Some describe the homeless quagmire as whack-a-mole.

It fits nicely into the growing acceptance of victimology.

Their advocates often contend the homeless are victims of the system.

Those fed up with the dilution of communities contend they too are victims of the system.

Guess what?

Both sides are right.

But since it is more comfortable — and easier – to wrap one’s self in the self-righteousness of victimhood, we allow the culture war addicts blind us to the root of the homeless problem in California.

At the core is an institution shallow on follow through.

It has the attention span of a humming bird sipping Red Bull non-stop.

And it has elevated buck passing to a high art hiding behind rhetoric.

The problem?

It is not the 9th District  Court of Appeals.

It is not those that believe NIMBYism trumps society.

It’s the California Legislature.

But wait; aren’t they a victim like everyone else of the court system?

No, they aren’t.

Unlike the 39,029,314 other Californians that don’t occupy a seat in the legislature, they are not at the 100 percent mercy of court rulings.

They have been empowered by the California Constitution — and under the umbrella of the federal constitution — to enact laws.

Yes, those laws must ultimately pass constitutional muster in a court.

But guess what?

The legislature has the power to reshape the law within the confines of the constitutional parameters enforced by the courts to alter how society is governed.

Yes, there are some “basic” rights in play.

But as courts have demonstrated since ethe dawn of the republic, no right is absolute if there are mitigating circumstances also rooted in the constitution.

A woman couldn’t vote in California in 1870, but they could in Wyoming.

An 18 year-old couldn’t vote in 1960  in the United States, but they could in 1974.

It was legislative bodies — just as the founders intended — that changed laws. Not the courts.

The courts role — when such changes are challenged — is to decide whether they pass constitutional muster.

As much as it may seem, gun ownership is not a free-for-all in the United States. It has been evolving since 1786.

You may believe they aren’t restrictive enough and change isn’t happening fast enough, but that is the system playing out.

No one can accuse the California Legislature — which is controlled/dominated by one party as is all the constitutional offices at the state level — of not trying to craft changes to gun laws in a bid to reduce the carnage on our streets,

Not so much when it comes to the carnage involving the homeless.

Do not misunderstand. The legislature spends money on homeless solutions like a sailor on a 72-hour shore leave between back-to-back assignments that put them to sea for a year at a time.

What they don’t do is devise laws connected to behavior that can change the protectory of the homeless problem.

Such laws run the gamut from dealing with mental illness to public drug abuse and finding ways that protect constitutional rights of everyone  without wholesale trampling on the rights of one side or the other.

They also must include laws that set and determine when the minimal threshold of the basic needs to live are met.

Such laws would enable local authorities to legally  force homeless that eschew basic options such as an available bed in a shelter — or stay in narrowly specific protected areas on land in the public domain  for outdoor camping — to take advantage of them or keep moving.

While that seems to be the intent of 9th District court rulings, the California Legislature hasn’t tried to codify it to give jurisdictions a higher degree of certainly that if they invest the dollars and time, they can ultimately address quality of life issues the homeless create for a community that fall into low-grade criminal activities such as trespassing

This is key given cities such as San Francisco and Oakland are finding out that half of the homeless population has no interest in utilizing available shelter space, working to get off the street, or even limit camping in narrowly restricted areas on public property.

Leaving California at the mercy of those that reject reasonable options to address their situation in varying degrees, is akin to the legislature not acting to put laws in place that restrict the reckless and destructive behavior of drivers that imperil the safety of others.

 Right now, the homeless do have a place to go in Manteca, Turlock and many other cities where they can find a bed.

But many chose not to.

The reason: They don’t want to follow the rules or are incapable of doing so.

Sorry, but we all have to follow reasonable rules even someone experiencing mental health issues at school, a workplace or at home.

If not we’d have non-stop chaos on roadways, in schools, in workplaces, and anywhere that comes to mind.

This is a state of 39 million plus individuals and not the playground of those who see themselves as the absolute center of the world whether it is because of mental health or addiction issues or being self-centered.

The legislature isn’t doing the hard part of their jobs which is fashioning laws involving the homeless that give local authorities that follow specific guidelines the ability to essentially lead the proverbial horse to water that doesn’t want to drink.

As such, they have conferred de facto sacred cow status on the homeless.

Just like Dorothy who basically wallows in self-pity about her lot in life in the opening of the Wizard of Oz, the California Legislature has always had the ability to empower local jurisdictions to effectively deal with homeless issues in a fashion that actually delivers more than just minimal results.

If they only had a brain, heart, and courage.