When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Grants Pass case earlier this year, governors in red and blue states heaved a sigh of relief. Why? Because the Court had sanctioned an action they’d wanted to take all along: clear the unhoused out of cities and damn the consequences. The Court’s decision overlooked many ethical concerns, but the greatest was that it only acknowledged in passing that most cities don’t have enough shelter beds for the unhoused, while at the same giving states the green light to clear out homeless people from city properties without having to address the uncomfortable issue of where they should go. 

To be fair, Governor Newsom did make a mealy-mouthed attempt in his press release after the decision was handed down to say the right things about protecting the unhoused and finding them housing or some kind of shelter. But that was boilerplate, and his next decision showed those words to be as empty as homeless advocates said they were.

And lo, the edict came down from Sacramento: clear our cities of this blight, even if there is insufficient shelter or housing to accommodate those displaced by this putsch. Anyone who says Gavin Newsom is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal hasn’t heard his statements on this matter. Even Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, has criticized Newsom’s decision. Just because the Supreme Court has OK’d it doesn’t make it ethical. Just legal.

Ask the average homeless person what they would do if they were ordered to move on from their location, and the majority would say they would try to get in a shelter, but that if they couldn’t, they would either go back to where they were or find another spot to camp. Some wouldn’t even bother with shelters, either because of previous bad experiences with them, or because they prefer to take their chances in the outdoors, or because they are too mentally disordered to make sound decisions. 

The unhoused are an inconvenience, especially during election time or a major sporting event such as the Olympics. The easy call is to make them disappear, at least temporarily. The Court, in their decision vis-à-vis Grants Pass, gave the nation’s metropolises permission to make their own decisions regarding their disposition, without let or hindrance—not just at certain times, but any time. 

I keep remembering Charles Colson’s infamous quote from the Watergate era: “Kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out!” Thankfully, we haven’t reached that nadir of humanity. Yet. Because then I remember the Pullman Strike of 1894, in which at least 70 railway workers were killed while striking for living wages–just one of many documented instances in the early 20th century where militia or US troops were called out to put down striking workers. 

Then there’s Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his troops sweeping out the shantytown known as Hooverville, erected by WWI veterans whose benefits and bonuses were cut off or never paid. (In fairness, it must be said that, in less than four hours, they cleared the Bonus Army’s campground using only tear gas. No shots were fired at the veterans. But the gas canisters did start a number of fires, causing the only deaths during the riots).

It’s also interesting—and not a little horrifying—that California’s problem with the unhoused can be likened to the issue with coyotes. Both are treated like public nuisances, and both tend to scatter into smaller groups when met with force, which is why simply killing coyotes outright turns out to be a non-starter. And both groups resist being rounded up and placed elsewhere, tending to return to their origin points once the heat is off. But so far, no one with any sense is suggesting shooting the homeless. So far.

Will these birds come home to roost when Newsom is up for re-election, assuming he decides to run for Governor again instead of throwing his hat into the Presidential ring? It depends. It depends on how many Californians applaud him for taking a strong stand on homelessness, and how many are appalled by his “one size fits all” solution. 

This much is for certain: clearing out the camp sites and tent cities of the unhoused will not be a permanent solution. People, like facts, are stubborn things, and while they yield to the state-sanctioned force of badge and gun, once force is gone they will return, and the cycle will begin anew. Unless it’s broken.

How do we break the cycle? I’ve spent months writing about new approaches to the unhoused crisis: “tiny house” projects, supportive housing for the mentally disordered, ‘sweat equity’ and/or low-income housing via organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, and Universal Basic Income. All of these, taken together, could transform the lives of homeless Californians and potentially end the punitive punishments of jails and forced hospitalizations. But if the politicians in Sacramento lack the will to implement these programs, and the citizens of California fail to chivvy and harass them into compliance, nothing will change. And writers like yours truly will be saying the same things again,and again, and again.