Are we really helping the chronically homeless?

We have come dangerously close to accepting the homeless situation as a problem that we just can’t solve. – Linda Lingle

I can’t help but start this piece with a little bit of self-irony; “What are things my 30-year-old self couldn’t imagine me saying at 64 for $800, Alex?”

Because I’m not sure if it’s old age, wisdom, the capacity to consider new evidence, or the erstwhile process of an idealistic erosion, but I once thought making children wear school uniforms heinously deprived them of their individuality, conservatives were an aberration bent on world destruction, and involuntarily committing a homeless person to a medical facility had to be the worst form of fascism.

But thirty long years later I’m as surprised as anyone to discover I suddenly believe that all schools should require uniforms, the goalposts have moved so far to the left that I’ve become the kind of conservative I once loathed, and I resolutely agree with Mayor Eric Adams’ initiative to get the chronically homeless off New York city streets, even if it means doing so against their will.

Since nothing else has worked, Adams’ administration is resorting to an existing state law that allows first responders and police officers to commit an individual experiencing a mental health crisis to a hospital regardless of whether they’ve committed a specific criminal act. New York City has already started the process of training police officers to work with mental health professionals to move forward wutg this new directive.

Aside from the New Yorkers who’ve grown tired of the homeless encampments and associated violence, let’s just say no one’s happy with this new initiative, including homeless advocates, mental health workers, and even the NYPD, who were quick to attack Mayor in this regard.

And while some of their concerns have merit, I think the Mayor’s simple press statement, “It is not acceptable for us to see someone who clearly needs help and walk past,” trumps them all. Considering the consistent lip service Americans pay towards us being a “Christian country,” there’s certainly something to be said for his sentiment.

I would also argue that the core contention for these criticisms, that halcyon American “tradition” of “a rugged individualism,” is dead wrong. And if you build your position on a myth, it will eventually fall apart. C’mon! That fabled “rugged individualism” never existed. Americans are just as (or even more) prone to partisan groupthink, insipid fads, and the wackiest of conspiracy theories as the rest of the planet.

The “technicality” we love to cling to is “If I’m not hurting anyone – smoking, overeating, drug addiction – then leave me alone!” But that argument has never worked, because, as we’ve regularly discussed here, nothing in this existence occurs in a vacuum. It’s the whole butterfly flapping his wings in Brazil causing a hurricane in Florida kind of thing.

Take something as simple as smoking. The deleterious effects go well beyond the smoker in the form of higher insurance rates, illness-borne loss of job productivity that forces non-smokers to pick up the slack, and smokers demand a disproportionate amount of medical resources as they age. Not to mention that I can’t get within ten feet of a chain smoker without enduring a rather nasty asthmatic reaction.

I also take issue with the premise that we have a right to slowly kill ourselves by whatever means we choose, another rather bizarre contention for a purportedly Christian nation.

While we all have the inalienable right to hit rock bottom – a frequent requirement for real recovery – no one has the right to remain in that abyss, nor do they enjoy a Constitutional guarantee to bring the rest of us down to a similar least common denominator.

But before we continue, I want to be perfectly clear that we’re NOT talking about those souls who, but for a poor start or a series of unfortunate events, wouldn’t be on the streets. We’re similarly not discussing those willing to take advantage of the available shelters and the limited social safety net to improve their plight.

The truth is 59 percent of Americans are a paycheck or two away from homelessness.

No! The folks we’re considering are those who’ve been rendered chronically homeless by a serious mental health problem, a major addiction issue, or a combination of both. We’re talking about those brothers and sisters who refuse and resist all forms of intervention.

As the mayor so aptly noted, the fact that someone in the worst kind of distress refuses help in no mitigates our responsibility to make the effort. Would any of us simply walk away from a swimming pool drowning victim because they refused to be resuced? Of course not! That kind of intervention may be fraught with peril, but every last one of us would jump in the water or call for help at the very least. The very thought that someone who’s drowning can make sound decisions is beyond ludicrous.

In Thursday’s part two we’ll discuss the New York activists’ and NYPD’s arguments against this initiative and why they don’t hold water. I’ll also do my best to explain why the nanny state isn’t always a bad thing.