Published on August 11, 2024, 12:30 am

In a stern warning to cities and towns turning a blind eye on homeless encampments, California Governor Gavin Newsom has declared an executive order that threatens non-compliant regions with funding cuts. “The days of side-stepping the problem are over,” Newsom stated firmly. “We’ve gone around in circles long enough with claims of court restrictions; that’s not valid any more, so we have this clear executive order: Deliver on your mandate.”

Despite investing $24 billion during the past five years on solutions for homelessness, California is puzzled by why many areas within the state are still combating this acute issue. Municipalities point out there’s no credible data available to guide them about what strategies work and what fails.

A review of expenditure on homeless initiatives released in April advised the state to reevaluate the monetary effectiveness of its homelessness programs. This recommendation came from State Auditor Grant Parks in a letter penned to Gov. Gavin Newsom and other legislative members.

Critics argue these administrations are far from attempting meaningful interventions. Homeless advocacy groups echo similar sentiments, observing that expenditures are not being funneled into practical solutions like additional shelters or affordable housing units.

The “housing first” strategy is a costly model which places long-term street dwellers—many who grapple with mental health issues, substance abuse disorders amongst other serious health challenges—directly into subsidized housing while connecting them to supportive services. Doubts persist about its effectiveness in significantly reducing the number of people living in homelessness.

Notably, addiction presents a complex aspect of this crisis that cannot be plainly solved by housing provisions alone. There’s consensus among experts that even comprehensive support services fall short without the individual displaying genuine desire for rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court’s Grants Pass verdict has given the green light for cities and states to eradicate homeless encampments. However, questions remain about where these displaced individuals should go—compounding the gravity of the crisis further. Cities across California are vehemently resisting Newsom’s directive to dismantle tent cities, which has led to a confusing combination of zones applying and ignoring eviction policies. This uneven enforcement spells more confusion for the homeless population about where they can and cannot reside.

According to attorney Shayla Myers—who engages in local homelessness initiatives at the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles—the order is making it increasingly difficult for individuals grappling with homelessness to find safe spots without violating any laws.

A balance appears urgent between enforcement strategies that restrict illegal outdoor sleeping and scrutinizing existing spending habits. A notice from the San Francisco Police Department implies a rather relaxed approach toward homeless law enforcement. They “encourage” personnel to equip people experiencing homelessness with information about shelters, but it isn’t mandatory.

There may not be a definitive “solution” to combat homelessness that doesn’t involve some form of institutionalization or therapy for many affected individuals. Addressing mental illness necessitates careful consideration due to the complexities involved in determining who poses a potential threat to themselves or society—a task deemed unfair on medical professionals, calling for major reconsideration of current methods used to incorporate such individuals into communities. But priority one stands firm: Remove them off the streets.

As a rule, we should strive towards a harmonious coexistence by proactively addressing dire societal issues such as homelessness based on empathy and understanding borne out of genuine Christian worldview principles while remaining informed through trusted news networks that uphold real news values.