Mar 30, 2022·edited Mar 30, 2022Liked by Leighton Woodhouse
The first purpose of the entire religion of Leftism (and esp in the case of the homeless in Cali) is the social, emotional and psychological needs of the activist class. The need to feel like a noble savior of the downtrodden, the need to feel like a righteous rebel fighting the evil greedy capitalists, the need to preen in public as virtuous, the need for a larger outlet for your own personal frustration, alienation and misery. (Basically all the same needs for meaning, purpose, tribe and narrative that religion provides.)
I was your standard NYC liberal, had voted for Bernie, Nader, etc, until living for 3.5 yrs in Venice Beach. In my time there I was assaulted by a street person, as was my dog, all my neighbors had harrowing tales of fights w bums, and there were some truly horrific home invasions. None of it made sense to me until I realized the issue was in no way rational, empirical, or even political, but entirely RELIGIOUS.
The people in charge of homeless policy in CA (and their many enablers) have no interest in debate or reform, no ability to compromise, refuse even to admit that there are competing interests involved when street people and their tents take over a neighborhood. They are in love with their own pure hearts and their own righteous crusade and nothing else exists--esp not reality or the real lives and needs of the people they claim to be trying to help.
Leighton, this is so intense. Hard for sensitive folks like me to take in, but I read and listen to what is necessary to grok the picture. I appreciate your writing and your courage regarding this and other subjects.
I lived in SF and the Bay for 20 years and have left for many reasons; it's heartbreaking to see that beautiful City under siege (Oakland, too). I wish you and Shellenberger all the best in your efforts to illuminate and create real opportunities for change. Take good care.
The excerpt from Shellenberger he posted in your Twitter thread explains some of the pretty shocking attitudes I recently saw expressed in print here in Reno. I know homelessness is an industry, but this is the first I learned of the specific tactics activists use to protect their gravy train.
In 2000, visiting in-laws in a very conservative city in a conservative Muslim country, I co-founded a small vocational and literacy center for the very poorest girls and women in their area. At first everything, including tea breaks and a hot midday meal, was free. And therefore almost none of the students took the program seriously. They attended when they felt like it and treated the program like a delightful social get-together and a way to escape their homes for a plausible reason.
So we began charging an extremely modest monthly tuition (waived for the truly desperately poor and the staff, all local women, knew who did and did not qualify), with small fines for failing to attend without a compelling reason, and issued certificates to everyone who satisfactorily completed the program, and this absolutely transformed our program. As a Noo Yawkuh who'd come of age in the early '70s, I had a somewhat ungrounded in reality idea of "the poor." I learned that they are not some subspecies of humanity but individuals whose economic circumstances result from many different causes--some within individual control and some not.
People rarely value anything they get for free. They think if you don't think it worth charging for, it probably isn't.
The evidence of serious shortcomings or failure here is interesting and noteworthy and should be taken seriously. At the same time, I’m not sure “these groups are just incentivized to give free housing to people who refuse to work and may continue to use drugs” is that horrible an indictment. I’m not saying that’s the situation, but for the sake of argument let’s say it is.
What is the better society; the one that says, “if you refuse to work we will allow you to become homeless,” or the one that says, “ok, if you refuse to work you can still have a small dwelling of your own” (and ya maybe you’re doing drugs in there like anyone at home).
When push comes to shove, I think many of us prefer the latter. Partly because of the visceral revulsion of allowing people in our society to live a lower standard. I think it’s a defensible position.
I do think the institutional dynamics you point out are noteworthy and interesting. And I’m sure there is a critique of the cost of this housing and how much is being spent on these small dwellings (do they need to be in SF, famously expensive housing market? Probably not). But not only is there an argument to support nonprofits giving housing to freeloaders, there is one for the government to do it directly.
Loved Michael's book and so glad to see him running for Governor. Can he run here in Oregon too?! Portland is headed down the same sad path as San Francisco...
Where does Shellenberger stand on population control? Because it's overpopulation that is the primary cause of environmental degradation. The world was not meant to support 7 billion large mammals.
I'm a licensed social worker and I lived and worked in New York City for more than 25 years. There seems to be a different philosophy there that works a lot better. People accept a certain amount of homelessness. The city provides shelters that give people a warm place to sleep in the winter or at any other time. They have to be out during the day. There are drop-in centers where the homeless can shower and churches provide soup kitchens. Most of the homeless have Medicaid so they can access healthcare. I had two homeless patients in the mental health clinic where I worked. They weren't on drugs and they showed up for their weekly counseling appointments. They just didn't want an apartment because it was too much responsibility and they preferred sleeping at different friends' homes or relatives' homes or occasionally on the street. New York also has a lot of options for the mentally ill including supported housing. There's some in California but they don't seem to require sobriety. Also if someone is having a breakdown there are few psychiatric hospitals to send them to, here in California. You are right that when people are addicted often the only way they get sober is to first go to jail. Everyone who has been a real substance abuse counselor knows this. I worked in a drug treatment program that was residential and required abstinence and took mentally ill addicts straight from jail or from homeless shelters. This was back in the 1990s. California's laissez faire attitude toward drugs is one of its biggest problems and not just for the homeless.
I'm so ready for someone to replace Newsom, but I'm concerned about getting the ole bait-and-switch. What is Shellenberger's position on Covid vaccine mandates, specifically for children to be able to attend school? If he champions freedom of choice, I will gladly vote for him (and even volunteer my time to his campaign), but if he believes in lockdowns, forced vaccines, and the other totalitarian measures we've seen over the past two years, I'll do everything in my power to stop him.
The first purpose of the entire religion of Leftism (and esp in the case of the homeless in Cali) is the social, emotional and psychological needs of the activist class. The need to feel like a noble savior of the downtrodden, the need to feel like a righteous rebel fighting the evil greedy capitalists, the need to preen in public as virtuous, the need for a larger outlet for your own personal frustration, alienation and misery. (Basically all the same needs for meaning, purpose, tribe and narrative that religion provides.)
I was your standard NYC liberal, had voted for Bernie, Nader, etc, until living for 3.5 yrs in Venice Beach. In my time there I was assaulted by a street person, as was my dog, all my neighbors had harrowing tales of fights w bums, and there were some truly horrific home invasions. None of it made sense to me until I realized the issue was in no way rational, empirical, or even political, but entirely RELIGIOUS.
The people in charge of homeless policy in CA (and their many enablers) have no interest in debate or reform, no ability to compromise, refuse even to admit that there are competing interests involved when street people and their tents take over a neighborhood. They are in love with their own pure hearts and their own righteous crusade and nothing else exists--esp not reality or the real lives and needs of the people they claim to be trying to help.
Leighton, this is so intense. Hard for sensitive folks like me to take in, but I read and listen to what is necessary to grok the picture. I appreciate your writing and your courage regarding this and other subjects.
I lived in SF and the Bay for 20 years and have left for many reasons; it's heartbreaking to see that beautiful City under siege (Oakland, too). I wish you and Shellenberger all the best in your efforts to illuminate and create real opportunities for change. Take good care.
The excerpt from Shellenberger he posted in your Twitter thread explains some of the pretty shocking attitudes I recently saw expressed in print here in Reno. I know homelessness is an industry, but this is the first I learned of the specific tactics activists use to protect their gravy train.
In 2000, visiting in-laws in a very conservative city in a conservative Muslim country, I co-founded a small vocational and literacy center for the very poorest girls and women in their area. At first everything, including tea breaks and a hot midday meal, was free. And therefore almost none of the students took the program seriously. They attended when they felt like it and treated the program like a delightful social get-together and a way to escape their homes for a plausible reason.
So we began charging an extremely modest monthly tuition (waived for the truly desperately poor and the staff, all local women, knew who did and did not qualify), with small fines for failing to attend without a compelling reason, and issued certificates to everyone who satisfactorily completed the program, and this absolutely transformed our program. As a Noo Yawkuh who'd come of age in the early '70s, I had a somewhat ungrounded in reality idea of "the poor." I learned that they are not some subspecies of humanity but individuals whose economic circumstances result from many different causes--some within individual control and some not.
People rarely value anything they get for free. They think if you don't think it worth charging for, it probably isn't.
This is truly unreadable.
The evidence of serious shortcomings or failure here is interesting and noteworthy and should be taken seriously. At the same time, I’m not sure “these groups are just incentivized to give free housing to people who refuse to work and may continue to use drugs” is that horrible an indictment. I’m not saying that’s the situation, but for the sake of argument let’s say it is.
What is the better society; the one that says, “if you refuse to work we will allow you to become homeless,” or the one that says, “ok, if you refuse to work you can still have a small dwelling of your own” (and ya maybe you’re doing drugs in there like anyone at home).
When push comes to shove, I think many of us prefer the latter. Partly because of the visceral revulsion of allowing people in our society to live a lower standard. I think it’s a defensible position.
I do think the institutional dynamics you point out are noteworthy and interesting. And I’m sure there is a critique of the cost of this housing and how much is being spent on these small dwellings (do they need to be in SF, famously expensive housing market? Probably not). But not only is there an argument to support nonprofits giving housing to freeloaders, there is one for the government to do it directly.
Loved Michael's book and so glad to see him running for Governor. Can he run here in Oregon too?! Portland is headed down the same sad path as San Francisco...
Where does Shellenberger stand on population control? Because it's overpopulation that is the primary cause of environmental degradation. The world was not meant to support 7 billion large mammals.
I'm a licensed social worker and I lived and worked in New York City for more than 25 years. There seems to be a different philosophy there that works a lot better. People accept a certain amount of homelessness. The city provides shelters that give people a warm place to sleep in the winter or at any other time. They have to be out during the day. There are drop-in centers where the homeless can shower and churches provide soup kitchens. Most of the homeless have Medicaid so they can access healthcare. I had two homeless patients in the mental health clinic where I worked. They weren't on drugs and they showed up for their weekly counseling appointments. They just didn't want an apartment because it was too much responsibility and they preferred sleeping at different friends' homes or relatives' homes or occasionally on the street. New York also has a lot of options for the mentally ill including supported housing. There's some in California but they don't seem to require sobriety. Also if someone is having a breakdown there are few psychiatric hospitals to send them to, here in California. You are right that when people are addicted often the only way they get sober is to first go to jail. Everyone who has been a real substance abuse counselor knows this. I worked in a drug treatment program that was residential and required abstinence and took mentally ill addicts straight from jail or from homeless shelters. This was back in the 1990s. California's laissez faire attitude toward drugs is one of its biggest problems and not just for the homeless.
While I'm not in California, I am forwarding this article's email to my friends who are. Thank you for this.
I'm so ready for someone to replace Newsom, but I'm concerned about getting the ole bait-and-switch. What is Shellenberger's position on Covid vaccine mandates, specifically for children to be able to attend school? If he champions freedom of choice, I will gladly vote for him (and even volunteer my time to his campaign), but if he believes in lockdowns, forced vaccines, and the other totalitarian measures we've seen over the past two years, I'll do everything in my power to stop him.