In my city, we have what most people describe as a homeless "problem". At the least, it is an issue. I've been badgered, harassed, asked politely, chased, and helped (pulling car out in traffic), for the sole purpose of securing a buck or two by the the homeless folk running around here.
They sleep on benches, under them, in parks, on sidewalks, in/around bushes, and everywhere else. They are, at a minimum, an awful eyesore in an otherwise attractive downtown area. They populate all the exits to the highway and many of the stoplights around town. I have even seen two or three of them operate in shifts on one particular exit and they hide their stuff/each other behind the shrubbery about 50 meters from the exit next to a wall.
The homeless badger every third person or so walking down the street for money. Many of which I have seen walk right into a convenience store and spend said money on alcohol. Which has led me to think that giving them any money only exacerbates their alcohol/drug problems. So I have refrained from giving them money at all. This got me thinking that if everyone did the same, the homeless would stop congregating downtown or lessen their activities significantly.
Then to take that a step further - their are homeless shelters and groups of people that "help" the homeless giving by feeding them, passing out tents/blankets, etc.
There is no doubt that the homeless put a damper on our downtown businesses. When you have homeless people coming up to you, while you're eating outside, and asking for money and then "if you are going to eat that," there is definitely a problem. That happened to my friend last year. My friend owns a restaurant downtown and is constantly running off those that badger clients or sit at the outside tables running off potential clients (in some cases literally). This has led to loud arguments and an assault charge/arrest against a homeless man. All of the incidents run-off clients who obviously wouldn't want to deal with an incident where yelling/cussing/assault is involved.
Anyway. I have decided not to give them any of my money anymore. And I know for some of the homeless, they are mentally handicapped. Although, someone could argue that most of them are based on different criteria. But, and this may not be very Christian of me, I was thinking that many of them wouldn't make the choice to be homeless if it wasn't so "easy" to do so. They can always get a free meal, at least twice a day anyway. They are also provided an number of beds to populate.
Those that don't get a bed are provided sleeping bags, blankets, and a tent to set up in a particular spot they use under an overpass. This has been a point of contention and the "tent city" was literally cut down by fire officials because it was a "fire hazard." I think it was an excuse by city officials who are fed up with the problem but largely have their hands tied.
Now thinking like an economist, if you increased the "cost" of being homeless in the area, there should be less homeless around. Right? I stopped giving them money. If everyone stopped doing it - that is one less perk, therefore increasing the cost of being homeless. Taking that a step further - if they stopped feeding/clothing/housing homeless people, most of those people (those that make the choice to be homeless, not the mentally ill) would not choose to be homeless. Personally, I am starting to believe this is the most ideal situation. Increase the cost of being homeless. While you will not eradicate the homeless problem, you can make it a lot less appealing to most of them.
Is that a poor attitude to have or does it make sense?