Living On Common Ground
Does it feel like every part of your life is divided? Every scenario? Every environment? Your church, your school, your work, your friends. Left, right. Conservative, liberal. Religious, secular. From parenting styles to school choice, denominational choice to governing preference, it seems you're always being asked to take a side.
This is a conversation between a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist who happen to be great friends. Welcome to Living on Common Ground.
Living On Common Ground
Can Compassion Have Conditions?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Homelessness is one of America's most divisive issues, with battle lines seemingly drawn between compassion and accountability. But what happens when a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist sit down to tackle this thorny topic? Surprisingly, they find significant common ground.
Our conversation explores whether public assistance should come with obligations, and how government incentives might actually worsen the problem they're meant to solve. Drawing from personal experiences working with homeless populations, we examine the "homeless industrial complex" - a system where nonprofits and agencies secure massive funding while homelessness continues to rise. Are these organizations more focused on maintaining their existence than solving the underlying issues?
We challenge simplistic narratives from both political perspectives. The right-wing notion that homeless people "just need to get a job" ignores complex realities of mental illness, addiction, and economic hardship. Meanwhile, progressive narratives often highlight exceptional cases while minimizing factors like substance abuse that affect many experiencing homelessness. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
Our most compelling insights emerge when discussing effective approaches. Incentive-based assistance works best when individuals view their situation as temporary. Shelter rules requiring sobriety create powerful motivation for behavioral change, while "housing first" models may inadvertently remove these constructive incentives. Programs like Habitat for Humanity demonstrate how ownership and personal investment create sustainable solutions that preserve dignity.
Beyond policy debates, we arrive at a fundamental truth: our personal responsibility to help others shouldn't depend on our political beliefs. As one host's grandfather wisely said, "The big take care of the small and the strong take care of the weak." Whether through community organizations or individual actions, we all share an obligation to our neighbors in need.
Join us for this thought-provoking conversation that moves beyond partisan talking points to find practical, compassionate solutions to one of our most pressing social challenges. Subscribe now and help us build a world where we're all living on common ground.
©NoahHeldmanMusic
https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com
©NoahHeldmanMusic
https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com
Does it feel like every part of your life is divided, every scenario, every environment, your church, your school, your work, your friends, left right, conservative, liberal, religious, secular? It seems you always have to take a side. This is a conversation between a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist who happen to be great friends. Welcome to Living on Common Ground. Do you think if we met today? We would still be friends.
Speaker 3:I don't know but we're friends now.
Speaker 4:A mob is no less a mob because they're with you, man. So what? We won a few games and y'all fools think that's something, man. That ain't nothing, y'all. And you know what else? We ain't nothing either. Yeah, we came together in camp, cool. But then we're right back here and the world tells us that they don't want us to be together. We fall apart like we ain't a damn bit of nothing, man. How you doing, we good.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, excellent.
Speaker 6:So we're going to jump right in. For Krista's sake, we're getting actually close to the end of your initial list of things. Yeah, I'm going to have to come up with some more inflammatory remarks.
Speaker 3:Well, there's a couple that we can still talk about, so here's the ones that we haven't talked about yet.
Speaker 6:I call it 15 statements to make my friends hate me.
Speaker 3:There's more than that.
Speaker 3:Anyway so, all right, we're going to combine two of them, but I'm going to mention those last, because then we'll just use that right as segue in. So we still have coming up oppose all taxes in all places, at all times. We still have coming up environmentalism as a political practice has at its core a desire for control. So these are upcoming episodes, everyone. So you're going to want to make sure you tune in. And then the other one that's upcoming is the public school system is, at its heart, a government indoctrination system. Perfect, all right, those are all good. So the one we're going to talk about today, I actually combined two of your bullet points, okay. So the first bullet point is this the government should not be involved. Oh, nope, that's a different one. I'm debating whether or not we're going to do that one all right, because it we may end up anyway all right, too controversial, maybe.
Speaker 3:Well I think, that I think that we need to have some conversation about bringing someone else on when we talk about it. Okay, so how's that's that? For now, everyone's going to just wonder. They're not even going to listen to today's podcast. They're going to wonder what one I'm excluding. All right, so, because I'm not going to mention it until we can figure out who else we can bring on to have that discussion.
Speaker 6:Or until we have the discussion about if we're going to bring somebody else on or if uh, if uh, I have the right to my opinions, no matter who I am here's the thing hey, that might actually be a good topic too.
Speaker 3:Do you have the right to your own opinion? Um, yes, of course you do. You have the right to your own opinion, um, but sometimes, when you have topics and you're discussing topics, it's good to bring in and listen to a different voice and a different perspective.
Speaker 6:No, depending on the topic. Nope, no other perspectives but mine.
Speaker 3:Oh, you're going to be feisty, I can tell. All right, so, but here is what we're going to talk, and I combined the two. Yeah, public aid for homelessness should come with some obligation for the recipient, all right. And then, connected to that in my mind, was incentives change the behavior of the population. Therefore, it is not surprising that, on average, states which put more money into aid for the homeless have a higher homeless population.
Speaker 6:Okay, they're connected, right yeah, I think those are connected okay, all right, so um explain yourself sir uh, okay, well, I, I mean, some of this comes from starting backwards with the second statement.
Speaker 6:I think that I'm a lot more intimately acquainted with that concept, coming from California. Um, because California and many of the West coast States that um, I think I think most I don't think this is a surprise to anybody that um, uh, there are uh, large entitlement programs, or whatever you want to call them. I know that the term entitlement raises hackles and that's fine.
Speaker 3:You just showed your hand a bit.
Speaker 6:Yeah, and I, I know that that's fine, um, call it whatever you want to call it, but California, oregon and Seattle tend to have much higher amounts of their budget, percentage of their budget, go to what might be considered aid or safety net programs or what have you. Um, and so my, my contention is with that statement. It's a pretty straightforward statement. I think that on its face it's a, I mean, I, I would say, on its face it's kind of a um, a truism, like something that's like, okay, fine, but what are you? What's your conclusion from it? Right, that it's not really a conclusion, it's more of just like a statement of what I think, what is observed.
Speaker 6:I'm not sure that there's anyone that would argue well, maybe there are, but I don't.
Speaker 6:I don't really see the argument against the idea in general that incentives change behavior and disincentives change behavior and that when you apply those incentives on the aggregate, that you're going to get changes in the aggregate that, while we might not be able, we might not have the ability to predict, be predictable in principle, and so, um, you know, california has incredibly high, um, homeless populations, and now I know that, uh, some of the argument will be uh, it'll be a chicken egg question.
Speaker 6:You know, california has high homeless populations and so therefore they have to have high budgets for the aid. So that's where I would say, what enters into this conversation I think would be interesting to talk about is what has come to be called by some people the homeless industrial complex. Obviously that of course are. When you say nonprofit there, that means by and large they're federally and state funded. Um, that get established as agencies that have been established over the last, at least over the last two decades this probably goes back further but get established and then, once they're established, do not have an incentive to solve any kind of homeless problem because their funding would dry up and they're incredibly profitable and I have some um, uh, some clips of that's.
Speaker 6:That's kind of uh, evidence for this, but they're profitable. In a, they're profitable. Okay, I shouldn't say profitable, profitable is actually not the right word. Um, because these, these organizations, what they engage in is, uh, what libertarians would call rent seeking, which is where you have, um, the truth form of this is you have a market of goods and goods or services that are exchanged and the profitability or the prices of that of those goods and services get established by traditional supply and demand, which establishes rules or regulations around that market, and then this is the worst possible scenario provides funding for particular parts of that market. What it does is it creates unstable incentives for producers to, instead of provide some sort of service. Instead, those producers become profitable in as much as they can satisfy those regulations of that agency and obtain the grant money from that agency. And you'll see these director positions that you know, these director positions that are making like $200,000, $300,000 a year, and they just stay. They just move from agency to agency, or they move from nonprofit to nonprofit, or they stay in that same nonprofit forever.
Speaker 6:And the the question then is, you know, are we actually getting any kind of you know, change in the, in the measurements, in the, you know, in the, the, the performance measurements, right, we actually helping people?
Speaker 6:Um, and you know, I know, I just don't see it. I see larger problems in the states where we have larger budgets and I do think that, you know, there's something of a feedback loop, but I think that it's by and large due to greater incentives. And when I say greater incentives, I don't actually, I know that to the public who's not involved in these organizations, it seems like what I mean is incentives for the actual individuals who are living on the streets, and ostensibly that's what they're supposed to be for. Incentives for them, right, it's supposed to be, uh, to provide food or or whatever, um, but what it ends up being is because how are those individuals going to get those benefits? They have to interface somehow in order to get those benefits. And the government is not going to hire Jeff to go out and hand out dollar bills. So instead, the government, because that doesn't seem efficient right.
Speaker 6:I mean, the government's going to have to hire 20,000 Jeffs to go out and meet with maybe 100,000 people, something like whatever you know, so instead it makes a lot more sense to or it seems to be a lot more efficient to find a nonprofit that will do that and then give them the money and then they will go find the people.
Speaker 6:But I mean, you know, there there's uh news report after news report after news report over the last 10 years that billions of dollars have been poured into these, into these programs, and then they just disappear. You know, um, and they don't disappear. I mean, we need probably enough time between now and somebody studying it for the emotions to die down. And so for us to have kind of a, um, disinterested perspective on it, like a historian's's perspective, for people to be able to look at it honestly contracts with these nonprofits to provide some service that the public has deemed they want the government to provide, and what happens is the money flows out into a few pockets, people don't get helped. But then now you've created an incentive structure for for these organizations, um, and so, yeah, so that's that.
Speaker 6:Maybe that'll kick us off okay, yeah, there's a lot there, yeah, so um all right, you always let me talk so much longer than I think you're that, then I think you should probably let me talk. I get like halfway in and then you're like yeah just keep going well.
Speaker 3:Like you know, I'm trying to become a better listener give me enough rope.
Speaker 6:Is that what you're trying?
Speaker 3:to know. No, my grandfather used to say something that he heard a president say. I guess one time it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're an idiot than to open your mouth and prove them right yeah, my grandpa used to say that too. It's a pretty good one, and now, as I'm reading Stoicism, I feel like they probably actually just stole that from the Stoics at some point.
Speaker 6:I clearly ignored my grandfather.
Speaker 3:Well, I'm a preacher for a living. I talk all the time way too much, so okay, a couple things. Way too much, so okay, a couple things. One is I appreciate you clearing up the idea about the obligation, right? I still think.
Speaker 6:Oh, I didn't really get to that. That's a different thing.
Speaker 3:Well, you mentioned sort of like that there should be some sort of obligation on for the nonprofit, for the organization itself, in order to continue to receive the grant funding right. Did you or did I make that up?
Speaker 6:No, I mean, I guess I did kind of say that that's not actually what I meant when I was talking about the, when I wrote that statement. So are you?
Speaker 3:talking about, like the average person on the street in order to receive some sort of assistance, that there needs to be some kind of obligation.
Speaker 6:Yeah, that's what the statement meant.
Speaker 3:Okay, and I don't really have a problem with that in principle.
Speaker 6:That one I'm actually kind of ambivalent on. I could make arguments both ways.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I don't have a problem with that in principle, because I also think about the old saying. Boy, I'm just full of old sayings today. It's better to give a hand up than a hand out, and so if you could somehow tie First, time I ever heard.
Speaker 6:That was when I worked with Habitat for Humanity, one time Interesting, and it was the first time when I did the little work event one. Saturday. And I only did it one time right. And I like held a piece of wood or something and I didn't do hardly. But they told us about the organization. I really really liked the organization. I had not realized that the people who were getting these homes they had to like they were actually.
Speaker 3:They helped build it.
Speaker 6:They helped build it. They have to borrow the money to actually buy it. It's at favorable interest rates for sure, private lending the money to actually buy it, it's at favorable interest rates, for sure, private lending, but it's like they have a lot of responsibility before they walk in, and it's not a 100% success story, but I actually I can understand why Jimmy Carter was so involved in that Sure.
Speaker 3:It would be interesting I could do a deep dive on Google and find out what their success rate is, because I do think that when you do something yourself, you buy a house.
Speaker 5:You may take more care with that than when you're renting an apartment.
Speaker 3:Yeah Right, there's some ownership in it.
Speaker 3:There's there, okay. So I don't have a problem with that, because I, ultimately, I think that if you build in incentives, another good saying is you know, you give a man a fish, you feed him one meal, you teach a man to fish and he can begin to feed himself. Sure, it's all the same type of thing, and so, yeah, like we've even talked about that here. You know, at one point early on, when I was at Grace, we talked about building sort of like small individual family homes, like really small. Yeah, like really small.
Speaker 6:Yeah, like tiny home things yeah.
Speaker 3:For the purpose, though, of being a transitional place for people, and so, in order to do that to live there we would charge rent, but the rent would be going into a savings account for you, so that, when you were prepared to move out, you then had something that you could put down if you had to rent or whatever you had to do, right, but you also then had to attend classes to qualify for this, and so you would have had to attend a, uh like a how do you create a budget class, right, and then you would have to show a budget. How do you? How do you go grocery shopping? How do you create a grocery list? Right, so that you're not just quick, driving through somewhere every day which is going to destroy your income quicker than if you spend time putting together groceries right.
Speaker 6:That's the reason the dollar general is on every corner right.
Speaker 3:And so we talked about doing that kind of stuff and I was pretty excited about that and of course I say of course, obviously it didn't happen because we don't have that on our property. But I don't have any problem with that. I do think that and you mentioned the chicken and the egg, right, I think that that's a legitimate pushback to the statement of statement of now you're tying it to incentives, which is a different take on it, right, but to just sort of say in general that states with higher spending on aid have more homelessness, it's not necessarily a true statement.
Speaker 6:Right, you're saying that the correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation.
Speaker 3:right, we're talking about causation, causation, verse, correlation, yeah yeah, absolutely that's right, um. And. And then you mentioned california, right and okay. My experience with california has been two trips, one for work and one for vacation. So obviously I'm not the in sitting in this room, I'm not the california this room, I'm not the California expert Doesn't mean I can't say anything. All right, yeah, go for it, because, like we talked about, earlier, I'm allowed to have my opinion 100%.
Speaker 3:So is it fair to say that there is it's a high housing cost in California with a large population. Is that fair? Cost of living is high.
Speaker 6:Cost of living is high if you average it out. Yep, yeah, okay.
Speaker 3:What is also fair to say that there's a large disparity between the extremely wealthy and the extremely poor.
Speaker 6:That would be difficult to say. It depends on the areas, but I see what you're getting at, sure.
Speaker 3:Right. So economic disparities, availability of of affordable housing, right, I think all of those things contribute to the fact that there would be, in a state like California, a high level of homelessness. So then, in response to the homelessness, there becomes a higher and higher level of government aid. So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?
Speaker 6:Can I respond to that that?
Speaker 3:yes. It was it was a statement with a question mark at the end of it Okay.
Speaker 6:So a couple of things. Number one you'd have to. So just number one it's a misnomer that there's no places in California to live in that would resemble. Probably not that it's going to resemble Alabama or maybe Kentucky, but a lot of the US in terms of cost of living, a lot of the US in terms of cost of living. For sure, when you average it out, the cost of living is higher in California, there's no doubt. But a lot of that is like the Bill Gates effect of, like you know, if there's 200 people in a room and then Bill Gates walks in the room, the net worth, the average net worth of the room just increased by several billion dollars, right? So it's somewhat like that that there's large swaths of california where the cost of living is a lot more reasonable.
Speaker 6:Now, having said that, I'll just that's just kind of a throwaway, I'll give you, I'll give you that one. Um, I'd have a couple of things. Number one I think to run the experiment you would have to do studies, which have been done, that try to track how many people come from out of state to California to be homeless, which is an enormous number. I don't have those numbers off the top of my head, but those studies have been done over the last 15 years or so, that it's very clear that now I think that homeless advocates would say, well, that's because those states that they're coming from cut their programs right.
Speaker 6:They would say like, well, yeah, because they don't have the type of assistance in those states and so they've had to move to california where they have assistance, which is a legitimate, would be a legitimate argument, um, but I think I think that that argument would just prove my point that it is that it is incentives and disincentives um moving the population around now, and I do think that the um, the last part of this, in response to what you said, I think kind of gets to probably the crux of different ways of viewing the world, though, because I fundamentally reject the idea that any more than, say, somewhere around 5% to 10% of the homeless population is there simply because they were living a completely normal life, everything normal, and something went bad, or they couldn't afford their home.
Speaker 6:The housing prices made it so that they couldn't afford their home and so, therefore, they were all shoulders and just walked out onto the street and had to do it. What are you going to do? And I know I'm being a little flippant, but my point being that, obviously, anytime that this well, I shouldn't say obviously Anytime that this topic comes up, what I tend to hear is either people who you could say let's just make it simple People on the right saying they just need to get a job, they just need to contribute to society, they just need to, they just need to, they just need to, and then people on the left saying I met this guy one time when I was working with the homeless and he was a doctor and he had three PhDs.
Speaker 3:I've got all kinds of stories I could share, yeah.
Speaker 6:And he broke his leg and it got infected and he had to have it removed and he couldn't work anymore and then his health insurance dropped him and now he's been on the streets for 25 years. What are you going to do? He tried so hard, right, and I think both of those he tried so hard right.
Speaker 6:And I think both of those neither one of those actually get to the heart of it. The right, the people on the right who just lean on, they just need to get a job. They just need to stop doing drugs, they just need to, they just need to, they just need to. It's I just. I don't have any hope in that, I think partly because of my adolescence and the people that I hung around with in my adolescence. Um, you know, there is a way. I wouldn't say it this way, but there is a way in which some people might say that I lived on the streets. I mean, I stayed on the streets for a couple of weeks, but that was cause I run away to work.
Speaker 6:If you, if you lived for a while on a friend's couch and I don't know if that calls you that that puts you in that category of experiencing homelessness okay, so this is another thing I will say that you don't have to actually not have a roof over your head to be homeless yeah, and this is another thing that, like I, I have difficulty with and I understand, like I, I have difficulty with and I understand why it happens, but I have difficulty with this. It's but keep, but keeping the same term, that I think it's really difficult to know what we're even talking about.
Speaker 6:to know, what we're even talking about. So you can make arguments about one aspect of it that the other person doesn't really realize that that's what you're talking about. So this is a good example. Technically, sure that makes sense, I mean you're sleeping on a friend's couch.
Speaker 3:You don't have your own home.
Speaker 6:You don't have your own home, well, neither do my kids, right? Right, so, and it's a legitimate thing to say you don't have your own home, but of course that's not what we're talking about, right? And so you know, I don't think. Okay, so reasonable expectation to quote-unquote, solve this problem. My friends on the left, who always have the anecdotal story that's a sad sack story that just kind of left them in that situation, left him in that situation.
Speaker 6:I think that is a way of not looking at the actual the real the, the 80 percenter problem, right, um, and so you know, I don't think we're here to try to fix the problem. I'm trying to say that I, um, that's just my response to I really do not. That's just my response to I really do not, um, I just really reject the idea that if we could just build more houses, boy we'd, we'd be fine. So that's the housing first uh model and I just, I just don't, I don't buy it.
Speaker 3:So I, I, uh, I know people that, um, have chosen to live homeless. Okay, for whatever reasons. So you've got that. There are people out there who have mental struggles and they have ended up homeless Because, whether it be, they don't have any family, there's no family support, there's no whatever, and so you've got that starting in the late 60s of closing down mental institutions and moving all mental health treatment to outpatient, all of it, and so they're all.
Speaker 6:I mean it sounds bad to say it like this because it sounds dehumanizing and I understand, but there is a huge chunk of people that would have been in mental institutions that are not Right Now. Is that better? I don't know. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have shut them down, but we did Right. We did house them.
Speaker 3:Yes, there was huge problems. We exacerbate the homelessness problems.
Speaker 6:And now we exacerbate the homelessness problems.
Speaker 3:So my thing, where I'm thinking is I don't think that there's one solution, Sure, Just like there's not one type of person. Yeah.
Speaker 3:Right. So mental health issues, maybe. Maybe the solution is to create housing for that, with medical care, right? Maybe? I think that again, when you talk about your friends on the left or whatever, who will share the story about the doctor and the amputee and all that kind of stuff, well, as you're talking, I've got people that I know like that, right. Like I knew a kid who he was 18 years old and he's homeless because he aged out of foster care and his foster care parents weren't getting money anymore and they just kicked him out. He was still in high school, right. So now what does he do? He's experiencing homelessness. I met him in a shelter. Um, you've got.
Speaker 3:I met a guy who was an older man on a fixed income and he had been renting his entire life and the house that he was renting. The landlord came in and said I'm tripling the rent and he found himself homeless. Right, okay? Um, one more example uh, a guy who worked really hard through a series of, uh, unfortunate events found himself homeless. All that being said, each one of those people the young man, the old man and the middle aged guy who just found himself, every single one of them would have probably in my in the few hours I talked with them, I would imagine would appreciate some sort of incentive based assistance right. The young kid would have been more than happy to receive assistance in in turn for you know, uh, whatever you know, you're going to have to educate yourself.
Speaker 3:You're going to have to get a job. You're going to have to. You know, fine, fine, Uh, the older man, in order to receive assistance, you're going to have to do this. Fine, because he didn't like, he viewed this as a temporary situation, and I think that that's part of the conversation, too, is I think that the incentive stuff in order to receive assistance only works if you're viewing your situation as temporary. If this is your long-term plan to live off of assistance, you're not going to do anything as an incentive Like no incentive is going to. You're not going to participate in any sort of incentive program.
Speaker 6:So you're saying that the only and okay and granted.
Speaker 3:Now let me just say this too that was a sweeping generalization and maybe even a little hyperbolic, but I think it makes a point.
Speaker 6:Yeah, but it sounds like what you're saying is that the only shot you've got at the incentive system having an. I'm saying there is a shot but not everybody's going to take you upon it. Right, but the only shot is if they're viewing it as temporary. I think that that Because certainly some people might view it quote unquote as temporary, but also just not.
Speaker 6:With any motivation, not want to, or whatever, right, and this is the thing. The other aspect of this that we haven't talked about yet is I don't I've really can you imagine any more than five to ten percent of the homeless population not being significantly addicted to substances?
Speaker 3:yeah, I think that's another another big oh yeah, when when I I mean otherwise you don't have rules when you're spending the evening at a homeless shelter where if someone is showing signs of being high or drunk, they are immediately kicked out, and you're always having to kick people out.
Speaker 6:Well, and what's interesting, by the way, your rules that you're talking about, which I'm in full support of, it seems to be an incentive to stay sober in order to stay in that place.
Speaker 3:That only happens out here, man Well and okay, I hear what you're saying the whole housing first idea in the West Coast it is you should never have any A friend of mine works in I forget the government agency, but it's housing in New York and we've talked to her about this issue and when she heard that we can throw people out because they're drunk or high, she was like, oh my, it blew her away that we could do that. I think that's an incentive program.
Speaker 6:It is it is, and this is one of the things that I'm saying when I make that statement that assistance should come with some responsibility. I am literally meaning some something, something Sure, something, sure Something.
Speaker 3:And I wrote I don't have any problem with that in principle, Like I really don't, especially if it's an opportunity to help better yourself, and I really like building in sort of incentives like that. The other interesting thing, too real quick about the shelters is it's been my experience that the persons that are staying there end up policing themselves.
Speaker 6:Yeah, they're holding each other accountable to it and uh, it's really interesting I think that I absolutely, and I think that that is because the standard is set from the top. This is the, this is the expectation and it's's what happened. This is why I mean, I know, I know you always, you always like, chuckle and roll your eyes when I say this, but everything rises and falls on leadership. I think, when it comes to this because it is because I think and I've had some experience one time, one overnight, um, and I saw exactly what you're talking about I saw that there were a couple of guys who were regulars there, who policed everyone else and they made sure if it, they made sure guys that were getting out of control got back into control. If they couldn't, then they were, you know, reporting them and making sure that, like, you're not going to mess this up for us, right, but that's because the standard had been set for somebody first, for them, Right, and so then they took it up. You know, and I actually, I mean I think that that kind of setup is, it's not going to solve the problem.
Speaker 6:The, the programs that came, or the, the attempts to deal with this problem in like the, like late 80s, through the 90s and into the early aughts, they were exactly what you're talking about. It was all like the sober living. It was the. We're going to provide shelters, but but you have to get temporary housing, you have to get drug tested and that kind of stuff. And at least in the areas that I'm from, the response, or the reaction to that, was no, all we need to do and you can.
Speaker 6:I have clips that are saved of of Newsom, because Newsom has been involved in this for the last 20 years. Okay, because, for people who don't know he was the, he was on the San Francisco City Council first and then he became mayor of San Francisco, then he became lieutenant governor, then he became governor. So he's been involved in high-level California politics, actually before San Francisco, but he's been involved in this for a long time and he has been a proponent of the housing-first mentality and you'll hear him. He has the buzzwords perfect, which is housing solves homelessness. That's what solves it. Putting somebody over, putting a roof over somebody's head, solves homelessness.
Speaker 6:Well, I mean technically by strictest definition it does and that's what they rely on. Yeah, but what that really means is we need more money to go build more shelters, and there should be no reason that they can't get into the shelters right, which makes it again. This is I'm talking about this kind of rent seeking slush fund system that we've yeah.
Speaker 3:so then you know what does it behoove me to pay rent somewhere when, in reality, I could just quit my job and move in there?
Speaker 6:That's right Is that kind of what you're suggesting. That's right and the organization is making. You know a few people are making very high salaries. Plus it means building contracts going to their friends, sure Right.
Speaker 3:I thought that only happened on the Sopranos.
Speaker 6:Yeah, it means hospitality contracts. So for all the meals, all the sheets. Yeah, because of cash cow. It is a constant cash cow and also the fact that it doesn't actually solve the problem is a feature, in my opinion, not a bug, because then you need more right.
Speaker 3:So now, as you're talking about that, it makes me think about our prison systems, but that's not what we're talking about today, about being cash cows. Oh yeah, it's the same issue.
Speaker 6:I'm against private prisons myself.
Speaker 3:So is my daughter, and she knows way more about it than I do, considering that, I mean, it's what she's studying. So I had a couple thoughts. Yeah, so I had a couple thoughts. One is, again, I'm not opposed to any like having incentives. I do think that this is a huge issue, that somehow, I think in a lot of things, somewhere along the lines, common sense just gets thrown out Right Sure, thrown out right sure, like like, for example, I have a friend who I've got a lot of friends either from new york or that live in new york, sure, and I guess it makes sense. But, um, he, his mom, passed away and so he inherited her home where he grew up, in staten island, and he went up there and there were people living there in his house that had just squatted. Yeah.
Speaker 3:And they were destroying it Like they were. They were burning fires inside to keep warm because all the utilities had been turned off. Yeah.
Speaker 3:They're using facilities that don't like flush, yeah, and they're like all this kind of stuff, and legally he could not move them out. Yeah, because they have a right. That seemed interesting to me, right. And so, um, yeah, I have a tendency to land on the progressive side of things, but I also have a tendency, I think I hope, to say but at some point can't we be a little like, have some common sense in this Right? Or when we went up to stay a few years ago for Christmas, my brother well, denise's brother-in-law wanted to know which hotels we were looking at staying at, because the state had started paying for homeless persons to stay in the hotels. And so he was like you don't, you don't want to stay in that particular hotel because they're, you know, half of it is blocked off for homeless persons, you know.
Speaker 6:And um, well, and I think that, um, your, your, your example of the, the squatter that I mean, that is, that's just in California. That is an enormous problem.
Speaker 3:But it's so weird to me. Okay, could you imagine here in Tennessee?
Speaker 3:No, but, here's the thing If someone in Tennessee and I'm not saying this is right either, but if that exact same situation happened in Tennessee my friend shows up and there's people in his house. Same situation happened in Tennessee. My friend shows up and there's people in his house. He can look at them here and say I'm going home and I'm getting my gun, and when I get back you're on my property and you know what that means. So you've got about 30 minutes, because that's about how long it's going to take me to get home and turn around and that stands up in Tennessee.
Speaker 6:Yeah, well, he could do that, and if, even if he didn't want to do that, he would just make a?
Speaker 6:um, a call to the sheriff's office and they would come and get him out they would come and they would put them in cuffs and they would take them out for trespassing, for trespassing isn't that what that's called and in california, um, he would be arrested if he tried to, if he tried to open the door, because, see, now, squatter rights means that it's their home and he is technically a landlord, who is um, who is in violation of their right to privacy by opening the door.
Speaker 6:Here's the thing. This is what's important to this and I it's. It's fun to um to talk about how ridiculous it is and it is when you see the downstream effect but nobody sat down around a conference room table in a government agency or with legislators or anything and said you know what we need to do? We need to make it really easy for people to move into abandoned homes or homes that have not had anybody in there for a while, and allow them to then take it over, just by find finders, keepers what would happen if you guys had just gone on vacation while you were still living in california?
Speaker 3:yeah, and I decided I really liked your house and you guys were gone for two weeks and so while you were gone, I went in two weeks isn't long enough.
Speaker 6:There's a time frame. Yeah, this is the problem that comes up.
Speaker 3:I was just wondering how silly.
Speaker 6:This is in the public. The people are saying look, these landlords are raising our rent by three times. My landlord came to me and raised my rent by three times and he put a three-day pay or quit on my door. I didn't even. He didn't give me any time to appeal. There is no appeal, there's no appeal. And then three days later I was out on the street and I've got kids and my mom lives with me and my wife is battling breast cancer. And now we out on the street and I've got kids and my mom lives with me and my wife is battling breast cancer. And now we're on the street.
Speaker 6:Yeah, so you want some protection for that. And so then the lawmakers come in and they say we need to make sure there's an appeal process, and the appeals process is what ends up turning into what we now call squatters rights. It's because what they're not, they're not saying they now own the home.
Speaker 6:What they're saying is you can't remove them unless you go through the process. Okay, great. So what's the process? Is the process that I call the sheriff, and then the sheriff comes down and looks at a deed and three days later they're out of my home. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, because they deserve due process, because we don't know if you rented to them, and now you're just trying to pretend that you didn't. And now that process takes two months to get a court date, two more months to get you know what I mean.
Speaker 6:And so that's how it gets stretched out, where you hear these stories of people who are like the squatters were just in my home for like six months a year. Now they've completely destroyed it and there's nothing I can do. But the reason that I say that, or I bring that up, is that I understand. I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that vast majority of the time, the beginnings of these processes, they're not done for corrupt and evil reasons. These are done because people are trying to solve a problem that they think is a problem, and the nature of our political system is that the people who are making the rules, who are approving these rules, will not still be there in order to see the ramifications of those, or be held accountable for them, 15 years down the road. And so then you end up having these types of situations.
Speaker 6:Before we wrap up.
Speaker 3:Bring us back around, because I think I derailed us with that part of the conversation.
Speaker 6:But before we wrap up. I want to say this because I want to kind of draw a line. We've been talking about policy, government, these types of things, and I stand also have different views than I do about what, excuse me what government policy should be, what our society should be doing, what's the point of all you know and what the problems are, and all that kind of. We can have that conversation, but I I really think it's important to draw a line between, all right, as a society, what should we be doing and what? How do we fix this problem? Where do we think? Blah, blah, blah, and then what should I?
Speaker 6:do what's what's my responsibility in my soul, right, um, and you know, I think that's for everyone to determine.
Speaker 6:I think that's for everyone to determine.
Speaker 6:Obviously, I think that there are people who would have my position and then kind, have allowed that position, which I think is a correct position, to shield myself from my own personal responsibility, to my um, to the less fortunate my, my grandpa used to say one of the things my grandpa used to always say that I've tried to tell my kids is one of the very few things that I've like, consciously tried to like.
Speaker 6:This is a saying that's going to get into your head, um, that the big take care of the small and the strong take care of the weak. Always, that is the responsibility of being the big, that's the responsibility of being the strong. You don't, you don't get to be the strong to have the benefits of the strong. You only get the strong to take care of the weak. That's the only reason you get to do that. And so if I am fortunate, if I am in a good place, I have responsibilities myself, and I'm sure that I have allowed my public you know my positions on public policy to shield my personal responsibility, and that's between me and you know. Whatever God.
Speaker 3:Sure, yeah, stan Lee wrote it this way With great power comes great responsibility, that's right. Yeah.
Speaker 3:So would it surprise you to hear me say that I actually think the government should stay out of providing public aid, that I think it is the responsibility of us as individuals to come together and to take care of our neighbors, and I think that the reason the government has gotten so the government has gotten more involved, which has caused us to get less involved. Yeah, it's a feedback loop. It is right and that and so did the government create that own problem by getting involved, or did they have to get involved, right? Yeah?
Speaker 1:it's the same thing, it's.
Speaker 3:But I do think that, you know, if we, especially faith groups right and I'm not saying Christians, I'm saying faith groups, because it seems to me like built into the majority of our faith groups in this country is a concern for the less fortunate, then let's do it. You know, um, I would rather, I just think that would be a better way of approaching it than to just continue to throw money at it. Um, but I do think, I do think that we need to be compassionate and um and uh compassionate and not lose sight of the fact that when we're talking about issues like homelessness, we're talking about people.
Speaker 6:Yes, and I guess what I'm getting at is that I might think that guy that's on the street who's clearly high and is panhandling. I might think to myself, the reason you're here is because you made a ton of bad decisions and, yes, bad things happen in your life, but then you made bad decisions also, and blah, blah, blah, blah blah. I might have that in my mind. I think that it's still a legitimate thing to say well, lucas, in this moment, though, in this moment it doesn't matter, because he's still your fellow human in front of you and you're still in the position that you're in, and you know you're not making government policy here.
Speaker 3:You're standing in front of another human and you've got responsibilities, you know so what's it going to kill you to get a mcdonald's cheeseburger and share it with somebody? Yeah, all right. So do we have common ground on this?
Speaker 6:actually it's. I think we've got a lot of common ground on this. Um, I heard um a concern about government intervention causing more problems and also a feeling that, as individuals and as communities here, that we have a responsibility to our fellow neighbors, whether they are homeless or not.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and the whole thing. Try to use a little common sense, yeah, as much as possible, man All right. Thanks.
Speaker 6:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Thank you for listening to Living on Common Ground. Please follow wherever you listen to your podcasts and share it with your friends. You can also find a link to our social in the description. The more people we have living on common ground, the better the world will be.
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
The Bible For Normal People
Peter Enns and Jared Byas
Peter Rollins - The Archive
Peter Rollins
A Twist of History
Ballen Studios