This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
Check out the below video. It depicts life today on and around Kensington Avenue, the main drag of Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood.
Now check out this video. A local realtor gives us the skinny on Chestnut Hill, perhaps Philadelphia’s most sought-after neighborhood.
Where to begin? Well, let’s begin with the obvious. Homeless people make horrible neighbors. Wherever they tread, crime, filth, and squalor follow.
Now a question. Why are the leaders of Philadelphia allowing homeless people to commandeer sidewalks and parks in Kensington and ruin that neighborhood’s quality of life?
Simply put, Philadelphia’s leading homeless activists are incredibly hostile to the rights of the non-homeless (see here, here, and here), and Philadelphia’s leadership, for whatever reason, has decided to appease these activists. Appeasing Philadelphia’s leading homeless activists, in turn, means accepting the “woke” definition of compassion regarding homelessness. And what’s the “woke” definition of compassion regarding homelessness? Here it is in a nutshell:
Housing is a human right and if the state doesn’t provide everyone with adequate housing (as determined by homeless activists), the homeless have a right to sleep on city sidewalks or in city parks. Restricting sidewalks and parks to their intended uses would be an affront to decency. It would in effect be “criminalizing” homeless people merely because they lack the means to rent an apartment or buy a home.
Unsurprisingly, I find the woke definition of compassion regarding homelessness to be utter bullshit. And the main reason why is because Philadelphia’s leaders, like leaders in most cities, are not completely insane. In other words, they’ll appease homeless activists up to a point. They’ll never—under any circumstances—allow the impracticable demands and policy preferences of the activist crowd to burden their most prized constituents. So in the real world, rich neighborhoods never suffer the externalities of woke “compassion.” Only working-class neighborhoods suffer those externalities. Neighborhoods such as Kensington get graffiti, garbage, crime, tents, and drugged-out zombies, and neighborhoods such as Chestnut Hill get pristine streets and parks and Norman Rockwell charm. “Compassion” for the homeless invariably means cruelty for the working class.
Do the Homeless Have a Right to Taxpayer-Provided Housing?
Americans have a right to self-defense. Does this then mean the taxpayers are morally obligated to purchase guns and ammo for those Americans who can’t afford to purchase those self-defense items themselves?
Similarly, Americans have a right to housing. And no one is stopping any American from renting or purchasing housing from a willing seller. The problem faced by the homeless is not that their right to rent or purchase housing is being denied; the problem is that they don’t have the money to rent or purchase housing in the first place. But rather than recognize this dismal reality, homeless activists would rather turn this dismal reality into a morality play—a contest between good and evil, in which homeless people are victims, homeless activists are white knights, and taxpayers who want to keep their money and live in orderly communities are heartless bastards.
The right to pursue self-interest, even fundamental self-interests such as self-defense and housing, doesn’t automatically entitle the needy pursuer to government handouts. If that were the case, the non-needy would be the slaves of the needy, and our Constitution, thanks to the 13th Amendment, frowns upon involuntary servitude. So, no, the homeless don’t have a right to taxpayer-provided housing. And, no, the homeless don’t have a right to commandeer sidewalks and parks and turn those public spaces into dystopian campgrounds and open-air drug markets. No one is above the law—not the President of the United States, and certainly not the drug addict on Kensington Avenue.
What to Do?
So what to do?
The first order of business is to admit that the current approach to homelessness is only helping one group—our vaunted homeless activists. They get to preen morally and congratulate themselves on how virtuous they are—only they see the beauty of homeless people, only they are willing to step up and rescue these marginalized souls from the fiendish maw of American capitalism. But their only solution to the homeless crisis—a stylish apartment and hundreds of thousands of dollars in counseling, meds, and UBI for every single homeless person—is so unworkable, so unscaleable, it’s a joke. At best, this “solution” may rescue a tenth of the homeless population. In the meantime, homeless people take over sidewalks and parks and working-class neighborhoods are turned into shitholes. Sorry working-class people: The conspicuous virtue-signaling of our vaunted homeless activists is way more important than your quality of life.
The second order of business is to go first principles: What can be done to help the homeless that is 1) humane and gives every single homeless person a shot at redemption, and 2) respects the rights, needs, and wallets of the non-homeless—especially the non-homeless who comprise the working class?
At first glance, answering the question that first-principle thinking produces seems rather daunting. But it really isn’t once you realize that sane, capable people willingly choose to live in a yurt (see here, here, and here). In other words, if a glorified tent, a yurt, is perfectly good housing for sane, capable people, a tent is perfectly good housing for economically broken people. And once you start there—that stylish apartments built by politically connected construction firms aren’t the paramount need of our homeless brothers and sisters—answering our first-principle question becomes much more manageable. But I’m getting way ahead of myself. In part two of this two-part series, I will solve the homeless crisis. And if by some miracle my solution is adopted, most homeless people will be better off, no homeless person will be worse off, and every single working-class person will be able to go about his or her business without having to circumvent a phalanx of drugged-out zombies.
Final Thoughts
Okay, groovy freedomist, that’s all I got. What say you? I say our vaunted homeless activists are making a bad situation worse. Their woke “compassion” is as misguided as their woke “solution,” and because of this, the misery of homelessness is being compounded: the vast majority of homeless are not only left free to destroy themselves but they are also left free to destroy the neighborhoods of working-class Americans.
But, hey, what the hell do I know? Maybe I’m the one who’s misguided? And if you think that’s the case, please let me know. Peace.
Why do we no longer have rooming or boarding houses? Past generations used them to rent a room with a shared bath down the hall until they could afford something better. If we subsidize affordable housing at all it should provide the minimum for an individual or couple (small studio) and perhaps a shared bedroom or two for families. Multiple kids can share a bedroom. Many of us grew up with that being the norm. If we can provide a family with temporary housing after a disaster in a hotel room, that should be the size of subsidized housing. We don’t want it so comfortable that they live there forever. Hold tenants responsible for damage and make surfaces easy maintenance and durable. Most important is to have housing available where the jobs are. No sense building them in areas with no jobs if we want people to be responsible for their own housing costs. Better to provide job training and help relocate people to where they can get a job to support themselves.
Imagine that. Kids sharing a room. Communal bathrooms. The horror!
As usual, you are spot on Pat. Thanks for sharing some good ol’ common sense. It’s so rare these days.
There’s a lot of interesting stuff here. The James Clear article was helpful, and his book is great.
Many left-leaners like myself are frustrated with the lack of actionable ideas for the homeless problem. In cities across the US. As you said, some of the grandiose housing ideas put forth are unrealistic…hardly anything gets done. I look forward to part 2, so we can end this problem once and for all.
You’re a good man, Mr. G. And I’m right there with you on the frustration front. Here’s what kills me. Our elites, whether in business, academics, or politics, never fail to remind us that they’re the “smartest guys in the room.” They’re the masters of the universe. They have the answer to everything. But when the shit hits the fan–when the big mega-corporation goes bankrupt, when the big super-elite university is caught auctioning admission slots to the highest bidder, or when the once-mighty city’s drinking water becomes undrinkable–the smartest guys in the room suddenly become the biggest idiots in the room. They had no idea what their underlings were doing to compromise the operation. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: We have the worst elites in the history of the world. “Never have so few destroyed so much and thought so highly of themselves.” Thanks for stopping by, my friend. I hope my “solution” doesn’t disappoint you. Give my regards to Mrs. G. Cheers.
Let’s suppose you have two diseases (scurvy & malaria) and two cures (vitamin C & quinine). Vitamin C cures scurvy. Quinine cures malaria. If you prescribe the wrong cure to the wrong disease, you get a bad outcome.
Is homelessness caused because rents are too damn high? Or is it caused because mentally ill people cannot dispatch responsibilities of tenancy?
If you’re a commie, every social problem is a nail to be hammered with wealth-redistribution. (With a commissar/activist to manage the transfer and take a percentage for his trouble.) In this case homeless people serve as props for commie agitprop.
The problem is more subtle than mere commie agitprop. There is more than a poverty of money, but a poverty of morality, and a poverty of life-skills. If you don’t think it’s wrong to steal, and if you don’t think it’s wrong to be a parasite, you’ll find these easy alternatives to ambition & hard work.
If you don’t know it’s stupid to buy groceries at the c-store, and if you don’t think it’s stupid to live paycheck-to-paycheck, you won’t have the deposit or first month’s rent. Or a history of regular rent payments… all things you need to rent from me.
Another dimension is crime. After we defund the police, only rich neighborhoods are safe. After the police ignore criminality to focus on collecting fees/fines (to keep taxes low), defunding the police gains popularity. I have direct experience with this police behavior.
Suppose you want to engage in some egotrage.
You move to a modest neighborhood and start saving for an early retirement. But the neighborhood isn’t safe for your wife & kids (and the school sucks, too). So much for egotrage, I’m moving somewhere safe.
If you want to solve the problem of homelessness, you aren’t going to do it with rent-controls or declaring housing a “right.”
And if you want to solve the problem of affordable housing (A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROBLEM), you aren’t going to do it without looking at supply & demand.
Maybe I should seek a government subsidy to replace my rental properties with several tiny houses. (By the way, my mother was born & lived in a tent in downtown Grand Rapids during the ’30s.)
steve poling recently posted…Dave Ramsey Heresy
Wow! Lot of wisdom in your comment. I love the commie agitprop about how freedom and capitalism don’t work. Of course, they don’t work if you’re a lazy slob. But what system does work for lazy slobs? Do lazy slobs kick ass in democratic socialism? And you are so right about egotrage. Egotrage only works in civil society. Once society collapses morally, egotrage becomes a very risky undertaking. And I’m afraid we’ve reached that point in America. Housing has become a Maginot Line. The only way to protect yourself from noise, crime, squalor, and lousy schools is to buy an expensive home in a neighborhood of expensive homes. Thanks for stopping by, my friend. I’m always a better person for reading your comments. Cheers.
The first YouTube image of that drug-hazed woman haunts me. So sad. I can’t wait to read your solution…
It haunts me too, my friend. That’s why I don’t understand the lack of urgency on the part of Philadelphia’s leadership. I’ve been watching scenes from Kensington Avenue for at least a year now. And aside from an occasional clean-up by the sanitation department, nothing changes. Every day–people sprawled out on the sidewalk or out on their feet slowly swaying back and forth. To paraphrase Murray Head, “One night in Philly makes a hard man humble.”
Spot on, as usual.
The problem is sadly not isolated to Philly. I’m closer to Portland than is currently comfortable, and this exact scenario plays out; but in typical Portland fashion, they “one-up” it. Portland is currently shuttling the homeless to the suburbs and smaller cities in the metro area. It’s a mess of epic proportions. I’ve had to change where I shop for groceries after twice interrupting someone trying to break into my rig. Not cool.
So, the solution? I’ve said it for years, and I’m sticking to it – bring back the CCC! Yeah, I know, more cruelty… Additionally, NO ONE should get free money from the government. I don’t care who you are, there is almost always some kind of job you are capable of, even if it’s picking up trash in the city park.
“I don’t care who you are, there is almost always some kind of job you are capable of, even if it’s picking up trash in the city park.”
I love it. And all I’ll say for now is wait for my “solution” in Part 2. Great minds think alike. Thanks for stopping by, Beth. Cheers.
It’s not really a thing in rural Arkansas, thankfully. We have a couple of homeless people in the small nearby city, but anyone who tried to sleep on the sidewalk there would be arrested. We aren’t all that woke around here. They usually hang out in the woods.
Steveark recently posted…Pizza and Pickleball
Same here. Rural North Carolina isn’t homeless-friendly. But then again, rural North Carolina isn’t particularly haughty when it comes to housing. One could easily buy an acre of land in these parts, park a forlorn RV on it, and live off-grid without attracting the ire of the authorities. It makes for interesting neighbors but doesn’t become a magnet for homelessness.
Mr Groovy,
If you run for political office, I will vote for you. You are discussing an important problem.
Can you imagine, being working class, and putting in extremely long work hours to afford a modest home in a modest neighborhood, only to have it over run with homeless people? Every time you go out your door, you are greeted by used needles, garbage, feces, urine, people passed out, people on drugs, psychotic people assaulting you. And you are not affluent enough to leave this home you worked so hard for, because it’s property value has gone down due to the homeless people around you. So now your children are exposed to this environment everyday.
It’s good to be affluent and be able to afford an expensive home in an expensive gated neighborhood. With neighbors who belong to powerful law firms and who are politically connected, the affluent have little to fear. Many of these “woke” homeless activists live in such affluent neighborhoods. I wonder if this is all a joke to them. They can mess up poor people’s neighborhoods with no threat to themselves.
Nailed it, Heather. When the rich are treated poorly by their government, they leave. The working class, however, doesn’t have that luxury. When they’re treated poorly by their government, they have to take it. And that’s what makes the Kensington situation doubly sad. The homeless aren’t just destroying their lives, they’re destroying the lives of the housed in Kensington. And there doesn’t seem to be any urgency on the part of the political and activist classes to fix things. Sigh.
I wish there was a different term for “working class” since it is such a misnomer and gives a wrong impression. My ex-husband and I were considered “rich” (not working class) since my ex-husband and I made around 500K annually. But my ex-husband worked 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. I also worked long hours but I only worked 10 hours, five days a week. I worked on the weekend only if I was trying to learn new skills. Blue-collar might be more appropriate but I don’t think that is the right description either.
I hear ya, Dee. Perhaps productive class is a better term. In your case, I would describe you and your ex as the super productive class. For those who live in neighborhoods like Kensington, and are barely getting by, I would describe them as the marginally productive class. Thanks for stopping by, Dee. Love the way your mind works. Peace.