At first, I thought I’d wandered onto one of those really bad online news sites that creates fake news to sneak ads in front of people's faces, but it was not. I was reading the Washington Post, one of the most credible of all news sources.
The article reported that a case in front of the Supreme Court would decide if Grants Pass, a pristine Oregon city of about 40,000, could arrest 1200 homeless people who have refused orders to vacate the tent city that had become their home—or go to jail, a more unpleasant home.
Until this event, Grants Pass was best known as a jump-off point for Rogue River rafters and kayakers. It was usually described as a charming place with beautiful surroundings, and this ad hoc conglomeration of tent dwellers represented a wart on the face of their community. For the tent dwellers, it was home, the only one they could afford for themselves and their children.
I had not previously heard of the ironic act of housing homeless people involuntarily in jail cells, an idea that would have inspired one of those Franz Kafka short stories about people struggling against absurd and oppressive government systems.
A few minutes of research showed me that Grants Pass is just one of many communities wanting to incarcerate people for the alleged crime of being homeless. At least three other cities—Bakersfield, Seattle, and Portland, Oregon are also considering laws to incarcerate homeless people, and I am sure if they are allowed to do so, others will follow.
Perhaps so many homeless people will be arrested that we may have to build more jails, which may be more costly than building affordable housing when you take into account feeding, clothing, and providing health care for the homeless adults and the estimated 2.5 million children believed to be homeless in America.
Some people who were once homeless went on to become famous and successful, such as Halle Berry, Sylvester Stallone, Hillary Swank, Charlie Chaplin, and, of course, Jesus of Nazareth.
I wonder if any of them would have succeeded if they were given criminal records for the offense of being so poor that they were homeless.
Concerns, Costs & Misperceptions
But that’s just one side of the argument. Multiple studies report that properties located near homeless encampments lose about 15 percent of their value and that tent cities often lead to higher crime, increased issues requiring police intervention, and other negative factors that contribute to lower property values as well as issues of health, safety, and security, and property values for neighboring homeowners, but statistics do not show any dramatic changes to neighborhoods when tent cities spring up nearby.
So, while I agree that something needs to be done, I feel that jailing the homeless is a case of spending money in all the wrong places.
For example, let’s look at the current Supreme Court case. According to multiple sources, it cost an average of $1 million dollars. In California, one of the most expensive places on Earth to live, a low-cost housing development with 84 units was built for that very same amount.
Which do you think was money better spent?
A third issue, which seems to me to be the most significant is the general perception that most homeless people are addicts, derelicts, and vagabonds, statistics indicate a great many of the homeless are family members and often go to work or school each day, then coming home to the dubious hospitality of a canvas tent because they cannot afford both rent and food on what they earn.
Homeless Households
There is anecdotal evidence that there are more schoolchildren than drug addicts in many tent cities, particularly in less urban areas such as Grant’s Pass. For example, Family Gateway estimates the US has 2.5 million homeless children, and mothers are the heads of 85 percent of these homeless households. While I could find no confirming statistics, a large percentage of parents work, and overwhelmingly, their children attend school.
Homelessness is clearly on the rise, but it is nothing new. President Franklin Roosevelt addressed homelessness in his second inaugural address when he announced the first US housing programs. Many states soon followed suit. These housing programs continued to grow until Richard Nixon reversed the policy and disassembled such programs.
Since then, the public housing for lower-income families has steadily diminished, and the number of homeless people has gone up accordingly, causing most communities --to deal with unauthorized encampments in vacant lots, under highway overpasses, and in parks and open spaces.
New Problems
There is no question that the loss of government housing over the past 70 years has led to new problems, and the ones suffering the most are those who have no choice but to live in squalor.
Now, there are those who think the solution to poor people’s housing is jail, and perceptions from yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing were that a majority of justices showed sympathy toward the Grants Pass side of the case.
There has been much talk about the financial costs of tent cities, but it seems to me that many proponents of jailing are looking at numbers in the wrong places.
According to The Network, it costs taxpayers $31,065 a year to incarcerate a single person, while the cost of providing them with housing subsidies is only $10,051 per year.
In short, jailing them is three times more expensive than housing them.
How We Got Here
Governments started abandoning housing programs about 50 years ago, during the reign of Richard Nixon. Since then, the homeless problem has steadily worsened, and it’s obvious the change in state and Federal policies have led to a problem that is at the crisis level in my view.
But, as I see it, the solution is to build housing, not jail cells, and the financial statistics back up my perspective.
History has taught us that what we invest in housing returns greater value. Construction and maintenance generate further economic activity. For instance, a study by the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities (CLPHA) found that $4.5 billion in direct capital spending between FY 2013 and FY 2017 generated an estimated $7.6 billion in economic activity and created 7,600 full-time jobs, thus generating more retail revenue as well as tax dollars in several key areas of measurement:
Jobs. Construction, maintenance, and management of public housing, which creates jobs, often employing those qualified to live in the new housing. The study also showed that every $1 million spent on capital investments generates $1.89 million in economic activity and supports 11 full-time jobs.
Local Economy. Multiple studies show measurable boosts to the communities in terms of spending with local merchants, improved healthcare facilities, and improvements in retail, real estate, hospitality, and food services.
Revenue & Taxes. Public housing almost invariably generates new jobs in administration, retail, hospitality, food services, and real estate. New jobs mean new tax revenues, which almost always cover investment costs and then continue to produce tax dollars. The CLPHA study of six public housing authority developments generated $69 million in city tax revenue and $215 million in state tax revenue each year.
Family Stability. Government programs that provide affordable housing give low-income families more disposable income, which they mostly spend on goods and services, thus stimulating local economies.
New Hope & Less Crime. It is unlikely that children raised in homeless environments will have promising futures. Investing in affordable housing gives them a more promising future and reduces the likeliness that they will either want or need government doles, or turn to criminal options, or so I hope.
Government housing programs can stimulate economic growth by creating jobs, generating tax revenue, supporting local industries, stabilizing low-income families, improving health and educational outcomes, and attracting and retaining a skilled workforce. These programs can also have a multiplier effect, where the initial investment leads to further economic activity and growth.
It seems to me that any nation that cannot feed its hungry, educate its young, and shelter its homeless cannot credibly claim itself to be a democracy. Such programs seem to me not to be abuses of our tax dollars but investments in our future.
Everyone Wins
I am not optimistic about the current Supreme Court case, particularly since it has been tilted by our self-serving former president. It seems to me that any nation calling itself a democracy should provide all its citizens with adequate education, healthcare, and housing.
Throwing poor people in the slammer because they can no longer afford housing just doesn’t feel like the democracy I was raised to believe in.
+++
Shel Israel writes books, articles, presentations, and white papers for executives, mostly from the tech industry. He is the author of six tech business books under his own name. Text (6504304042) or email him at Shel@shelisrael.com.
I think you have an excellent and well-founded perspective on homelessness. I would add that various pilots/studies with universal basic income and, separately, providing ownership of tiny-houses situated as walkable neighborhoods (as opposed to temporary housing in block tenements) to both be successful in personal outcomes and community economic outcomes.