Redeeming The Homeless Part Four: Redemption Towns & Government's Limited Role

“give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; 
teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”

Continued from Part Three.

In summary;

Part One shares my personal struggle that almost led me to a time of further self-inflicted pain and anguish, and a single person that would not give up on me and did whatever possible to help me from further injuring myself [the personal element of someone actually caring making a world of difference].

Part Two speaks of putting ourselves into the shoes of the homeless, or someone we dearly love, knowing very well we would do everything possible to help...money and time being second to that person's needs.

Part Three mentions government's actual role in society as defenders, providers and helpers of the defenseless, disenfranchised and helpless...and asks for removing what does not and has not worked, while introducing and reproducing what private citizens are doing for themselves in aiming at self sustenance.

In this part, we explore more difficult decisions after the most difficult decision of actually loving and caring for our broken brothers and sisters.

Land.

Land for food production and living space.

In Part Three I mentioned rent-to-own tiny homes, where the idea of personal value comes along with the help of a place to live.

This is one of many viable solutions that go beyond the publicly owned housing that very few people would prefer living in.

Eventual private ownership in place of public assistance is the necessary departure from public homes that are not valued by those who live in them.

Notice how public housing is usually avoided by others because of the connection with substance abuse, gang activity, deplorable conditions and other evidence of a broken society's end product: lack of love.

Putting back together people who have been broken on the inside is not something that mere money or new facilities can 'fix'.

Holding people's hands is key, much how that stray animal is comforted in several ways, so the human being needs to be comforted.

The stray animal doesn't care about the accommodations, but rather the attention and care given by its rescuer.

How much more do people respond to love and a caring attitude!

Regarding providing incentive in housing; the incentive (and risk of loss) from market forces brings a very different attitude regarding the living space; people take better care of property when there is an incentive (or possible loss) for them to do so.

Landlords know this lesson very well; renters who have nothing to lose usually do not take care of the property.

The tenant whose credit may be drastically hurt, or who may lose their deposit, are more responsible.

How has public housing been treated in the past?

That answer shows its eventual ineffectiveness.

An idea is to imagine a privately (or maybe publicly owned to a certain extent) common area (something akin to HOA's) with individual tiny homes eventually owned outright by those who are being redeemed back into society.

Maybe this could be a bridge between government and private efforts that build value in those being served.

What, where and whose land?

Empty state / federally owned lands beyond the metropolis, and spaces currently becoming vacant in the cities.

In the countryside; the kibbutz model (minus the military example at that article, but perhaps another market effort) is something to be considered.

Communities built on ancient realities (self-sustaining and built around agriculture) is advantageous in allowing for recovery, reflection and rejuvenation...and learning the the reality that all things come at some sort of cost.

In the city; have you noticed the change in the business model of brick and mortar stores?

Notice the growing empty spaces where large stores once dominated a shopping center.

This is because the purchasing of merchandise is increasingly going online, and this trend may not reverse on its own.

There is a grand opportunity for both public officials (government) and private individuals (humanitarian investors) to address the homeless situation RIGHT NOW with incentives for those being helped.

At the end of year 2016, voting citizens in the metropolis of Los Angeles passed a $1.2 billion tax assessment on real estate property owners to fund housing for the homeless.

After passing the taxing measure, decisions were being finalized regarding 'how' to spend the money.

Yet I don't read the basics of food production being included.

The aim is well intended: provide 'affordable housing'.

But nothing about building incentives (rent-to-own, for example) for those served, or teaching self-sustenance, or foster creativity in market participation.

Unfortunately, new trends and ideas that are realized among private citizens seem to always be realized too late in government, especially over-bureaucratized governments like the U.S. has become.

The 'American Dream' model of life, so vastly imitated the world over, needs revisiting and revising.

Here is a rudimentary break-down of expenses compared to income for the common consuming city citizen.

Notice the three biggest costs are the living space, utilities and food...the three points stressed in this series on homelessness.

With disposable income (monies that do not go to the basics), both governments and society is supported (taxes and redistribution of wealth).

Without empowering people, wealth is less widely distributed.

When government attempts to address the problems while not addressing the greater costs of living (with a call for more taxes and more government employment usually the 'remedy'), the basics to encouraging more wealth production and its even distribution is prevented and seems to be ignored.

This series on homelessness can be never-ending, for there are so many factors regarding what causes people to become homeless in the first place.

Mainly and obvious factors are ignorance of economics and ignorance of how money actually 'works' (and how it does not work, and why systems break down despite most people working to sustain it).

Since the majority of people are employees of others, we have a mass populous that is managed...and much of that effort is sadly mismanaged by people with too narrow of a perspective.

With renewable energy advances, the ability to grow food personally, and an aim to eventually own one's living space, there is a great opportunity to teach the most disadvantaged to garner a better leverage in the world.

So why doesn't government empower, or at least encourage, these current trends of self-sustenance found in the real world?

Why doesn't government encourage sustainability that will eventually produce more wealth in the long run?

Is it ignorance, incompetence, or is something else in the way?

A simple example: if the new housing projects mentioned by the City of Los Angeles are to be built without renewable energy solutions, then the projects do not address the issue of lowering costs besides moving towards a cleaner environment.

The homeless person's participation.

The redemptive person's participation in society is what I think should lead, not follow, the efforts to address homelessness.

There is a time to reflect on the past and what led someone to their homeless and broken state, but more importantly should be the overriding focus on the now and building hope for the future.

An exciting hands-on experience of working towards feeding oneself, a return to the natural order of mankind's relationship to and with nature, may be one such effort in grounding the repairing effort of the broken.

Growing food can also be a way for the homeless to participate in their journey back into society, with the presence of 'work' being fostered to offset the reality and expense of city life.

A free lunch can come at a cost, usually a government form to fill out and humility to endure...while dignity can be fostered and be a very powerful tool in building a broken self-esteem by food production.

The amount of people already homeless are currently being assisted by private donations (by first-hand private citizen encounters on the street, by benevolent private charities, government assistance and methods outside of integrity by some of the homeless themselves - crime).

Teaching people to grow their own food can lower the associated costs of many unmanaged efforts.

Those large spaces that once housed a Walmart, for example, can be repurposed for food production efforts, with tiny homes and recreational spaces for outdoor living (not repeating the stacking of human beings into housing projects of the past).

An adequate person per square foot ratio that circumvents overcrowding and prevents exacerbating food production per consumption is a step in the logically right direction.

This is an unpopular idea, I must point out right now, because it typically goes against the business model of excising full profit potential from people and goes against the profit motive that usually trumps logic and consideration to the human factor.

Tax deduction donation centers can be near a repurposed space where the public at-large can bring their gifts and benevolent offerings.

In essence, I am sharing a remodeling of the poor farm of a century ago, but re-imagined as several layers of redemption back into modern society dependent on the needs, mental stability and current skill level of those being served.

Perhaps some participants will never desire to leave the location(s), but after turning their life around, may desire to become custodians and managers of these locations (similar to recovered drug and alcohol addicts becoming counselors and role models to those hoping for recovery).

A learning facility can be next to the donation location where the latest innovations in food production, small housing, and small business ideas can be learned and shared.

These efforts may attract recent high school graduates or people who are simply seeking alternatives, but priority should go to those factually in need.

An adequate space intermingled among a variety of enclaves in a city where a particular demographic being served can help redeem those currently stigmatized, while also rebranding the public assistance stigma that can be humiliating for those needing help and avoided by those needed most.

Perhaps a new model of living can be realized that focuses on the basic necessities in life (people, food, shelter, community, small-scale local productivity).

Perhaps the motivation will encourage some of the redeemed to move out of the city completely and repeat the new life they've learned in these inner-city redemption towns in the countryside, building a variant between suburb and rural society.

Some of the locations can specialize in helping the less stable, while others may be geared for those who need little to no mental health resources, but instead a place to get back on their feet or pursue other alternatives (mentioning again certain locations helping younger people or those changing their approach to life).

With the many other ideas that can come to mind, proper people redemption is crucial.

This series of articles speak of the homeless topic, but they also speak to all of mankind...and man's attitudes towards one another.

Where is our personal integrity when we consider another human being as less valuable, or less worthy, than ourselves?

This is where equality under the law was a very noble mention, but is typically ignored because it takes personal responsibility to actually follow (and risk exposing ourselves to liability for transgressing the law).

The vagrancy and loitering laws that have been mostly ignored for the sake of people's freedom to drift need to be addressed.

In Part One, I mentioned that options need to be made available...with the option to drift not being one of them.

I mentioned jail as one of the options for those who are found homeless and refuse to be housed or brought into a circumstance that room and resource is offered.

This may come across as quite harsh, or a civil rights violation, or a draconian manner of dealing with a humanitarian problem, but such is not the case.

The absence of law and order is what caused the increase in homelessness in the first place.

How is this so?

Taking the Icelandic response to crimes at the heights of economic centers, one should not also ignore the crimes occurring in the valleys of poor society.

In Iceland, those responsible for disrupting society's trust in government and crashing the financial system were punished.

The law and justice system 'worked' in Iceland because the law was enforced regardless of 'who' the lawbreaker was.

The same has yet to be said elsewhere, shamefully including the United States.

Debt forgiveness was mentioned in Iceland, with debt restructuring a solution while letting the culprits feel the pain they caused others.

Without integrity in law enforcement, people may be apt to ignore their conscience in respecting and acknowledging legitimate government, and the laws already present on the books.

Civilization and civility is recognized by abidance to law.

The highest law to follow is love for one's fellow brother and sister, and consideration for how one's personal habits affects others is important to be conscious about.

It is not loving to allow people to drift, while people fall over each other to rescue a stray animal.

Homelessness and loitering depreciates property values, drives away new and current business.

The reality of the term gentrification means a community is in need of regeneration and redemption.

How is such a falling into poverty and disrepair?

Loving others and upholding good laws.

Certain aspects of modern government (and individuals) have already lost their legitimacy and integrity because they live by a different standard than others.

This is where it isn't only the homeless who need redeeming, but several people throughout society's class strata.

The newspapers throughout the world are full of local, city, state and federal government duplicity and impropriety, so those examples could be easily referenced.

In the city I currently reside, the police budget was curtailed years ago, which in turn curtails the new hiring of police and places a strain on the law enforcement effort.

The most dire crimes are immediately dealt with, and since there is less police to deal with all criminal behavior and all calls, the minor or 'petty' crimes fall to less of a priority...and law enforcement begins to fall into private hands (the opposite direction government desires to promote).

This is how societies become so loosened and wayward that law is less obeyed and ignored.

This is yet another factor further flaming the lawlessness found on the streets today, with the homeless falling victim while other homeless people becoming the victimizers and purveyors of lawless activities.

Final thoughts in this Addendum article.