Michael Medved Versus Tent City

Or, The Bellevue Blues

I was listening to the Michael Medved program earlier today in which he interviewed a representative of a Jewish charity in Bellevue, Washington that has set up a tent city for the homeless. The city is apparently on private grounds and all individuals are welcome so long as they abide by its guidelines, which include a prohibition of alcohol consumption.

Medved questioned the wisdom of such a settlement, pointing to an instance of drug abuse found in what he said was a prior tent city, presumably at the same location.

I found the entire line of inquiry troubling, because it was difficult to understand where Medved expected the poor -- the truly indigent -- to live. I understand the argument that public funds should not be spent for social welfare if charities can provide similar assistance. But in the absence of an explanation, I don't see how Medved proposes to deal with the issue of homelessness if both public and private means of assistance are deemed unworthy for different reasons.

I may have missed his solution, since I did not tune in for the entire hour of his discussion. However, unless such a solution is given, it seems to me that he is calling for an abandonment of assistance of all kinds to the needy, and I fail to see the compassion in that.