This won’t be popular.  As usual, I was listing to NPR’s Morning Edition today.  They had an article about long term housing for the homeless in New Orleans.  It was nice and warm feeling, especially the part about the blind man who used to live in a house with friends, but now lives in a nursing home.

What disturbed me was another part that was intended to be warm and fuzzy.  They told of a success story of Tyronne Smith, an artist that because homeless after Katrina and lived under a bridge.  Now he had a 3-bedroom apartment that he only pays $80 per month.  He is overwhelmed to have a roof again, he isn’t so depressed, he’s painting again, and he even sold a few paintings at two shows at which he exhibited.  Great, right?

My problem is simple.  Tyronne Smith is single.  No family living with him, no children, no one.  Yet he has a 3-bedroom apartment.  Couldn’t some family, even one with a place to stay, make better use of the 3-bedroom apartment?  I’ve also heard stories of families with several children living in a 1-bedroom apartment.  They’re glad to have a place, but mighty cramped.  Imagine the line at the bathroom in the morning as they (hopefully) prepare for school.

Beyond that, I’m disappointed in the premise of the program.  To get into free or very low cost assisted public housing, all newly-build housing I might add, you do not need to show that you’re willing or able to sustain yourself.  You could have severe mental illness, drug and alcohol addictions, etc. and still get free or very inexpensive housing.  $80 for a 3-bedroom apartment?  That’s what I call extremely inexpensive.  To quote NPR’s article:

“Unlike in other programs, these people are not required to get off drugs or alcohol, or to get their mental illness under control before they can move in.”

So even if you cannot afford to purchase your medications for your mental illness, or you get them for free but don’t bother to take them, you can still find money to purchase illegal drugs.  So keep purchasing the illegal drugs with they money you would have spent on housing and food.  And speaking of food and other necessities–these groups are complaining that Congress hasn’t given them the requested $70 million to buy food, medicine and other necessities for the homeless, even though they seem able to find money for cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs.  Last I heard, illegal drugs were not cheap–expensive even.  I’ve never understood this.  People who are chronically unable to manage money suddenly don’t begin to be money management wizards because you give them money.  This is reminiscent of the debit card debacle from the early Katrina days, when guys were using their debit card at strip clubs.

These groups are moving homeless people into housing without solving any of the issues that caused them to be homeless in the first place.  They claim that having a home is “therapeutic”  in and of itself.  Once you have a home, things will magically get better.  Once the New Orleans and Louisiana governments get their act together, they’ll be the ones to resolve the underlying issues that caused the homelessness in the first place.

I just don’t buy it.  Is homelessness a problem?  Of course it is.  Is this the best solution?  I don’t think so.  I believe that people need to solve the underlying problems first, then be given the chance to be a productive member of society again.  Get them off of the street, assist them with their medical/mental needs, help them get a job, then help them get their  own housing.  This is positive reinforcement, not simply giving you things and hoping you don’t continue to fail.

We don’t need to restart the failed welfare systems of the 1960-80’s.  We fixed it once, let’s learn from those mistakes and not go down that cliche’d road again.