I do not know how many times I’ve heard “housing first” repeated like some mantra from city activists and politicians. Having worked with addicts in both adult conservatorships and child protection cases for 13 years now, I find that mantra to be misguided and naive. It’s a public health issue, not housing. I think the authors quoted here put it beautifully. You wouldn’t let someone who is incapacitated to their own devices and call it respect or compassion. So why is that only true with addicts?
I chatted with a Powderhorn couple the other day, whose family has front row seats to the symptoms of all this: crime, open drug use, trash, defecation in their yard, etc. They need compassion too.
Intervention benefits not only the addicts and mentally ill, it benefits those forced to deal with the detriments. Win-win.
As a non-profit housing case manager and downtown resident, I feel hopeful about Mayor Frey’s recent encampment and drug enforcement changes. For too long, Minneapolis has relied on a brand of "empathetic politics" that does nothing but enable human suffering under the guise of compassion. Humans naturally choose a better life when they can, but severe addiction steals that choice away. (No doubt, half the city council’s heads are going to explode over this shift.)
For anyone looking to understand why passive enabling fails, I highly recommend reading Crooked Smile by Jared Klickstein. He survived a decade of homelessness and crime, explicitly noting that mandated treatment and real consequences are what actually saved his life. As he puts it: "Consequences tend to encourage people to want to change."
I pay attention to San Francisco too, since they have done some really good things, and in such a short period of time, under Mayor Lurie.
That mayor is being supported in his efforts, which unfortunately has not been happening here for Frey, because of the make up of our city council in Mpls. That IS the difference.
But thankfully, our cities in MN will continue to have more and more PLACES to look to, for examples of refreshing and sweeping policy changes that are making a difference. Denver is one of those places.
“Now that encampments are gone and violent crime is among the lowest this century, we are turning our focus to the quality-of-life crimes — like theft or public drug use — that impact many of us on a daily basis,. After spending the past two years ending downtown encampments and bringing thousands of people into shelter, Johnston described a new approach to people with mental health and substance issues and recurring criminal records. “For those who are willing to accept treatment, we will keep them out of our criminal justice system entirely,” he said in the speech. “But for those who refuse services and continue to commit crimes, we will hold them accountable, and work with our partners in the criminal justice system to direct them toward services and treatment as part of their sentence.”
Nice article. Hard to believe that it's taken this long to honestly face this problem. I don't think, though, that "moral hazard" means what you think it means.
You’re right. “Moral challenges” might have been a better fit. I was trying to convey that one is forced to decide as to what is the right course of action instead of spacing out and listening to podcasts.
If you haven't read it already, you may want to read "The Science of Second Chances." It touches on addiction within its broader focus on crime and the criminal justice system. It emphasizes the need for evidence-based/data-driven strategies when formulating and revising public policy.
Thanks for these observations, Terry. I'd also recommend another article in the NYTimes, July 7th, titled, "Estonia Won the War of Fentanyl. What Came Next Was Even Worse."
There was vigorous discussion in the comments about the idea that "People will have to stop wanting to use...That's the only way it ends."
Childhood trauma, joblessness, mental health issues, lack of purpose, lack of hope, need for connection, boredom, capitalism, aggressive dealers -- all among the things discussed as reasons people start using.
Is anyone ignorant of the risk and cost of addiction? Some take the chance anyway; it must meet some need.
I really appreciate learning more about the solutions San Francisco is trying, these were new to me. The framing about someone with a deep addiction as comparable to a person with Alzheimer's is very interesting.
So glad that the wonderful, beautiful city of San Francisco seems to be turning a corner. I visited family there almost yearly, until they moved to Texas in 2018. They lived in an apartment in the Mission District, and the last time I visited before they moved, they had people doing drugs in a tent one step from their front door. While out for a walk, I steered my niece’s stroller around a passed-out person holding a crack pipe. They often had human feces by their front door as well. Things were clearly headed downhill at that point.
That’s a good way to put it. Discourse has gotten to this point where any changing of your mind— even when new evidence or facts arise— is some admission of failure instead of growth.
There's a lot of brain science that confirms someone addicted to drugs probably won't be able to make good choices, or be able to stick to those choices. You have to get clean first, and that also often times means leaving the environment you're in and not being surrounded by enabling people.
Housing alone will not solve the problem and I think it's obvious that the dozen plus shelter/addiction/outreach/social services non-profits are not doing much, to say nothing of incompetent governments like the city and county.
Terry, As I think you already know, I lived in the SF Bay Area from '77-'84 - the period immediately before I moved to Minnesota. One of the things that I don't think a lot of people realize is that literally none of the antisocial, criminal, and addiction-related behavior - NONE OF IT - that contributed to the Daniel Lurie electoral victory was "new". When I lived there, all the same things were going on. It's just that they were going on almost exclusively in two specific areas - the neighborhood known as The Tenderloin, and the one then known as "South of Market". The latter is a very different place, today. It has undergone significant re-development, including that it is home to the SF Giants' beautiful still new-ish ballpark. What HAD changed, between '84 and Lurie, is that unacceptable behaviors/lifestyles (or whatever label one wants to apply) had spread from those two areas of The City to pretty much the entire northern portion that businesspeople, tourists, and, to a lesser extent, residents, think of as *being* the heart of San Francisco. Eventually, something had to give, because the "brand" of The City was being destroyed.
When you are out there, asking questions, you may want to ask not only how they are turning things around, but also, just in case it's all that OUR politics will allow for in the short run, what recommendations your hosts may have as to how to avoid the *spread* SF experienced of these problems from largely just two regions to having them basically throughout all the "best" parts of The City. Not because keeping bad situations in certain neighborhoods is a good thing - it's not, it's coldly cynical at best - but because anything they can tell you about how that diffusion occurred, and how they would prevent it if they could go back in time and change policies, may be informative or useful in other ways.
My trust in the MPD to help more than harm precludes me calling them to assist, except as a last resort. San Fransisco's approach is the right one, these people are ill and if we had compassionate publicly funded universal health care like most industrial nations, the logical thing to do would be to call an ambulance. But our health care system does not even do right by people who are "conventionally" sick. To expect it in its current form to care for all the addicts churned out by capitalism's many built in flaws and injustices is a stretch. Nevertheless, kudos to San Fransisco officials for figuring out some mechanism to make this work. Thank you for reporting on this promising solution and I look forward to more discussion toward similar implementation here in Minneapolis.
I do not know how many times I’ve heard “housing first” repeated like some mantra from city activists and politicians. Having worked with addicts in both adult conservatorships and child protection cases for 13 years now, I find that mantra to be misguided and naive. It’s a public health issue, not housing. I think the authors quoted here put it beautifully. You wouldn’t let someone who is incapacitated to their own devices and call it respect or compassion. So why is that only true with addicts?
I chatted with a Powderhorn couple the other day, whose family has front row seats to the symptoms of all this: crime, open drug use, trash, defecation in their yard, etc. They need compassion too.
Intervention benefits not only the addicts and mentally ill, it benefits those forced to deal with the detriments. Win-win.
As a non-profit housing case manager and downtown resident, I feel hopeful about Mayor Frey’s recent encampment and drug enforcement changes. For too long, Minneapolis has relied on a brand of "empathetic politics" that does nothing but enable human suffering under the guise of compassion. Humans naturally choose a better life when they can, but severe addiction steals that choice away. (No doubt, half the city council’s heads are going to explode over this shift.)
For anyone looking to understand why passive enabling fails, I highly recommend reading Crooked Smile by Jared Klickstein. He survived a decade of homelessness and crime, explicitly noting that mandated treatment and real consequences are what actually saved his life. As he puts it: "Consequences tend to encourage people to want to change."
Another great piece Terry, thank you!
I pay attention to San Francisco too, since they have done some really good things, and in such a short period of time, under Mayor Lurie.
That mayor is being supported in his efforts, which unfortunately has not been happening here for Frey, because of the make up of our city council in Mpls. That IS the difference.
But thankfully, our cities in MN will continue to have more and more PLACES to look to, for examples of refreshing and sweeping policy changes that are making a difference. Denver is one of those places.
https://denverite.com/2025/08/25/denver-quality-of-life-crimes/
Excerpt...from their mayor..
“Now that encampments are gone and violent crime is among the lowest this century, we are turning our focus to the quality-of-life crimes — like theft or public drug use — that impact many of us on a daily basis,. After spending the past two years ending downtown encampments and bringing thousands of people into shelter, Johnston described a new approach to people with mental health and substance issues and recurring criminal records. “For those who are willing to accept treatment, we will keep them out of our criminal justice system entirely,” he said in the speech. “But for those who refuse services and continue to commit crimes, we will hold them accountable, and work with our partners in the criminal justice system to direct them toward services and treatment as part of their sentence.”
Nice article. Hard to believe that it's taken this long to honestly face this problem. I don't think, though, that "moral hazard" means what you think it means.
You’re right. “Moral challenges” might have been a better fit. I was trying to convey that one is forced to decide as to what is the right course of action instead of spacing out and listening to podcasts.
Meaning was very clear :-) Just playing a little "Princess Bride" stuff early in the morning.
If you haven't read it already, you may want to read "The Science of Second Chances." It touches on addiction within its broader focus on crime and the criminal justice system. It emphasizes the need for evidence-based/data-driven strategies when formulating and revising public policy.
Thanks for these observations, Terry. I'd also recommend another article in the NYTimes, July 7th, titled, "Estonia Won the War of Fentanyl. What Came Next Was Even Worse."
There was vigorous discussion in the comments about the idea that "People will have to stop wanting to use...That's the only way it ends."
Childhood trauma, joblessness, mental health issues, lack of purpose, lack of hope, need for connection, boredom, capitalism, aggressive dealers -- all among the things discussed as reasons people start using.
Is anyone ignorant of the risk and cost of addiction? Some take the chance anyway; it must meet some need.
I really appreciate learning more about the solutions San Francisco is trying, these were new to me. The framing about someone with a deep addiction as comparable to a person with Alzheimer's is very interesting.
So glad that the wonderful, beautiful city of San Francisco seems to be turning a corner. I visited family there almost yearly, until they moved to Texas in 2018. They lived in an apartment in the Mission District, and the last time I visited before they moved, they had people doing drugs in a tent one step from their front door. While out for a walk, I steered my niece’s stroller around a passed-out person holding a crack pipe. They often had human feces by their front door as well. Things were clearly headed downhill at that point.
Thanks Terry ! Appreciate your observations! Bruce
The bleating of the activist crowd like Chavez will be deafening
It seems they have too much invested in their narratives to ever admit they are wrong about anything.
That’s a good way to put it. Discourse has gotten to this point where any changing of your mind— even when new evidence or facts arise— is some admission of failure instead of growth.
There's a lot of brain science that confirms someone addicted to drugs probably won't be able to make good choices, or be able to stick to those choices. You have to get clean first, and that also often times means leaving the environment you're in and not being surrounded by enabling people.
Housing alone will not solve the problem and I think it's obvious that the dozen plus shelter/addiction/outreach/social services non-profits are not doing much, to say nothing of incompetent governments like the city and county.
Terry, As I think you already know, I lived in the SF Bay Area from '77-'84 - the period immediately before I moved to Minnesota. One of the things that I don't think a lot of people realize is that literally none of the antisocial, criminal, and addiction-related behavior - NONE OF IT - that contributed to the Daniel Lurie electoral victory was "new". When I lived there, all the same things were going on. It's just that they were going on almost exclusively in two specific areas - the neighborhood known as The Tenderloin, and the one then known as "South of Market". The latter is a very different place, today. It has undergone significant re-development, including that it is home to the SF Giants' beautiful still new-ish ballpark. What HAD changed, between '84 and Lurie, is that unacceptable behaviors/lifestyles (or whatever label one wants to apply) had spread from those two areas of The City to pretty much the entire northern portion that businesspeople, tourists, and, to a lesser extent, residents, think of as *being* the heart of San Francisco. Eventually, something had to give, because the "brand" of The City was being destroyed.
When you are out there, asking questions, you may want to ask not only how they are turning things around, but also, just in case it's all that OUR politics will allow for in the short run, what recommendations your hosts may have as to how to avoid the *spread* SF experienced of these problems from largely just two regions to having them basically throughout all the "best" parts of The City. Not because keeping bad situations in certain neighborhoods is a good thing - it's not, it's coldly cynical at best - but because anything they can tell you about how that diffusion occurred, and how they would prevent it if they could go back in time and change policies, may be informative or useful in other ways.
My trust in the MPD to help more than harm precludes me calling them to assist, except as a last resort. San Fransisco's approach is the right one, these people are ill and if we had compassionate publicly funded universal health care like most industrial nations, the logical thing to do would be to call an ambulance. But our health care system does not even do right by people who are "conventionally" sick. To expect it in its current form to care for all the addicts churned out by capitalism's many built in flaws and injustices is a stretch. Nevertheless, kudos to San Fransisco officials for figuring out some mechanism to make this work. Thank you for reporting on this promising solution and I look forward to more discussion toward similar implementation here in Minneapolis.