There was a time when the job of government was understood to be fairly simple: protect the public, maintain order, provide essential services and create the conditions in which citizens can build decent, independent lives.

Apparently, some in Los Angeles have decided that list is no longer ambitious enough.

A proposal presented during public comment before the Los Angeles City Council called for “free hygienic sexual relief clinics”— essentially government-provided private spaces where homeless individuals could engage in pleasuring themselves or consensual sexual activity. (I thought they already did that out in the open). To its credit, Councilmember Traci Park quickly rejected the idea and made clear that Los Angeles would not be constructing taxpayer-funded “public sex huts.”

Good.

But the very fact that such a proposal could be seriously presented to a city government struggling under the weight of a homelessness crisis ought to provoke more than a passing laugh. It should provoke outrage.

Los Angeles does not have a shortage of problems. It has people sleeping on sidewalks. It has filthy streets, encampments, drug addiction, untreated mental illness and neighborhoods struggling with declining public order. Taxpayers are already being asked to spend enormous sums addressing homelessness, yet the crisis stubbornly persists because the root cause is not being addressed.

Amid all of this crap, someone thought the next logical government service should be taxpayer-funded sexual accommodations.

This is what happens when progressives lose sight of priorities.

Compassion has been redefined to mean accommodating people indefinitely rather than helping them reclaim their independence. We are increasingly told that virtually every demand must be met because refusing it is somehow cruel or discriminatory. Meanwhile, the basic expectations of civilized society – clean streets, safe neighborhoods, personal responsibility and respect for public spaces – are treated as optional.

That is backwards.

Homeless people deserve dignity. They deserve access to shelter, treatment, food, sanitation and a genuine opportunity to rebuild their lives. But dignity does not mean transforming government into a concierge service for every human desire.

There is a profound difference between helping someone survive a crisis and institutionalizing the crisis itself.

Government should not be in the business of making homelessness comfortable. It should be in the business of making homelessness temporary.

Every dollar spent by government represents money taken from someone who earned it. That money should therefore be subjected to a simple test: Does this expenditure address a genuine public need, and does it move us toward a better community?

A sexual-relief facility for the homeless fails that test spectacularly.

What is next? Government-funded entertainment? Concierge services? Personal luxuries? At some point, compassion becomes absurdity – and absurdity becomes policy.

The people of Los Angeles deserve better than a government that constantly invents new ways to accommodate dysfunction while struggling to perform its most basic responsibilities. But then again they keep electing those same people!

No, not every human desire is a government entitlement but taxpayers should not be expected to fund every conceivable service.Compassion does not require surrendering common sense.

And no, homelessness should not become a permanent lifestyle that government endlessly subsidizes.

The rejected “sex hut” proposal may ultimately amount to nothing more than an eccentric idea raised at a public meeting. But it represents something larger: the dangerous willingness of modern progressives to confuse accommodation with compassion and spending with solutions.

* * * * *

Last week I referred to the state Legislature as the insane asylum. More crazy bills have surfaced since then.

Understand that Assemblywoman LaShae Sharp-Collins, a black Democrat from San Diego, appears to hate police as she seeks to handcuff them all the time. She is sympathetic to thugs from her constituent communities and thus crusades to strip police of their tools to make us all safe.

To give you an idea of who this woman is, when Sharp-Collins was a professor at San Diego State University in 2022 she called for her students to dress, act, talk, and present themselves as their “slave persona” in class, including using broken language.

Her latest crusade is a bill conceived at the eleventh hour, rushed through the Legislature as the session barrels toward its deadline, and aimed at a piece of equipment that, by her own admission, isn’t even being used by police in California.

Assembly Bill 2760 would prohibit law enforcement agencies in California from using wearable electroshock devices – essentially Taser-like shock gloves – and prohibit state and local agencies from purchasing them with state funds. Sharp-Collins introduced the measure only days before the Legislature’s Aug. 31 deadline, using the increasingly familiar Sacramento tactic of “gut and amend” to transform an existing bill into something entirely different and fast-track it through the process.

The timing alone should make Californians skeptical.

The Legislature has had an entire year to consider laws governing law enforcement technology, use of force and public safety. Yet somehow this particular threat became an emergency with the clock already running out. The legislative equivalent of a smoke alarm went off precisely when the building was closing for the night.

The bill is part of broader efforts by California Democrats to curb Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities and follows on a report that the feds intend to purchase thousands of the gloves, known as Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters (G.L.O.V.E.s) for use nationwide at a cost of $20 million for “distraction” and “de-escalation” purposes.

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a San Diego Republican, notes that Sharp-Collins’ bill is not just about a wearable electric shock device but the language of her bill. He points out that Section 13660 defines a trigger operated taser gun as one of those devices police wouldn’t be able to use. DeMaio calls her a liar for saying it’s only about gloves. I tend to believe him. It’s a supreme bait and switch tactic.

Sharp-Collins should appreciate the inherent value of Tasers because it allows police to subdue criminals without shooting and killing them! It also reduces the risk of physical injury to SUSPECTS as well as police officers having to subdue uncooperative or deranged folks, some of whom are armed with knives or bats or other weapons.

Her policy would hinder officer safety and be ineffective as a message to the federal government.

* * * * *

More insanity from Sacramento: Legislators are banning many of us from having potted plants within one foot of the outside of our homes! The state wants to ban any vegetation within five feet of our homes. You can’t make up this crap coming on the heels of banning 70 percent of car tires sold in California.

The California Board of Forestry enacted the “Zone Zero” fire-safe landscaping rule and it come with fines.

The rule applies to “high fire-risk communities” and must be complied with within three to five years.

It bans shrubs, vegetation, lawn, mulch, firewood, wood fences and gates, sheds and no flammable debris near any house.

How about the state remain focused on the public lands that are not being cleared of fuel for wildfires instead of micro-managing what residents keep on their own property? Why not let adults be adults rather than the Nanny State force their dictates on all of us with increasing frequency?

This column is the opinion of Jeff Benziger, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of The Ceres Courier or 209 Multimedia Corporation. How do you feel about this? Let Jeff know at jeffb@cerescourier.com