Proof of concept
No sooner had the virtual ink dried on my July 18 column explaining my theories on the chronically homeless dried than California Governor Gavin Newsom stepped in to prove my point. I had no clue he was a First Ward reader!
I’m generally no fan of the hypocritical and too-progressive politician, but just like the proverbial twice-right-daily broken clock, after the SCOTUS gave him the green light, he hit the gubernatorial ground running by issuing an executive order calling for the dismantling of all homeless encampments throughout the state.
For reference purposes, of California’s estimated 180,000 unsheltered population, 123,000 of them live in makeshift tent camps.
It truly bears noting that this edict didn’t emanate from one of your more typical redneck enclaves like Texas, Alabama, or Campton Hills. Nope! It came from what may well be the most liberal state in the nation.
Better yet, unlike the Land of Lincoln’s unofficial “Unfunded Mandates ‘R Us” motto, to his further credit, Newsome put his political money where his mouth is by providing $24 billion in state funding to address these newly decamped individuals declaring:
The state has been hard at work to address this crisis on our streets. There are simply no more excuses, It’s time for everyone to do their part.
And by “everyone” he meant it was time for CA municipalities to pick up the slack and follow his lead in removing these “dangerous” encampments. Of course, Los Angeles officials immediately balked at the prospect, but liberal San Francisco Mayor Loudon Breed actually echoed The First Ward’s sentiments:
Many people are struggling on our streets with addiction and mental illness, and our outreach workers will offer access to treatment. … But those who refuse our help or those who already have shelter will not be allowed to camp on our streets.
Hizzoner added that San Francisco would be “very aggressive and assertive in moving encampments, which may even include criminal penalties.”
It really is quite remarkable that this fiat came from the City that essentially legalized retail theft. But Breed is right. Criminalization should always be the last resort, but if the chronically homeless balk at a timely intervention, then the alternative has to be worse than letting them just walk away.
I’ll say it again! The Constitution provides no inalienable right to self destruction, and if the state of California finally sees the chronically homeless light, then perhaps there’s hope for Chicago and the rest of Illinois, too.
Damn if they’re not getting it right!
Whenever I hear the words “citizens task force” I’m immediately beset by a strange form of anaphylactic shock that forces me to dash out to the backyard bomb shelter and cower in its lower reaches.
Put more simply NO GOOD can come from such a group. For evidentiary purposes, you need look no further than Elgin’s Community Task Force on Policing which was an outright embarrassment from day one. Then there’s Geneva’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion Task Force which makes all manner of grand proclamations as they blissfully ignore their city’s 98 percent Caucasian workforce. I’m not sure if Batavia enjoys a similar task force, but if they do it will inevitably be worse than the first two.
If any city council members are inserted into the committee, it, by default, becomes exponentially worse than it otherwise might’ve been. The underlying theory being, when you give a bunch of formerly powerless nitwits power, they immediately proceed to go nuts. And when you give alderpeople a new “platform” they’ll make all manner of fascinating declarations.
But I gotta tell ya, despite those well-founded trepidations, I’m starting to get rather enamored of the St. Charles Dam Task Force, despite three St. Charles city councilpersons.
The second the eco-nuts got wind of the Fox River dam removal possibility, without considering any of the potential consequences, they ran to their basements to get the C4 and started applying the kind of political pressure that makes even mighty men melt.
But not this group! Not only did they recognize that they didn’t have all of the answers, but they realized they didn’t have all the questions, either. So, instead of clamoring to make grand pronouncements and pander at every turn, they slowed their roll to truly consider the dam prospect and came up with the following questions:
- Who owns the dam? (A great question!)
- How would dam removal affect nearby communities?
- How would it impact stormwater runoff?
- What specific wildlife species around the dam would be affected?
- How would Fox River water levels change without the dam?
- What effect would it have on boating, fishing, and other aquatic activities?
- How many businesses use the river and will it hurt their bottom line?
- Who would pay for reconstructing any newly exposed river banks?, and
- What are nearby municipalities doing with their dams?
Then they submitted those inquiries to the appropriate consultants and the Army Corps of Engineers, expecting a reply in about two months.
As a result of this magnificent due diligence, some grassroots groups have arisen to counter the eco-loons out of concern that the cure might be far worse than the disease.
I could really get used to this kind of thing! This is exactly the way it’s supposed to work, but it rarely ever does.
So, just to make the post-COVID world a little bit stranger, my hat’s off to the fine folks on the St. Charles Dam Task Force who are providing a perfect example of what a citizen’s/elected official task force should be.
Please keep up the good work!
