Homelessness

You may have heard of homelessness even if you don’t live in a packed, tightly capitalist, bustling city, or in other words, inner cities. If you do live in these, especially San Francisco, you know local leaders have not actually done anything to solve the problem. There are rich tech people who “make all the money” while others are busy dying on the streets. However, to actually rally the crowds, we must analyze, critically learn from, and ACTUALLY alleviate this common troubling issue. 

But, before you jump from one bar to the end, let’s actually go in-depth on WHY it happens. Layered upon this debated issue is the Coronavirus pandemic, where, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, more than 10,000 people lost their jobs, out of around 850,000 people. Even this, we don’t know, because a census is a ridiculous measurement of “pointing out homeless people” who are not living at permanent addresses and don’t regularly receive mail.

Next, gentrification and rent prices are kicking this issue down the road. Certainly politicians bickering doesn’t help either. Homelessness Benchmarking states, “Well-off residents start renting places that middle-income folks used to rent, while middle-income folks rent those that low-income people used to rent, while people below the poverty line are forced to scramble. And those with substance use or mental health issues are often least likely to end up with a place to live.” 

This just substantiates the inequality of earning and especially, the racial income gap. Further, everyone knows that especially in California, the quote-on-quote “Golden State”, the rent prices are way too high. Underscore SF, a reputable program, states, “Though rental prices are still at least 16% lower than in 2021, over the past month, the average rent for a studio apartment in San Francisco increased by 1% to $2,100 — representing just a $25 increase over December of 2022.” 

That’s right–already high rent, even if prices have stopped rapidly increasing, is still detrimental.

Thanks to all the politicians who say that they will solve the problem! Well, I’m sorry, but you didn’t. You actually made it worse! This cyclical problem involving inadequate access to housing cannot be solved by some “community bonding.”  People are dying all over the world and arguing over small budget changes won’t actually make a difference.

Now, let me explain something. The people in SF, and all around the world, love their cities a lot. But there is a tipping point when nothing gets better. Visiting cities as a tourist, especially visiting foreign cities, is a great experience, but compounds the problem by increasing profit for the city but inversely reducing outside help. Homelessness and poverty are two separate things, but interconnected. Outside influences and tourists aren’t useful for the people who critically need help from local leaders, where companies like airBNB take up space and force others to move to worse locations. 

According to NPR, even in other states, “The congressional report found the companies that often filed to evict tenants who were only one month behind in rent, and sometimes while they were waiting on emergency rental aid. It says Invitation Homes downplayed the impact of its practices, reporting in March 2021 that just 6% of tenants it filed against actually lost their housing. In fact, lawmakers say that included only those formally evicted by court order, and many more left without waiting for that, bringing the total share to 27%.”

Conversely, recidivism plays a profuse role in ruining former convicts’ lives, socially and emotionally. The US Department of Justice states in its in-depth article that, “Recidivism can encompass a return to incarceration, due to violations of supervised release, parole, or probation; new arrests; and new convictions. A 2010 United States Sentencing Commission report exploring recidivism of federal offenders found that “over an eight-year follow-up period, nearly one-half (49.3 percent) of federal offenders released in 2010 were rearrested (Cotter, Semisch, and Rutter 2022).” 

While people are working their daily jobs, others in addiction or ex-criminals are caught up in a pickle. One minute they are supporting their family and the next, they are having hallucinations. Reagan and Clinton’s approach to crime like this by the famous slogans, “Say NO” or to crack down on drugs, furthers drug dealers’ thirst for money. These previous examples show how leaders have targeted residents as criminals, or have supported for-profit prisons, therefore turning a blind eye and just pushing the problem deeper into its own grave.

There are only two ways to solve this. One is providing mental health/trauma services free to people who have been suffering from addiction. However, if not well-funded, these programs come with drawbacks, and could discourage the trauma/social workers from being paid appropriately. These people, who NEVER get attention, might actually quit. So, the only plausible option in addition to these funded programs is providing housing and letting others go through restorative justice. Housing is so necessary because employers look at a permanent address. 

While having a criminal record is still substantial, this can in part be alleviated if community service/rehabilitation is completed with proper care. Drug Abuse Statistics, a reputable source that gathers data from programs/clinics, notes that “Residential addiction treatment can cost between 5,000 to 80,000 depending on luxury.” 

If this is the case, those who are struggling financially wouldn’t be able to afford it. However,  incarceration is even more costly to the government. Sanalake states that according to Vera, “The average cost per inmate is over 33,000 per year… In contrast, the cost of rehab averages around 5,000.” That prompts us to ask why the federal governments all across the world don’t use restorative practices. Don’t worry, the questions about solutions will be answered further into this editorial!

So, this means that it is cost-effective, morally right, and a win-win both ways to focus on rehabilitative properties, but if people who are homeless/struggling with addiction can’t afford it, they need to be supported by local leaders, their past employers, and others, which can leave financiers in a pickle. 

As it is human nature to hoard money, why would they help? But there are obstacles in the way of just casting aside these “fringe of society”. More than three decades ago, “the Coalition for the Homeless won a landmark legal victory that established the right to shelter for homeless people in New York City.” (Coalition to End Homelessness), which continues that, “One successful approach involves eviction-prevention grants to help tenants at risk of becoming homeless pay back rent and remain in their apartments.” 

It expands that housing is proven to increase opportunities for jobs and a stable food supply, therefore increasing monetary savings. “The right to shelter is a vital legal protection for homeless individuals, families and children. Without this crucial safeguard, vulnerable homeless people would be at severe risk of death or injury on the streets and in other public spaces. Of the past two years, Congress is trying to secure a right to housing, which then has a permanent address, ensuring job opportunities, stable food supply, and beyond!

Next, eviction has caused unnecessary housing openings, as well as undeveloped or neglected land, that are being misused. The Better Cities Project states that, “In Los Angeles, a study funded by the state of California found that more than 800,000 acres of Los Angeles, Orange, and Ventura counties are potentially developable. Over the hill, but a short drive away from Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties have millions of acres of developable land.

Paul Krugman, who stated that there is ‘no more space in California’, also needs to learn some construction economics. He thinks that, because people in Manhattan live in mid‐​rises and high‐​rises, everyone else should be able to do so. But not everyone else is a Nobel‐​prize winning professor and most people can’t afford to live in such expensive buildings. 

As California developer Nicholas Arenson testified at a meeting on housing prices, mid rises (four to seven stories) cost three to four times as much while high rises (eight stories and up) cost 5.5 to 7.5 times as much per square foot as single‐​family homes.” This shows that the population doesn’t have to stay necessarily in an unaffordable place until housing is, by a miracle, provided, but can use the unused space that has been neglected.

There are open spaces for housing that were previously uninhabitable due to conditions, but they have been neglected. According to the CBPP(The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities), a paramount think-tank, “Yet despite rental housing’s importance to the well-being of a large share of American households — and the clear failure of the private market to meet the existing need — it has been the neglected step-child of federal housing policy.  Since 1995, federal spending on low-income housing assistance has fallen by well over 20 percent both as a share of all non-defense discretionary spending and as a share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).”

Overall, homelessness is intertwined with incarceration, financial inequality, and inadequate housing. All of these struggles exist everywhere and are extremely common. Solutions are not impossible. In fact, several programs have already been established to help others get a stable job and secure housing, even if it’s temporary. This, along with mental health support, appropriate treatment, and  a sense of community can REALLY solve the problem instead of hiding it from our view or shifting it to other cities. .