Summary

Michael Shellenberger argues that homelessness has increased in San Fransisco over the past 15 years not despite, but rather because of progressive policies. Progressive cities have gone beyond merely tolerating homelessness, drug dealing, and crime to actively enabling them. The underlying problem isn’t a lack of housing or money for social programs but rather an ideology that designates some people as victims. The solution? Emphasize temporary sheltering, stricter policing, and mandatory mental hospitalization.

Key Takeaways

• Homelessness has increased in SF despite $61k/person/year spent to combat it
• Too much focus on harm reduction and not rehabilitation / abstinence
• 6 reasons progressives ruin cities:
  • Divert funding from shelters to permanent housing
  • Defend right to camp and break laws
  • Attack journalists, other policy makers for being racist and inconsiderate
  • Reduce penalties for shoplifting, public drug use
  • Prefer homelessness to involuntary hospitalization
  • Misattribute drug + mental health problem to poverty + policy

Notes

Chapter 1

• Prop C: Tax on SF business to generate funds to combat homelessness ($15m/y)
• Most homelessness driven by economic forces
• SF homeless ’05: 5,404 → ’20: 8,124
  • Higher chronically homeless
  • Higher unsheltered than NYC etc.
  • 50% addiction + mental health issues
• Sheltering programs haven’t worked for SF
• Despite common opinion, homelessness still heavily driven by addiction + mental illness
• Estimated $61k / yr per homeless person on care, emergency, outreach etc.

Chapter 2

• $32k / yr per homeless person on housing
• Homeless move around looking for food, shelter, safety, lack of law enforcement

Chapter 3

• Shelter vs permanent housing
• SF focusing on housing while NYC shelters 95% of homeless (much cheaper)
• SF: 1+ billion / year on homelessness
• Only 20% of prisoners due to drugs
• Cost of heroin addiction: $51k / year in lost productivity, medical etc.
• SF: ’67 summer of love

Chapter 4

• Leading # of preventable deaths: overdose
• Too much focus on harm reduction and not rehabilitation / abstinence
• Can’t just give money to homeless (drugs)

Chapter 5

• Amsterdam solved problem by instituting 1 strike policy, rehab or jail
• Restricting access to drugs / removing stimulus is most important

Chapter 6

• 1/3 of homeless are mentally ill
• 1/3 of jailed are mentally ill

Chapter 9

• Severely mentally people should be allowed to be put in asylums / rehab clinics without their consent
• Contingency management: Keeping housing for good behavior is effective treatment for mentally ill
• Dementia is grounds for conservatorship but severe mental illness is not
• Argument is that severe mental illness is more treatable, dementia tends to worsen
• Medication often more important than housing

Chapter 10

• Rape, assault, robbery down 1/3-2/3 from 1980 to 2010
• Success sequence: graduate from high school, live in family with 1+ full time worker, children after 21
  • Only 2% in poverty, 70% middle income (3x poverty line)
• Social safety net programs reduce poverty from 29% → 16% (2014)
• Opioid abuse rate is only 1-8%

Chapter 11

• Adolescents who enjoy doing something dangerous: 50% → 43% (’91-’15)

Chapter 16

• Pain: prevent us from damaging our own tissue
• Shame: prevent damaging social relationships
• SF schools merit → lottery admissions
  • Just a scapegoat for racial disparity in primary school education quality
  • 69% white vs 17% black proficient in math

Chapter 17

• 6 reasons progressives ruin cities:
  • Divert funding from shelters to permanent housing
  • Defend right to camp and break laws
  • Attack journalists, other policy makers for being racist and inconsiderate
  • Reduce penalties for shoplifting, public drug use
  • Prefer homelessness to involuntary hospitalization
  • Misattribute drug + mental health problem to poverty + policy
• Why have they been able to increase control in light of this?