From The Cheap Seats: It’s Time for Some Tough Love

One of the biggest issues during the recent elections in California was the persistent problem of homelessness. In full campaign mode, candidates mirrored voter concerns. Incumbents voiced vague plans to address the matter, challengers kept up with their attack lines.

The issue is very evident in fears about public safety, the biggest manifestation of which was the 68%-32% win for California’s Proposition 36. The success of that measure will soon begin to restore some sanity to charging and sentencing for drug crimes and theft and should affect criminal behavior. 

Unfortunately, now that the election is over, we are likely to see a return to business as usual, with elected officials dodging serious action. The problem is acute and getting worse — rhetoric and task avoidance won’t solve it.

Government “outreach” will not be an effective substitute for the constraints of traditional mores and community life. Instead of cultivating resilience and accountability, public policy has unintentionally created a system that normalizes and even incentivizes homelessness as an acceptable way of life. This must change.

What California needs is an awakening to a simple truth: homelessness is a perverse symptom of societal dysfunction and diminished personal accountability. It’s not just a matter of bad luck or high housing costs. It’s a reflection of the fraying fabric of society—weak family structures, waning community ties, and the fading role of churches and other stabilizing institutions.  

This social decay cannot be reversed quickly, if at all, so our policies toward the homeless should be intended to yield less of this pathology, not enable more.

California’s approach to homelessness has been too soft. We’ve seen a heavy focus on the provision of resources and support but there’s been no emphasis on accountability. Quality-of-life laws have been widely unenforced, and while it’s important to show compassion, there’s a big difference between empathy and enabling. Offering a hand up is noble; offering endless handouts without expectation of change can do more harm than good. 

Both state and local governments need to enact practical measures to deter people from “living rough” as the easy way out of whatever mess their lives have become. Providing support without accountability enables the homeless lifestyle, creating a feedback loop where public parks and city streets turn into de facto campgrounds. We need policies that make it clear that street life is not sustainable. There is no incentive to change when there are free meals, lenient enforcement, and minimal expectations.

The default mode in California seems to have been to expect Sacramento to address the problem. We need to diversify our policy responses, to overcome the tendency of the bureaucracy in California to think big, with programs and rules that constrain local action and give the appearance of constructive action by dispensing big bucks. 

Sacramento must get out of the way so that local governments can craft their own approaches to engaging the homeless, encouraging or pressuring them into the custody of county governments. The U.S. Supreme Court gave the local approach a boost with its 2024 decision in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, enabling localities to crack down on the petty violations committed by the homeless. Our counties must put money into mental health, drug treatment, and law enforcement so that local agencies have access to the resources they need.

Deterrent measures can work if implemented thoughtfully. Enforcing quality-of-life laws doesn’t have to mean punitive measures; it can mean requiring engagement with services and programs as an alternative to fines or arrests. The goal shouldn’t be to punish people for being homeless but to cause them to access the help that’s available.

California has spent billions on homelessness, yet the problem persists. Clearly, it’s not just about throwing money at the issue but about spending it wisely. We need to drag people, kicking and screaming, back into the mainstream. Doing so we are likely to discover that our money is better spent on law enforcement (police, prosecutors, courts, and jails) than on funding non-profit generosity.

Ultimately, solving homelessness in California will require a blend of compassion, practicality, and careful analysis. It’s not an easy fix, but it’s a necessary one. Homeless policy in California needs a good dose of disincentives against “the life”, coupled with public programs that are shown to work. We need leaders to shed their faux compassion and instead show genuine concern for the people who elect them.

It’s time for some tough love. Californians should demand that elected officials build disincentives for homelessness into their policy regimes and be accountable for achieving measurable improvements.