Are we really helping the chronically homeless? – Part 2

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” – Genesis 4:9

In part one, we started discussing the efficacy of New York Mayor Eric Adams’ plan to attack the chronic homeless problem by applying an existing state statute that would allow first responders to involuntarily commit mentally ill folks to hospital psychiatric wards.

As his honor so eloquently put it, “It is not acceptable for us to see someone who clearly needs help and walk past.” No, it isn’t. And despite a lifetime of social liberalism, I find myself abandoning one my formerly tightly held precepts by not only falling in line with the mayor’s vision, but by encouraging cities like Elgin, Illinois, to seriously consider something similar.

The truth is every effort to cope with the chronically homeless has either failed outright, become a band-aid solution, or simply thrust the problem on some other unsuspecting community.

As we also stipulated in Tuesday’s column, neither New York homeless advocates nor the folks tasked with carrying out this initiative are too terribly thrilled with it. And that kind of internal resistance typically doesn’t bode well for what will certainly be a controversial political directive.

And their concerns have merit if for no other reason than any significant social effort is inherently perilous, but I don’t think those issues are so insurmountable that the mayor’s administration should call the whole thing off.

One homeless activist told CNN that, “The city really needs to approach this more from a health and housing lens, rather than focusing on involuntary removals and policing.” I’d add that more accessible rehab programs would also go a long way towards keeping addicts from living on the street, too.

Considering how expensive it can be to live in a major U.S. city and our lackluster mental health safety net, those countermeasures would go a long way towards preventing homelessness before it takes hold, but they will do nothing to mitigate the current crop of the chronic homeless. Worse yet, they don’t nearly begin to answer the question, “How do you get the seriously mentally ill to want get better?”

Now we’ve circled right back to involuntary commitment.

I’ve advocated for investing tax dollars in mental health for years because the tax dollar return is tremendous, but even that has it limits. Despite the evidence to the contrary, liberals and progressives still believe the only way to solve a serious social problem is by throwing more money at it. But that kind of free spending hasn’t saved our faltering major metropolitan school districts, nor has it done a damn thing to dissuade the chronically homeless.

Take something as simple as Elgin, Illinois’s, Spring Street parking deck. City administrators bowed to an inevitable homeless presence by installing portable toilets on the various levels to mitigate the pervasive urine smell. How did the occupants thank the city? By urinating and defecating right next to them.

And if that small measure fails…

Meanwhile, New York’s mental health professionals are questioning the new policy on the grounds that it “takes away basic human rights” and there aren’t enough psychiatric beds to cope with the influx of mental patients.

My response to the former would be to, once again, ask the question, “Is there a basic human right to hit rock bottom and stay there?” And how much credence should we give to a mentally ill or severely addicted individual’s decision to reject help? That goes right back to our drowning victim analogy.

As for the latter, there are never enough psychiatric beds because the mentally ill don’t have a Super PAC and treating the indigent will never be nearly as profitable as elective surgeries and long-term cancer care. But if hospitals can construct all manner of temporary facilities in response to a global pandemic don’t tell me that some minor adjustments couldn’t be made in this much more manageable case.

The New York Police aren’t too terribly thrilled with their new role, either. They correctly argue that any interaction with folks facing a profound mental health issue is “fuel for escalation,” and the ensuing liability will fall squarely at the feet of the officer following the directive.

I don’t like the idea of thrusting the police into this caretaker/enforcer role, either, but we have to start somewhere. And the NYPD didn’t seem to have any problem with the discredited stop-and-frisk policy, a city-supported practice that led to serious confrontations, citizen deaths, and racial unrest.

It won’t be easy, but the city’s plan to pair the appropriate police training with real-time mental health professional support should go a long way toward making the commitment process a reasonably effective one. If it doesn’t work, then adjustments will have to be made.

I’m surprised that none of the critics mentioned that NYC can’t statutorily hold these folks forever, and even if they do improve while in “custody,” without the appropriate outpatient support network they’ll relapse and be back on the streets in a matter of weeks. Not to mention the potential for all manner of “Cuckoo’s Nest” implications.

But any groundbreaking social service program has the potential for abuse and the reality that we can’t save everyone from themselves in no way absolves us from making the initial effort. Something about that pesky “the least of our brothers” comes to mind. The mayor’s initiative may not be perfect, but we should never let the perfect become the enemy of the good, so let’s start with this potential solution before we move on to the next one.

I know this isn’t a popular position, but what homeless advocates and progressives consistently fail to consider is, regardless of the proximate cause, no one has a Constitutional right to bring the rest of us down to some sort of least common denominator level.

Elgin citizens should be able to walk into the Spring Street deck without holding their noses or worrying about a shakedown. Elgin merchants shouldn’t have to shovel human excrement from their back doors, nor should a constant homeless presence be allowed to affect their bottom line. They work very hard to keep their heads above water. Elgin children shouldn’t have to avoid Carleton Rogers Park because the homeless, who’ve resisted all forms of assistance, have taken it over to get food handouts that only enable their addictions.

I know it’s strange for Jeff Ward to support the nanny state in any form, but there is a positive side to making a reasonable effort to be our brother’s and sister’s keeper. In the words of musician Bruce Cockburn, “Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight, you have to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.”

So, I have to give Mayor Adams a boatload of credit for having the cojones and empathy to commence that “kicking” process, and my fondest wish is that Elgin will seriously consider the same sort of solution.