Isn’t it amazing how the most “progressive” cities have the most regressive problems? Democrat-sponsored policies, supposedly aimed at raising the worst-off Americans out of poverty, are the “law of the land” in practically every major city in the United States. However, the disgusting trend of increased homelessness continues to plague many of these metropolitan centers of leftist groupthink.
San Francisco’s Poop Problem
Case in point, San Francisco’s disturbing rise in human fecal matter covering its streets. According to an NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit survey, in a 153-block area of downtown San Francisco:
“The investigation revealed trash littered across every block, 41 blocks dotted with needles, and 96 blocks sullied with piles of feces.”
This problem is not only happening in San Francisco, but is trending in Democrat-run cities, across the United States.
The leftist dream of utopia falls incredibly short of its goal, mostly due to one glaring fact. Human beings, by nature, vary wildly from person to person. This fundamental misunderstanding or ignorance of human nature illuminates the fallacy of the thought leaders and policy-makers of the Left. All of the government-mandated social programs, downward redistribution of Americans’ income, and government-funded outreach programs galore have failed to address the underlying issues that are creating a growing homelessness problem.
Leftist Economic Policy Fuels Homelessness
The city of Seattle, home to several very successful corporations, such as Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft, and Starbucks, has recently taken another liberal step toward growing homelessness on their streets. Corporations will have to pay a $275 “head tax” for each person they employ, provided that business grosses over $20 million. What does this have to do with the homeless population? Businesses, particularly larger successful corporations, will now have less incentive to remain in Seattle. In fact, this may provide quite the incentive to either pick up and leave, or at least choose to grow their companies by investing elsewhere. Fewer employment opportunities, coupled with increasingly pro-homeless policy decisions, equals skyrocketing homeless population.
Gardyloo! (Beware of the [poop-filled] water)
It turns out that allowing homeless individuals to build so-called “tent cities,” enabling their drug abuse with “safe injection sites,” and gutting potential job-growth actually reverses progress, turning their streets back into the type of disease-ridden, garbage-filled, and crap-covered homages to the “gardyloo” era of Old Edinburgh.
Incentivizing homelessness, apparently, does the opposite of solving the homelessness problem. As the Left continue to dominate the politics of America’s largest cities, this trend appears to have no end in sight. However, one indirect result of the Left’s refusal to back off from their destructive policy decisions is the movement away from large cities, themselves. States like Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, with less regulatory constraint on businesses, have seen growth as people are fleeing the anti-capitalist wastelands run by Democrats.
Digging Out of the Crap
Instead of enabling the homeless population to continue to grow, large cities need to at least employ less-leftist tactics, in order to begin to reduce the problem. These cities are far beyond the political “tipping point,” meaning they will never go for overtly conservative policies. However, reality hits home at some point, and the city leaders and policy-makers can use conservative policy to clean up their streets. Directing funds to help outreach programs for both drug addiction and mental illness is a start. This would go very far in addressing those underlying causes of homelessness. Cracking down on loitering and eliminating city-sponsored and sanctioned “campgrounds” and “tent cities” both eliminates an open invitation and sends a message that choosing homelessness as a lifestyle will not be acceptable in your city. Finally, encouraging the private sector to create outreach programs to keep people off the streets is critical. Many religious groups are perfectly positioned monetarily, with plenty of willing volunteers, to aid in this capacity.
If some major cities are really bold, they may even begin to roll back their high taxes and burdensome regulations, in hopes that they can once again be attractive to growing businesses in search of newer and larger markets. Something tells me that is highly unlikely, though.