美国大城市流浪汉治理问题高下对比

陌上美国

Telegram channel，欢迎订阅(下载app修改privacy设置；拷贝地址用浏览器打开（微信打开无效）；点击“join/进入”):

https://t.me/MoshangUS

陌上美国推特

https://twitter.com/MoshangUsa

陌上美国YouTube频道（email登录YouTube，订阅）：

https://bit.ly/2Xg3NNF

原标题：What Do We Do About the Homeless?

我们该如何对待流浪汉（无家可归者）？

这是我们所面临最棘手的公共政策问题之一。如果你住在大城市，尤其是在西海岸，你真的是每天都要面对它，而它似乎一天比一天糟。为什么？

让我们从几个事实开始：

首先，该词本身具有误导性：无家可归根本上并非一个住房问题，它是人的问题。导致无家可归的主要因素是毒品成瘾和精神疾病。根据UCLA加州政策研究所的数据，约莫四分之三住在汽车、帐篷和街上的人患有严重精神疾病、毒品成瘾，或两者皆有。

其次，尽管有着这些疾病，无家可归者其实对自己想住在哪做着理性的决定。毫不意外，他们搬到所能找到最纵容他们的环境。你的城市对无家可归者有吸引力，他们就会争先恐后来到你家门口。

位于洛杉矶和卡尔弗城交界的威尼斯大道地下通道就是个好例子。它是洛杉矶县成千上万的混泥土建筑之一，但有个奇怪的细节：洛杉矶这边充满了帐篷，而在卡尔弗城那边空荡荡的。为什么？

因为两座城市有不同的公共政策。洛杉矶实际上将公众露宿和毒品使用合法化了，而卡弗尔城依法办事。

这种模式——无家可归者去往政策环境最纵容他们的地方——在西海岸上上下下都可瞥见。在旧金山县，估计有30%无家可归者是在其他地方变得无家可归之后移居到那里。在西雅图市，这一数字为 51%。

《旧金山纪事报》估计每年有数以百计无家可归者迁往湾区，因为「人们预感这里是个避难所，他们不愿意参与那些旨在让他们摆脱并远离街头生活的项目。」

乍看之下，这似乎毫无道理。为什么居无定所或无稳定收入的人会搬去全国最贵的城市之一？但在无家可归者的世界，这完全合理。这是因为他们的行事动机与一般市民不同。

在一次对西雅图无家可归移民的研究调查中，15%说他们是来获取无家可归服务的，10%来是为了合法大麻，还有16%是过路的，他们在「走走看看」，决定在此扎营。但这显然低估了最大的吸引力：街头露宿、毒品使用和财产犯罪的实际合法化。

如前任西雅图公共安全顾问斯科特·林赛所展示，该市如今是人口众多的无家可归「多产罪犯」的栖息地，他们做出财产犯罪以满足自己的毒瘾，但很少因为这些犯罪被刑事司法系统追究。

那么，不断增加的无家可归者是我们无可避免的未来吗？如果我们的目标是让无家可归生活尽可能地有吸引力，那答案是肯定的。如果我们的目标是真正帮助无家可归者，答案是否定的。

休斯顿市长希尔维斯特·泰纳是民主党人，但他对无家可归者的应对措施截然不同于他洛杉矶、旧金山和西雅图的同僚。「让人们流落街头是完全不可接受的；这无利于他们，也无利于城市。」泰纳说。

休斯顿的政策是泰纳称之为「严厉的爱」措施的绝佳例子。该市为长期无家可归者建造了住房，成立了一个非营利伙伴联盟，并游说了州政府提供更多精神健康与成瘾服务。

与此同时，泰纳严格禁止了公众露宿，并在全市开展活动，劝阻市民给乞丐钱。结果是既具指导意义又令人惊奇的。在过去八年里，休斯顿的无家可归人口减少了54%，而在西海岸城市则大幅飙升。不同政策，不同结果。

当西雅图政客反对用软水管冲刷布满粪便的人行道，因为「软水管是种族主义的」，休斯顿在法庭上争取清扫露营地的权利。当加州进步派们推动设更多毒品注射站，将950美金以下的盗窃非罪化时，休斯顿不仅让盗窃，还有侵犯性行乞、擦窗行乞和其他「阻街行为」都有后果。

如这座德州城市所示范的，任何规模城市的地方领袖都能够真正意义上减少无家可归者，通过一个结合了同情心与和合常理执法的策略。

如果各市不再允许公众露营与公开使用毒品，并开始起诉财产犯罪，它们将能更成功地重新引领无家可归者远离自毁的生活，并通过精神健康治疗，戒毒和工作培训过上有希望的生活。

这是我们都想要的，不是吗？那为什么我们不去做？

我是克里斯托弗·鲁弗，曼哈顿研究所的高级研究员，为 PragerU制作。

What do we do about the homeless?

This is one of the most vexing public policy problems we face. If you live in a big city, especially on the West Coast, you literally face it every day. And every day it seems to get worse. Why?

Let's start with a couple facts:

First, the word itself is misleading: Homelessness is not primarily a housing problem. It's a human problem. The primary drivers of homelessness are drug addiction and mental illness. According to data from UCLA's California Policy Lab, approximately three-quarters of people living in cars, tents, and on the streets suffer from serious mental illness, drug addiction, or both.

Second, despite these conditions, the homeless actually make rational decisions about where they want to live. Not surprisingly, they move to the most permissive environment they can find. Make your city attractive for the homeless and they will beat a path to your doorway.

The Venice Boulevard underpass on the border of Los Angeles and Culver City brings home this point. It’s one of thousands of concrete structures in Los Angeles County, but there's a curious detail: the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.

This pattern—that the homeless go where the policy environment is the most permissive—can be seen up and down the West Coast. In San Francisco County, it's estimated that 30% of the homeless migrated there after becoming homeless somewhere else. In the city of Seattle, that number is 51%.

The San Francisco Chronicle estimates that hundreds of homeless individuals move to the Bay Area each year because of the "perception that it is a sanctuary for people who are unwilling to participate in programs designed to get them off, and keep them off, a life in the streets."

At first glance, this would seem to make no sense. Why would an individual with no shelter or stable source of income move to one of the most expensive cities in the country? But in the world of the homeless, it makes perfect sense. That's because they operate under a different set of incentives than the average citizen.

In a research survey of homeless migrants in Seattle, 15% said they came to access homeless services, 10% came for legal marijuana, and 16% were transients who were "traveling or visiting" when they decided to set up camp. But this dramatically understates the biggest draw of all: the de facto legalization of street camping, drug consumption, and property crime.

As former Seattle public safety advisor Scott Lindsay has shown, the city is now home to a large population of homeless "prolific offenders"—people who commit property crimes to feed their addictions but are rarely held accountable for those crimes by the criminal justice system.

So is ever-increasing homelessness our inevitable future? If our goal is to make life as attractive as possible for the homeless, the answer is yes. If our goal is to actually help the homeless, the answer is no.

Houston mayor Sylvester Turner is a Democrat, but his approach to homelessness is a world apart from his counterparts in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle. "It is simply not acceptable for people to live on the streets; it is not good for them, and it is not good for the city," Turner has said.

Houston's policy is a perfect example of what Turner calls a "tough love" approach. The city has built housing for the chronically homeless, formed a coalition of nonprofit partners, and lobbied the state government for more mental health and addiction services. At the same time, Turner has enforced a strict ban on public camping and promoted a citywide campaign to discourage citizens from giving money to panhandlers. The results are as instructive as they are stunning. Over the past eight years, Houston has reduced its homeless population by 54% while it has skyrocketed in West Coast cities. Different policies, different results.

Where a Seattle politician opposes hosing down feces-covered sidewalks because “hoses are racist,” Houston fights in the courts for the right to clean up encampments. Where California progressives push for more drug injection sites and have decriminalized thefts under $950, Houston imposes consequences not only for theft, but for aggressive panhandling, window washing, and other "street obstructions."

As this Texas city has demonstrated, local leaders in cities of any size can meaningfully reduce homelessness through a strategy that mixes compassion with commonsense enforcement.

If cities stop allowing public encampments and open drug consumption and start prosecuting property crimes, they will have much more success redirecting the homeless away from a life of self-destruction and toward a life of hope through mental health treatment, drug rehab, and job training.

That's what we all want, isn't it? So why don't we do it?

I'm Christopher Rufo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for Prager University.