in more homeless into an already crowded turf -- thereby reducing the need for programs, reducing the obscene size of government, and reducing the theft via taxation.

And the more significant Aha! moment that I am hoping for was, I believe, expressed by Sam. The more we discourage hard work and self reliance through government programs or personal action, the more we destroy individuals. Nothing particularly libertarian about that.
   
Marcy