Good one. But the Post Modern Times experiment wasn't exactly Socialism, was it? It was simply naive, trending towards stupid. A true Socialist Cafe would be funded by tax dollars, not donations, although it likely would have attracted the same clientele. And I'm curious how the PMT saw their generous experiment as any different from other churches and non-profits' programs, such as St. Stevens or the Salvation Army. Because you could sit down and order from a menu? Naive . . .
As for addiction. I know a small town guy who was sent to prison on a domestic violence charge. He told me that he felt the charges were bogus and the sentence was too long, but added -- "I'd be dead if it hadn't been that long because I finally got sober."
He has a job, volunteers in local food shelf and has rebuilt a relationship with his kids.
Obviously one anecdote doesn't make a case for sending addicts to prison, and his addiction was booze, not fentanyl, but taking people away from their harmful environment, when they are no longer capable of making rational choices, seems far more compassionate than letting them die in the streets.
Also, are "Red" cities handling this differently? I remember reading a few decades ago that Santa Barbara, at the time quite Republican, outlawed camping in parks and public spaces, and cracked down hard on those who did. So the unhoused folks moved to deep blue Santa Monica, where there were lots of services and no such laws.
In fact, a bunch of very wealthy women raised money to build a beautiful facility for women only, very near the beach. It flopped bigly, like Post Modern Times. There were rules about things like shopping carts and using drugs on-site, or having overnight visitors, aka men. They soon had an empty building on their hands and gave up. Last time I was in San Mo there were people sleeping in bus stops, in the parks, and in the alley behind our hotel.
No easy answers but what we're doing now isn't working.
Some fail to understand that no society is successful without rules for behavior and consequences for non compliance. There is a term called “suicidal empathy.” Introduced by author Gaad Sard which defines this as an extreme state where emotional compassion overrides rational self preservation or societal security which applies to policies that enable homeless encampments, catch and release of those who are chronic offenders, and other progressive policies. All of this sends a message that bad behavior is normalized , which in turn continues the downward spiral of our city. Compassion must be balanced with the courage to allow consequences.
Great article. It's not lost on me that it came out the same day the Strib published an opinion piece by a St. Paul legislator who is against St. Paul clearing its encampments and if I read correctly, the takeaway was that no accountablity should be expected from the unhoused "neighbors" even when offered resources from nonprofits and governemnt. In hearing about the closing of the PMT cafe, I had a flashback from when the Midway Sheraton hotel was opened up for the unhoused during Covid and soon afterwards it was destroyed, given there were "no guardrails or limits".
Thank you for this article and the work you are doing behind it to understand the complexity and context of the problems as well as the tested approaches, leaning in on trying to understand what works and what does not.
dsa/progressive types like Jason Chavez mention harm reduction like giving out needles, narcan, testing strips etc. etc. about 80 or 90% of the time went talking about these issues. It's rare but I would guess maybe 10% the time he mentions actual substance abuse treatment. one would think with a bachelor's in social work he would have a better handle on these issues.
The far left like the far right are blinded by the sins of the groups they are working to protect or appease. The far right believes the 1% should be protected from the long arm of the law when they rape and sexually abuse girls or rip off the rest of us with every imaginable form of fraud and exploitation allowed by a bought-off, corrupt government. And the far left believes that democracy is the complete tolerance of drug dealing/using, bad behavior, crime and violence, therefore allowing lawlessness on the ground the way the far right allows lawlessness from above.
I am thankful for the Terry Whites of the world who are unafraid to articulate the "sins" of both and struggle out loud with the hard issues that face all of us. I too would like to add my voice to the many who lost a loved one to addiction along with that craggy citizen (we are not just one antidote) outside of Seattle who wished his sister was locked up until she got clean instead of dying of her addiction. Maybe not prison time, but I'm sure my nephew would have made it out of addiction and into health if he wasn't freely allowed to walk away from his treatment center only to be found dead in a hotel room two weeks later.
I'm no fan of harm reduction. Under that system everyone is harmed, the users supported in their addictions instead of supported into a way out, the neighborhoods that have been destroyed by encampments, the businesses that have lost too much to stay in business to theft, and disruption in front of their stores by crime, violence, dealers and users. And cities like Minneapolis that signal to the cartels to send in their violent gangs, we are open for business.
What would be useful for me is a statistical breakdown of the people profiles that end up in these crowds--homelessness, mental health condition(s), violent behavior, other criminal behavior, domestic abuse victim, drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, etc. It still feels foggy to me what the people profiles look like. I'm gathering most of the time there are "comorbidities"--i.e., homelessness combined with mental health conditions, drug addiction, etc.
Follow this up with "treatment" options for each category, including resource requirements (social worker man-hours, money, housing, incarceration, etc.), and treatment time/effectiveness of each option.
Finally, compare the treatment requirements and compare those to prevention programs. If I were a betting man, I'd guess the costs associated with prevention--for most categories--would be society's most attractive option.
Thank you Terry for your article and the personal time you are spending investigating and bringing to light the need for a much needed new approach to the needs of those suffering with addiction and homelessness.
We must not allow individuals to continue to suffer in encampments and expect positive results for them or their neighbors. It is a lose lose situation that must be challenged. Thank you for starting this brave conversation.
Good one. But the Post Modern Times experiment wasn't exactly Socialism, was it? It was simply naive, trending towards stupid. A true Socialist Cafe would be funded by tax dollars, not donations, although it likely would have attracted the same clientele. And I'm curious how the PMT saw their generous experiment as any different from other churches and non-profits' programs, such as St. Stevens or the Salvation Army. Because you could sit down and order from a menu? Naive . . .
As for addiction. I know a small town guy who was sent to prison on a domestic violence charge. He told me that he felt the charges were bogus and the sentence was too long, but added -- "I'd be dead if it hadn't been that long because I finally got sober."
He has a job, volunteers in local food shelf and has rebuilt a relationship with his kids.
Obviously one anecdote doesn't make a case for sending addicts to prison, and his addiction was booze, not fentanyl, but taking people away from their harmful environment, when they are no longer capable of making rational choices, seems far more compassionate than letting them die in the streets.
Also, are "Red" cities handling this differently? I remember reading a few decades ago that Santa Barbara, at the time quite Republican, outlawed camping in parks and public spaces, and cracked down hard on those who did. So the unhoused folks moved to deep blue Santa Monica, where there were lots of services and no such laws.
In fact, a bunch of very wealthy women raised money to build a beautiful facility for women only, very near the beach. It flopped bigly, like Post Modern Times. There were rules about things like shopping carts and using drugs on-site, or having overnight visitors, aka men. They soon had an empty building on their hands and gave up. Last time I was in San Mo there were people sleeping in bus stops, in the parks, and in the alley behind our hotel.
No easy answers but what we're doing now isn't working.
Some fail to understand that no society is successful without rules for behavior and consequences for non compliance. There is a term called “suicidal empathy.” Introduced by author Gaad Sard which defines this as an extreme state where emotional compassion overrides rational self preservation or societal security which applies to policies that enable homeless encampments, catch and release of those who are chronic offenders, and other progressive policies. All of this sends a message that bad behavior is normalized , which in turn continues the downward spiral of our city. Compassion must be balanced with the courage to allow consequences.
U
Great article. It's not lost on me that it came out the same day the Strib published an opinion piece by a St. Paul legislator who is against St. Paul clearing its encampments and if I read correctly, the takeaway was that no accountablity should be expected from the unhoused "neighbors" even when offered resources from nonprofits and governemnt. In hearing about the closing of the PMT cafe, I had a flashback from when the Midway Sheraton hotel was opened up for the unhoused during Covid and soon afterwards it was destroyed, given there were "no guardrails or limits".
I didn’t see the article. I will have to look.
Thank you for this article and the work you are doing behind it to understand the complexity and context of the problems as well as the tested approaches, leaning in on trying to understand what works and what does not.
dsa/progressive types like Jason Chavez mention harm reduction like giving out needles, narcan, testing strips etc. etc. about 80 or 90% of the time went talking about these issues. It's rare but I would guess maybe 10% the time he mentions actual substance abuse treatment. one would think with a bachelor's in social work he would have a better handle on these issues.
The far left like the far right are blinded by the sins of the groups they are working to protect or appease. The far right believes the 1% should be protected from the long arm of the law when they rape and sexually abuse girls or rip off the rest of us with every imaginable form of fraud and exploitation allowed by a bought-off, corrupt government. And the far left believes that democracy is the complete tolerance of drug dealing/using, bad behavior, crime and violence, therefore allowing lawlessness on the ground the way the far right allows lawlessness from above.
I am thankful for the Terry Whites of the world who are unafraid to articulate the "sins" of both and struggle out loud with the hard issues that face all of us. I too would like to add my voice to the many who lost a loved one to addiction along with that craggy citizen (we are not just one antidote) outside of Seattle who wished his sister was locked up until she got clean instead of dying of her addiction. Maybe not prison time, but I'm sure my nephew would have made it out of addiction and into health if he wasn't freely allowed to walk away from his treatment center only to be found dead in a hotel room two weeks later.
I'm no fan of harm reduction. Under that system everyone is harmed, the users supported in their addictions instead of supported into a way out, the neighborhoods that have been destroyed by encampments, the businesses that have lost too much to stay in business to theft, and disruption in front of their stores by crime, violence, dealers and users. And cities like Minneapolis that signal to the cartels to send in their violent gangs, we are open for business.
Thank you for your comments. I’m sorry to hear about your nephew. There are too many of these tragedies.
Well said. I am sorry for your loss.
Another good article Terry, thank you.
What would be useful for me is a statistical breakdown of the people profiles that end up in these crowds--homelessness, mental health condition(s), violent behavior, other criminal behavior, domestic abuse victim, drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, etc. It still feels foggy to me what the people profiles look like. I'm gathering most of the time there are "comorbidities"--i.e., homelessness combined with mental health conditions, drug addiction, etc.
Follow this up with "treatment" options for each category, including resource requirements (social worker man-hours, money, housing, incarceration, etc.), and treatment time/effectiveness of each option.
Finally, compare the treatment requirements and compare those to prevention programs. If I were a betting man, I'd guess the costs associated with prevention--for most categories--would be society's most attractive option.
Thank you Terry for your article and the personal time you are spending investigating and bringing to light the need for a much needed new approach to the needs of those suffering with addiction and homelessness.
We must not allow individuals to continue to suffer in encampments and expect positive results for them or their neighbors. It is a lose lose situation that must be challenged. Thank you for starting this brave conversation.