Homelessness crisis

[jpdx]

Over half a million people in America are homeless right now. The problem has gotten much worse since the start of the pandemic. My understanding is the situation is more dire on the West coast where housing costs are unaffordable for many. How bad is it where you live?

I live in a city once known for it's livability and high quality of life. Now we're seeing more and more people living in RVs and tent encampments along highways, under bridges, and in green spaces -- and we're struggling with the increased theivery and mountains of garbage that occur when you have this many people living unhoused. Is it going to get better?

[gooki]

Is it going to get better?

Is anything being done to help them off the streets? If not, the no it's not going to get better.

[Paper Chaser]

Homelessness has seen a general decline in the last 15 years nationwide. 2012 seems to be the year that began significant declines in most categories, (perhaps policy change took effect then?) but they bottomed out by 2015 or so.


Some high profile locations have seen stark increases



This whole site has interesting info that's as recent as I've been able to find:

https://www.security.org/resources/homeless-statistics/

I won't post all of the graphics to avoid overwhelming the discussion, but I do think this one is worth showing for an overview:

[YttriumNitrate]

Homelessness has seen a general decline in the last 15 years nationwide. 2012 seems to be the year that began significant declines in most categories, (perhaps policy change took effect then?) but they bottomed out by 2015 or so.

Thanks for posting that information. So factoring in the U.S. population grew 10% from 2007 to 2020, the overall rate of homelessness is down close to 20% in that time.

[former player]

Homelessness has seen a general decline in the last 15 years nationwide. 2012 seems to be the year that began significant declines in most categories, (perhaps policy change took effect then?) but they bottomed out by 2015 or so.

Thanks for posting that information. So factoring in the U.S. population grew 10% from 2007 to 2020, the overall rate of homelessness is down close to 20% in that time.

"Homeless" covers a lot of different conditions, it's not just people on the streets but can include anyone without a legal right to the housing they live in (sofa surfers and the like) or people in overcrowded or unsafe/unsanitary/illegal situations.

The problem OP is talking about, people on the streets, has gone down on the graphs shown but not by 20%

[LaineyAZ]

Here in Phoenix we see seasonal homelessness.  Right now the freeway entrances are filled with a rotating cast of homeless asking for money.  By summer they have mostly all left, likely to California or Pacific NW.
Neighbors have some sympathy but many are also furious.  Their reaction is "call the police" or "call the City to demand they clean out the makeshift camps."  They don't want to discuss the root cause of homelessness, they just want it to disappear so they don't have to see it.

Of course, that's only what's visible.  I think homelessness has many definitions, including couch surfing, crashing with family or friends, van or car dwellers, etc. - it's not only those sleeping outside under bridges (as former player said while I was typing).  And now that Covid has lessened and the federal moratorium on evictions has ended I think we're going to see another big wave.  Along with the steep rise in rent in the past year I believe the numbers in the graph will only rise everywhere.

I've recommended this book before, but I'll suggest it again - read "Evicted" by Matthew Desmond.  It's an eye-opener.

[YttriumNitrate]

The problem OP is talking about, people on the streets, has gone down on the graphs shown but not by 20%

Looking at the graphs, it appears the number of unsheltered people (people on the streets) has gone from 255k in 2007 to 226k in 2020 which means the rate of unsheltered homelessness has gone down almost exactly 20% in that time.

[ncornilsen]

It does appear that the remaining homeless have concentrated in large cities, perhaps contributing to a perception in those areas that homelessness has increased.

[GodlessCommie]

We need to be building more, and utilize the existing housing stock better. YIMBYs have a point.

[PDXTabs]

Is it going to get better?

I won't get better. As City Observatory pointed out housing can’t both be a good investment and be affordable. We've chosen the good investment route. Politicians on both sides of the aisle want housing price to go to the moon. Politicians on both sides of the aisle support restrictive zoning laws. To the extent that most Americans own their homes this makes sense for the majority.

[GodlessCommie]

Despite being a die-hard Democrat, I can't avoid noticing that in places that Republicans control, stuff gets built. Atlanta and Dallas are prime examples. And as much as I dislike suburban sprawl, it's less evil than pushing people to live under bridges.

Now, California has been making good moves to limit single-family zoning. I hope it picks up steam, and spreads to other blue states.

[EvenSteven]

Despite being a die-hard Democrat, I can't avoid noticing that in places that Republicans control, stuff gets built. Atlanta and Dallas are prime examples. And as much as I dislike suburban sprawl, it's less evil than pushing people to live under bridges.

Now, California has been making good moves to limit single-family zoning. I hope it picks up steam, and spreads to other blue states.

I am not sure about the accuracy of your main thesis, but the last republican mayor in Atlanta was in 1879, and Dallas as been mostly democratic for the last 20 years, and a relatively even mix for the last 50 years.

I think zoning laws are local, so city government would matter more than state government for zoning laws.

[PDXTabs]

Despite being a die-hard Democrat, I can't avoid noticing that in places that Republicans control, stuff gets built. Atlanta and Dallas are prime examples. And as much as I dislike suburban sprawl, it's less evil than pushing people to live under bridges.

Now, California has been making good moves to limit single-family zoning. I hope it picks up steam, and spreads to other blue states.

What would the libertarian party do? Are they the one true party that would allow multi-family construction with no minimum parking requirement wherever I want to?

[GodlessCommie]

I am not sure about the accuracy of your main thesis, but the last republican mayor in Atlanta was in 1879, and Dallas as been mostly democratic for the last 20 years, and a relatively even mix for the last 50 years.

I think zoning laws are local, so city government would matter more than state government for zoning laws.

Fair point. Maybe it is a local thing. Or a form of local government - Dallas is under a weak mayor model. I recall complaints about the city council being essentially powerless compared to developers. I attributed it to state politics, but maybe I was wrong to do it. If anyone here can explain it in human terms, I'd appreciate it!

[Paper Chaser]

While things like zoning do seem to be more local, state legislators are the ones who set property tax rates which can have a large impact on housing costs just like scarcity can. And a good bit of funding for education and support programs comes from states too.
I think there are so many variables that impact homelessness that it's hard to point to a specific cause or say that one approach is clearly better or worse than others.
Obviously overall affordability of housing is huge. This can be impacted by local zoning but also by incomes, and things like property taxes and general desirability of an area.
I also think that government policies related to homelessness factor in as well. How much support is given to programs to prevent homelessness? How tolerant are local governments of homeless camps, etc.

Blue locations might be more expensive for various reasons, but they may also have a stronger safety net in place. Red areas may have lower housing costs but less of a safety net.  I think a lot of the locations seeing homelessness spike have both high housing costs creating more homeless people, and more tolerant governments that make these locations more attractive to homeless from other places.

[Psychstache]

I am not sure about the accuracy of your main thesis, but the last republican mayor in Atlanta was in 1879, and Dallas as been mostly democratic for the last 20 years, and a relatively even mix for the last 50 years.

I think zoning laws are local, so city government would matter more than state government for zoning laws.

Fair point. Maybe it is a local thing. Or a form of local government - Dallas is under a weak mayor model. I recall complaints about the city council being essentially powerless compared to developers. I attributed it to state politics, but maybe I was wrong to do it. If anyone here can explain it in human terms, I'd appreciate it!

Freakonomics podcast actually just did a deep dive into the growth of DFW:

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-everyone-moving-to-dallas/

[ChpBstrd]

Homelessness has generally been an addiction / mental illness problem, but in HCOL areas it's probably also something that sweeps up non-neurotypical people who are not able or willing to prioritize a high-earning career.

In HCOL areas, dedicating oneself to art, music, volunteerism, care of a disabled relative, or anything other than corporate work can result in homelessness. Even if one gets a low-paying secretary/warehouse/retail job, one can end up pitched onto the street if roommates fail to pay or a minor medical issue needs treatment. 

There is a certain coerciveness to such economies. No evil villain is saying "we have ways of making you work" in a threatening tone but when expenses are high, one's own wages are low, and there is a hard floor on rents, running out of money can happen fast and as a result of relatively minor setbacks such as car breakdowns, accidents, etc. The system itself punishes anyone who refuses to, or can't conform.

[BlueHouse]

DC has gotten pretty bad. 
There seem to be a lot of people with mental illness, many families with kids who have temporary housing, but there are also a lot of younger people who want to live an alt lifestyle and live a life of petty crime and drug sales.  It's not always easy to tell the difference.  I sometimes see young kids get out of cars in the morning, take a water bottle bath, and then throw their trash on the ground.  It's easy to see why they'd be angry at the world. 

DC has a pilot program to get people in encampments into housing, but there are so many people who are still hiding in the shadows and ashamed of their situations -- so they won't be helped.  There's a ridiculously long waiting list for public housing in DC (I heard it was 10s of thousands of people when they shut the list).  I don't know whether this latest program will help, but at least they're trying something new. 

https://tcp.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/ec20f8ce7b6a480a923dcb272f80197c

[LaineyAZ]

Homelessness has generally been an addiction / mental illness problem, but in HCOL areas it's probably also something that sweeps up non-neurotypical people who are not able or willing to prioritize a high-earning career.

In HCOL areas, dedicating oneself to art, music, volunteerism, care of a disabled relative, or anything other than corporate work can result in homelessness. Even if one gets a low-paying secretary/warehouse/retail job, one can end up pitched onto the street if roommates fail to pay or a minor medical issue needs treatment. 

There is a certain coerciveness to such economies. No evil villain is saying "we have ways of making you work" in a threatening tone but when expenses are high, one's own wages are low, and there is a hard floor on rents, running out of money can happen fast and as a result of relatively minor setbacks such as car breakdowns, accidents, etc. The system itself punishes anyone who refuses to, or can't conform.

I agree with this and I think many people don't realize how incredibly shaky the economics are for so many individuals and families.  I read about a woman who was just barely making it but she'd lent her car to a family member who returned it without gas in it.  The woman didn't have any cash and couldn't get to work that morning and was fired from her low-wage job. 

My point is that a social safety net goes a long way - it's much easier to keep households afloat with some help now and then vs. people needing to start over each time a relatively minor issue comes up.

Another good book:  "Cut Adrift" by Marianne Cooper.  Basically about how families with very limited means make ends meet in hard times.  It was published in 2014 and sadly, I think things have only gotten worse.

[Just Joe]

Look how often the topic of "car" comes up in these crisis stories. We have got to get rid of the car as the central topic in our society. Give people alternatives. Help them see how much cheaper all the alternatives are. Heck a scooter or ebike would be a better choice in some parts of the country and a bearable solution in cold by non-snowy places.

[mm1970]

It does appear that the remaining homeless have concentrated in large cities, perhaps contributing to a perception in those areas that homelessness has increased.

Especially here in California.  I mean, if you are going to be homeless, it's better to be where it's warm.  Thus, a lot of "our" homeless aren't OUR homeless.

[ChpBstrd]

Look how often the topic of "car" comes up in these crisis stories. We have got to get rid of the car as the central topic in our society.

Absolutely correct. Living in a car-dependent place means people have to spend thousands of dollars on transportation before they can even get to a job. Our architecture is brutal to anyone whose net worth falls below a few thousand dollars.

Meanwhile, places with good train/bus service tend to have expensive housing, so it's a catch-22.

It does appear that the remaining homeless have concentrated in large cities, perhaps contributing to a perception in those areas that homelessness has increased.

Homeless people may be concentrated in cities, but so are people in general. One could probably have an easier time with the "spot a yellow car" game in a city than a rural area, for the same reason.

Rural homelessness is a big thing too. When people lose their housing in an expensive city, they often scratch together some savings and move to rural areas where the cost of housing is lower. Then they get sucker-punched by the hidden cost of transportation, because now they have to commute many miles every day on pedestrian-unfriendly highways for work, food, or gas. Soon the car breaks down, the distant job is lost, and they're evicted from an aging trailer in the middle of nowhere with no transportation. That's when they find out rural folks aren't as generous as the stereotypes suggest.

[jpdx]

I wonder if many of these cities are victims of their own success? People often relocate to places that offer opportunity, livability, or both -- which causes housing prices in these places to skyrocket, and more people become unhoused.

[Abe]

I wonder if many of these cities are victims of their own success? People often relocate to places that offer opportunity, livability, or both -- which causes housing prices in these places to skyrocket, and more people become unhoused.

Yes, because they always fail to prioritize policies that encourage or subsidize additional housing to compensate for increasing demand / cost. Poor people don’t bring votes and frankly don’t whine at local government hearings as much (too busy trying to not be poor to have time on a Wednesday morning to go complain about the poors ruining their ____). Squeaky wheels get the grease. Squeaky rich wheels get the nicest grease and don’t give a damn how far their gardener, maid, barista have to commute to do their work for them.

[FINate]

I won't get better. As City Observatory pointed out housing can’t both be a good investment and be affordable. We've chosen the good investment route. Politicians on both sides of the aisle want housing price to go to the moon. Politicians on both sides of the aisle support restrictive zoning laws. To the extent that most Americans own their homes this makes sense for the majority.

Thanks for the excellent link! Good read.