The Outstater
‘The Unhoused’: A Sign of the Times
GOVERNMENTS ARE GOOD at making warning signs of all sorts — “No Left Turn,” “Cattle Crossing,” “Detour,” “Masks Required” and so forth. We propose hanging one in the Indianapolis mayor’s office. It would read, “Moral Hazard Ahead.”
Let me explain.
I depend on my Indianapolis Star for the latest harebrained scheme to perfect mankind. It rarely lets me down. Earlier this week I found this headline: “Housing Is Key to Reducing Recidivism,” under which I learned that the mayor’s new policy position is that if homeless people had homes there would be no homelessness.
To steal a dissuasion from J.D. Vance, do these people ever listen to what they say? For to arrive at that conclusion requires leaping chasms of logic, casually redefining key terms and defying human nature — in other words, just another day’s work for a lame duck Democratic mayor.
“We encounter too many people in our community whose only involvement with the criminal justice system has to do with lack of housing,” agrees the local George-Soros prosecuting attorney. He offered an example: An “unhoused” woman (the new term for “homeless”) confided to him that she couldn’t address her addiction or mental health issues without knowing “where I’m gonna sleep at night.”
That’s it, that’s the argument for spending $250,000. They have invented a right to having a place to sleep even if your predicament is the result of a string of unfortunate personal choices. Sad cases all, but maybe what they need is a bus ticket to somewhere the weather fits their clothes and their life strategy. And it isn’t as if they were thrown out of their apartment by a gang of undocumented Venezuelan immigrants.
In any case, Indianapolis has pledged that quarter million for a pilot program to be administered by one of the many diversity-minded, well-connected, quasi-governmental nonprofit agencies, NGOs they call them. How do you suppose that’s going to work out?
So-called halfway houses have historically served a function, giving the down-and-out time to think things over and get themselves together. Also, there are people who need concentrated medical and psychological help, and sometimes children are involved — entirely different issues.
The distinction is that these successful programs were not pushed by campaigning prosecuting attorneys or mayoral hacks using government monies and unaccountable authority. They certainly weren’t promised as a simple matter of social justice. Rather, they were managed by gimlet-eyed church ladies working on a limited budget and inclined to throw the unhoused back on the street if insincerity was detected on the path to self-reliance.
The mayor’s program, though, is quite different. It includes what economists call a “moral hazard.” Here is a clinical explanation, courtesy of Chatgpt:
“The term refers to a situation where one party (the unhoused) is more likely to take risks because the consequences of those risks will be borne, in part or in full, by another party (you). This imbalance arises when one party (the unhoused again) is insulated from the consequences of their actions and, as a result, has less incentive to act responsibly.”
Does that sound like a formula for success? It’s more like a magnet for societal disaster, an institutionalized, demand-driven nightmare for turning Indianapolis into a San Francisco without trolley cars or oceanfront views.
Post the warning sign next to the one advising you to take a number and wait your turn. — tcl
Comments...