When permanent agricultural civilization came about, its struggles included what to do with waste humans. In nature, groups simply left behind those who were of low utility; with fixed dwellings and agricultural jobs, the useless were simply made into an underclass.
Since that time, civilizations have tried to figure out what to do with their waste humans, groaning under the load of more of them because with someone else taking care of the basics of life, waste humans go to jobs and buy things, producing more of themselves with reckless sexual activity.
At the point where civilization decay becomes visible, the waste humans are so numerous that many of them wander the streets in an alcoholic or drug-addicted stupor, and since people fear being left behind, the voters make it mandatory to care for these people, effectively subsidizing them.
If you have ever lived near a homeless camp, you will be familiar with the problem of handouts. If you give them food or money, they will set up shop nearby and stay there until driven away. In the meantime, crime, vandalism, bad hygiene, and garbage increase.
The soft-hearted rationalizers currently weep and wail a great deal about actions taken to drive the homeless away from properties owned by someone else who presumably does not want decay nearby, and they make an emotional appeal against common sense:
Volunteers with a group that has been feeding Houston’s unhoused population since 1994 are facing a potential $80,000 in fines after a crackdown by local police.
Like most things championed by the saprophytes of civilization, this one has a one-dimensional optical appeal: it looks bad to be ticketing people who are trying to help with a very sad problem that has been with us since the dawn of time.
With a little analysis, however, we can see the problem: whatever you subsidize increases, and whatever you tolerate persists. If you hand out sandwiches to the homeless, they will eat and then find a place to bed down nearby in case there are more sandwiches tomorrow.
Free sandwiches allow them to spend the rest of their income on alcohol and drugs. The states that give out the most free stuff to the homeless now find that they have huge homeless populations who are dwelling in tents and RVs surrounded by great heaps of stuff they scavenge.
No one would object if you were leading the homeless fifty miles outside of the city and giving them free sandwiches. At that point, you might as well give them free alcohol and drugs, too, to keep them there; homeless people tend to have mental health problems and are a risk to normal people.
It seems that our friends in Canadia are talking about how the voters are slowly learning this lesson:
Residents have to deal with the litter of used needles, crack pipes, condoms, vomit, feces and more due to their proximity to these centres. Yet, because these incidents, and the litter, don’t happen at the centres, they aren’t counted as being caused by the facilities and their operations. But they should be; they must be.
These facilities, which not only give people a place to inject hard drugs but also hand out needles and other related paraphernalia, now also provide pharmaceutical-grade opioids. The sites act as magnets for users and for the drug dealers who prey on them. The impact of these centres can’t simply be measured by the experiences of those who use the facilities, but must also include the impact on residents who live near them and deal with the consequences.
If you subsidize bad behavior, it will move in permanently and expand. Fifty miles outside of town, this would not be a problem, since no kids would get diddled, cars broken into, or sidewalks get excreted upon.
Whenever you visit an American city, ask where the homeless center is. It will be in a terrible neighborhood, although frequently the neighborhood was not nearly so bad until the center showed up. Where the free food is, the waste humans congregate, and destructive behaviors follow.