Not Much Can Be Done About Homelessness

Society is skeptical, sometimes fearful of, and pretends homeless people don’t exist. Homelessness embodies the social taboo of not belonging. Homeless people represent social disorder because they conduct private activities in public space. Yet, while “(h)omeless people are nearly always in the public, ..[they are] rarely counted as part of the public” (Mitchell, 2014). So, what can be done about homelessness? Not much, I’m afraid.

Chic young ladies use a homeless man as a photo prop.

In most cases, the first objective in alleviating homelessness is to address the materiality of the problem. “In Latin America there is a shortage of 17 million housing units…”(Kellett & Moore, 2003). India needs approximately 30 to 70 million housing units to house its citizens properly. In Los Angeles County 517,000 more units of affordable rental housing are needed to reduced homelessness and the last step towards homelessness, housing insecurity. Intuitively, affordable, or in some cases free housing is the best start for reducing homelessness. But as we’ve learned over the course of the semester, addressing the materiality of homelessness is just putting a “Band-Aid on a broken leg.” Providing a roof over a homeless person’s head must be accompanied with customized support that addresses the circumstances that led to the person’s devolution to living on the street. Despite social, mental, and employment support resources in unison with material aspects like food and shelter, homelessness persists.

In 2005, Salt Lake City began its crusade to “clean up” its streets. Under the slogan: “Just give homeless people homes”, they built and provided free housing units and over the next 10 years, reduced “chronic” homelessness by 91%.

Salt Lake Community Shelter in 2005 evolves into Salt Lake Community Shelter AND Self Sufficiency Center by 2015.

The effort included hiring dozens of social workers and therapists to combat the non tangible problems that plague homeless people; like mental health problems, addiction, and the inability to hold down a job. In 2015, Salt Lake City was the envy of the U.S. and the gold standard in combating urban homelessness. By 2018, the amount of “newly homeless” or people experiencing homelessness for the first time, in Salt Lake City had risen to over 43,000 according to the State of Utah Annual Report on HOMELESSNESS 2018.

The increase in the “newly homeless”  is not just a Salt Lake City problem. It’s a trend indicative of the most prosperous cities in the U.S. Between 2012 and 2018, homelessness has swelled by 26 percent in Seattle, 47 percent in New York City and 75 percent in Los Angeles.

While there are a myriad of reasons why America’s most prosperous cities have seen an increase in homelessness. The lion’s share of the blame falls on the lack of affordable housing brought on,in part, by wealth inequality. As we’ve dug ourselves out of the “Great Recession”, wealth inequality has risen.

“In other words, homelessness is no longer a symbol of decline. It is a product of prosperity. And… the vast majority of people being pushed out onto the streets by America’s growing urban economies do not need dedicated social workers or intensive medication regimes. They simply need higher incomes and lower housing costs.”- Michael Hobbes

I believe the way to combat wealth inequality, and thus reduce homelessness, is by controlling the levers of  powerful central government. Passing legislation that regulates and reigns in unmerited corporate incomes at the highest levels. And redistributing our nation’s wealth through the tax system and higher incomes for traditionally low paying jobs. I’m not calling for a shift from capitalism to socialism as that would be political suicide. Government control can only be achieved through political means. In “American democracy”, that means voting for the political party that represents liberal policies and having the will to compromise with the party that champions wealth inequality for the sake of enriching themselves. Some of us, and usually the loudest, believe in ideals that create an “overnight fix” to many of our problems. In American democracy, this is not only unrealistic but causes an opposite effect. Some of our “progressive” politicians are in reality “regressive” because they harden the opposition. There are people in America so opposed to equity that they would rather fall well short of their potential comfort level to deny rights to others. And they’re not going away. What could go away are their government representatives who convince them that it’s better to enrich their leaders than show kindness and comfort to those that are different. That could take generations if it happens at all. That’s why I’m afraid that not much can be done about homelessness. I hope you can prove me wrong.