Thank you for this essay, it gives a bit of hope to those of us fighting to convince our governments to build more housing. You write:
“Minneapolis and Oregon have successfully implemented zoning reforms to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in traditionally single-family zones, increasing housing stock.”
I’m happy that we in Oregon have removed many zoning restrictions, but has it actually increased housing stock already? Not sure where to find answers to that question.
Finally, I want to report that a large-ish low income housing development opened a few months ago right next to my upscale neighborhood. I have heard zero complaints. I walk by there several times a week, and the worst I have seen is a dinged-up car parked out front. NIMBY’s should spend time seeing real-world results instead of imagining some invading horde of plague-stricken extras from a Dickens novel.
Appreciate the highlighting of this important issue!
I think with housing - unless the government funds construction itself (and takes a loss) - it'll be difficult to expect just market mechanisms to reduce rents/prices. Research shows that 2% housing supply increases (which is a lot) reduces home prices by 0.5%. Some have even worse numbers - 10% housing supply increases reduce rents by 1%.
I'd also add - that the expiration of all government programs became an issue. Reduced SNAP eligibility, falling child tax credit benefits plus many others simply decimated people's real post transfer/tax incomes.
Agreed that we need the government incentives to make this all work. Affordability percentage requirements. Tax credits to build. Just as you said. And agreed as well that housing is only part of the picture - people’s budgets get eaten up in many ways (though rent can often be as high as 50% of that). Without other supports it can all fall apart. It’s a big reason why the 2021 numbers were so much better
I live in Boulder, where homelessness has been on the rise in lockstep with the town becoming a haven for high-earning young individuals leaving the coasts for working remotely in the outdoors (here I will disclose that my partner and I fueled into this trend when we relocated from Boston, although it was for a new in-person job, not a lifestyle change). All I see being propped up around me are so-called "luxury buildings" to house such young professionals. Unhoused folks camp in tents under cute little bridges that connect one luxury building to the next. What is more, city legislation limits at four the number of floors a single building can rise up to. For the mountains, you know. (An interactive panel in the Museum of Boulder claims that without this ordinance, the town would look like Salt Lake City - god forbid!). As this progressive haven becomes even more progressive with the influx of wealthy young professionals, one might just wonder whether "progress" shouldn't look less like registered Democrats in luxury buildings, and more like guaranteeing housing to those who by these registered Democrats (of which I would certainly be one, if I were a US citizen; I'm not) are being displaced.
I posted the 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress on a Bay Area subreddit and a YIMBY slack group about a week and a half ago, and was reminded how complex the homeless crisis is - how myriad are our collective interpretations of root causes and how personal experiences at the neighborhood level shape public opinion around the issue for better or worse.
While I can’t say that everyone can agree on prescriptive solutions to address homelessness, one thing is certain - we all agree there is a crisis. That gives me some hope.
Top comments, paraphrased (ordered from most to least upvotes):
1) Complaints about housing prices. Median home price in bay area is roughly $1.5 million. $2 million in Santa Clara County for comparison (Silicon Valley).
2) Crisis is attributed to lax law enforcement, unchecked criminality. Admittedly lots of debate on this particular thread.
3) Sympathy for laid off tech workers and struggling families. One person suggested in this thread that they have not seen any homeless children in their Oakland neighborhood.
4) Comparison to Tokyo. Less than 1000 homeless while twice as populated as the Bay Area.
The YIMBY slack post surprisingly did not generate a lot of discussion. I suspect in part because it’s a volunteer group (hundreds of members) and the post was made shortly after New Years. But it got a few unhappy, mad and sad emojis. I think the LA fires have largely consumed the available bandwidth for discussion in those circles since then.
No mention of Tiny homes being restricted in many cities? If they were allowed, as in the backyards of homeowners, I believe this could help those who really want off the streets, find something affordable. My takeaway, as someone whose brother has chosen the streets for 30 years, families and then young people should be prioritized. Even over most, not all, with mental illness. In my opinion when someone lives on the streets for over a year or two, no matter the cause, they become content with their choice, and remain perpetually homeless. In my city, in Southeast TX, the chronic homeless are given everything they need, except a roof. Many of those, clothes, shoes,food, water, hygiene necessities, are hand delivered to the person in the areas where they hang out, often enough where many don't worry about doing laundry, as they know they'll be delivered clean clothes next week. I just believe it may be worth trying something new, and to use all the money, volunteer hours,and government's effort spent on homelessness, instead find unrestricted housing, and see if that reduces the need to pass restrictive camping or loitering laws. Which are mostly ignored anyway.
Tiny homes could certainly help with the supply problem, but I dont agree that someone who has been homeless for a year (or even 2) is staying homeless because they choose to. Yes homeless people have access to many of the resources that you mentioned, but beyond a roof they often also need a job or stable income to keep that roof and stay off the streets. Getting a job without a home address is incredibly hard
Agreed. Housing supply and demand is the clearest predictor of which states and cities have a homeless problem.
On the subject of people "choosing" to be homeless I'd offer a more nuanced take. All-else-equal, few of the homeless would choose to be homeless. But, if the choice is between spending money on rent and spending money on drugs, quite a few addicts will choose the latter, and you're much more likely to actually have to face that choice in CA than you are in WV, to say nothing of the fact that the choice becomes more appealing when your basic needs are met by volunteers.
So it's a little of all of the above - a choice, the availability of housing and ease of living on the streets.
The numbers reported by HUD are not representative of the total population of people experiencing homelessness in a given year. They are PIT (or point in time counts) and measure the number of homeless people on a given day. Since a ton of people float in and out of homelessness over time, the actual number is likely much higher.
The solution is to tax more billionaires. Elon Musk has enough wealth, BY HIMSELF, to solve the homeless issue, the drug abuse and mental health crisis, and many other social ills. That's an abomination. Eat the rich.
When it comes to (mostly) fake asylum everyone is welcome to have their own opinions. But I'm probably pretty close to the median voter when I say it bothers me a lot that people are abusing a system and it's causing American families to be homeless. I fear we're going to get a lot more Trumps, both here and in other developed countries, if the Left can't be more responsive to the median voter.
Knowing they will not be granted asylum, but they can work here for a few years while they wait in line.
The valid reasons for asylum, according to international law, are well-founded fears of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political leanings or membership in a particular social group. If they face such legitimate persecutions, and are truly in fear of their life, they could just go to a neighboring country (or even a part of their own country). The only people who are likely to be pursued by international drug gangs are people who have betrayed or stolen from them.
Or just do a quick google search of "gdp per capita Guatemala" or "homicides per year El Salvador Honduras Guatemala" and you can see that the asylum wave is correlated with drops in crime and improvements in economic circumstances. Improved economic circumstances and time have allowed smuggling "businesses" to improve and refine their methods. The Central America to Southern Border flow is professionalized and incentivized by dollars, not fear.
I mean, there just aren't enough annual homicides in those countries to justify the millions of asylum seekers. The numbers don't add up, and lots of them end up in dangerous US neighborhoods anyway.
Are they able to get work visas? If so, I wasn't aware of that. I'll add one thing, as a friend of several "illegal" immigrants. If our soulless employers didn't hire "illegals" I suspect they would not come in the numbers they have. Some how they're finding work, homes, vehicles, insurance, bank accounts, schooling, and WIC for mother's with children, or remittances to Mexico only, of approx 63,000,000,000 last year alone. Capitalism's hunger sees only Dollars.
There's also the terrible humanitarian tragedies of rapes, abuses, deaths in trailers + the additional destabilizing component as Mexican Cartels fund an increasing portion of their violence and corruption through human smuggling.
Btw I'm guessing most chains of employment begin with an employer paying under the table, but then they extend through word of mouth in the immigrant communities. In a lot of cases (again, I am speculating) that it's often very small employers, as small as a single white collar worker who wants to hire a baby-sitter. Or big farms that would literally go out of business if they flipped the switch and suddenly obeyed the rules.
I'm retired and haven't played executive Chef in 25.years now. But, when I hired new employees, using the E-verify system, whenever a SS number came back negative , we were required to give them 30 days in order to correct the error, if not then we were forced to terminate the individual. All in all that was a 2 to 3 month process, and as they moved to a new hotel or? I had a stack of applications to start the process anew. Luckily back then, I'd eventually was able build a decent crew.
The other way they're able to get decent work is to become an independent contractor. The contractor has no obligation, nor motive to check SS numbers of his hired, who filed out all the correct paperwork the city requires, thus letting him off the hook for the crew of 5 to 20 subs under him. But yes, like my 88 year old mother, she's hired her lawn out to the same neighbor for a decade now
He's still working in getting his paperwork. But. he's a proud homeowner in the same development. Uncertain how that works. I do know when I've been hit by another driver, the police are required to issue the ticket, and request a licensed driver to come get the vehicle, allowing the non-licenced driver to go home. As I've, twice, stood there knowing who'll be paying my 1,000 deductible. It's a cost of our freedoms, and freedom is a beacon to many individuals everywhere.
From stories I've heard they generally just work under the table. I didn't mean to imply they were given visas. I think most of them just find work somehow, because why wouldn't you?
I don’t think building housing is the obvious first priority because we already HAVE many times over the units we would need to house the unhoused. Who we need to be saying no to are the assholes who are hoarding housing instead of offering it at affordable rates where there is demand. Own multiple properties? Our county needs more housing; you will provide a portion of your properties to meet our community’s needs. Have a property with many units, luxury or otherwise? You will make a portion of your units available to meet the needs of your community. Have a hotel? You will provide a portion of your units to meet our community’s needs. The wealth hoarders don’t need to keep exploiting workers and taxpayers and leaching resources from their communities for their greed-warped brains. Guillotine the hoarders who don’t give a shit about their community.
Building 4plexes in residential areas won't solve homelessness. Are these as yet fictional places going to rent for below market rate? If so, how far below? Look at the median rent figures--that's more than low income people have per month in total. Will the neighbors just go along? That's seldom the case.
Sounds to me much like the talk of political candidates who promise to do something. They proudly announce that some ugly new human kennel will have a few affordable units. They know darn well (or should) "affordable" is a distinct category; not the same as "low income." It depends on program funding, but "affordable" is based on a percentage of an area's median income. Those types of apartments require income above a certain point but below an upper limit. Rent is set at a specific amount. Whereas "low income" rent is based on 30% of someone's income. Thus people in a low income building pay different amounts. Actual low income places are in short supply.
Another aspect is that dealing effectively with chronic homelessness requires understanding the clientele. They are often mentally ill. Besides, even people who didn't start out that way develop issues because the experience is so horrific. Many are dual diagnosis, meaning mental problems and addiction. Many have had severe traumas in their lives. So then what are called wrap around services are needed, which do cost money. However, there are plenty of statistics showing the full service model saves money in the long run.
Re: stats linking asylum seekers and the number of homeless people in NY, CO, MA, and IL. On the surface, sure looks like support for MAGA antipathy for immigration. Yes, I realize both legal and "illegal" immigration are not the same. But fine points aren't good political fodder. Are there factors like loss of well paid manufacturing jobs, tech downturns, and mass layoffs of the kind that have been done to finance stock buybacks to enrich CEOs and banksters? (Between 1996-2021, 30 million U.S. workers have been hit by this.) Nor does correlation equal causation. Why would CA not be among the listed states? Why is CO, even though not a high population state? And how many asylum seekers are there? 40? 400,000? Seems difficult to compare directly since the actual # of homeless is likely very, very undercounted. Mainstream political organization and govt. bureaucrats aren't all that interested in knowing for sure.
The cities with the worst housing crisis also have the most renter protections that dampen the profit motive.
California has more rent control, more eviction hurdles and more affordable housing requirements than most other states, yet they have a far worse homeless crisis than Texas, Georgia or Florida, for example.
The thing to do is build housing of whatever kind. The government could build more housing, and that would be great, but let's not needlessly hobble the private housing that already builds millions of units. With less NIMBY rules, private developers would fill the gap easily. It would be harder for governments to fill the gap because they tend to be slowed down by regulation much more than private industry.
Capitalism is the root cause of American suffering. Not the savior of society. Lack of regulation has never resulted in a healthier culture or social landscape.
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness.
What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. As many who want to and are able to work should be hired to help feed others and to maintain the facilities. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities were available they should send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who did not physically resist.
They should require custodial care for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current housing first attempts to fix the problem. Most of our homeless lack the capacity to live unassisted in modern society but that is not an excuse to destroy our beautiful cities for the rest of us.
There are cities that have done those same things. Mine actually had implemented most. Austin I believe tried a version as well. There are two hurdles in your well meaning suggestion. First, they aren't fond of the rules imposed on government run shelters like tent cities or tiny homes have. Though for needed reading. Second, like my city council rejected, if they're not located close to their soup kitchens and volunteer help/Salvation Army building, the edge of town will be an empty camp. Unless we're willing to hire a separate police force to constantly monitor tents thrown up on city propertyike sidewalk areas, the chronicly homeless in they can't arrest them all, only rarely are the arrested, let alone ticketed. Which cost us taxpayers more again. Tickets won't be payed, warrants are issued. If arrested, they know a night or two eating bologna sandwiches will pay off the fines.
Personally I would not try to stop a new house or apartment from being built based on untested ideology.
Show me a country that has removed the profit motive from housing and also has a porous border that large numbers of asylum seekers regularly cross.. They don't exist, and the vast majority of countries, including the US throughout it's history, have had mostly for-profit housing development.
Thank you for this essay, it gives a bit of hope to those of us fighting to convince our governments to build more housing. You write:
“Minneapolis and Oregon have successfully implemented zoning reforms to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in traditionally single-family zones, increasing housing stock.”
I’m happy that we in Oregon have removed many zoning restrictions, but has it actually increased housing stock already? Not sure where to find answers to that question.
Finally, I want to report that a large-ish low income housing development opened a few months ago right next to my upscale neighborhood. I have heard zero complaints. I walk by there several times a week, and the worst I have seen is a dinged-up car parked out front. NIMBY’s should spend time seeing real-world results instead of imagining some invading horde of plague-stricken extras from a Dickens novel.
On Oregon, there are some good charts in here showing a moderate increasing in housing starts as a result of the historical changes https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/tag/housing-starts/
Appreciate the highlighting of this important issue!
I think with housing - unless the government funds construction itself (and takes a loss) - it'll be difficult to expect just market mechanisms to reduce rents/prices. Research shows that 2% housing supply increases (which is a lot) reduces home prices by 0.5%. Some have even worse numbers - 10% housing supply increases reduce rents by 1%.
I'd also add - that the expiration of all government programs became an issue. Reduced SNAP eligibility, falling child tax credit benefits plus many others simply decimated people's real post transfer/tax incomes.
Agreed that we need the government incentives to make this all work. Affordability percentage requirements. Tax credits to build. Just as you said. And agreed as well that housing is only part of the picture - people’s budgets get eaten up in many ways (though rent can often be as high as 50% of that). Without other supports it can all fall apart. It’s a big reason why the 2021 numbers were so much better
I live in Boulder, where homelessness has been on the rise in lockstep with the town becoming a haven for high-earning young individuals leaving the coasts for working remotely in the outdoors (here I will disclose that my partner and I fueled into this trend when we relocated from Boston, although it was for a new in-person job, not a lifestyle change). All I see being propped up around me are so-called "luxury buildings" to house such young professionals. Unhoused folks camp in tents under cute little bridges that connect one luxury building to the next. What is more, city legislation limits at four the number of floors a single building can rise up to. For the mountains, you know. (An interactive panel in the Museum of Boulder claims that without this ordinance, the town would look like Salt Lake City - god forbid!). As this progressive haven becomes even more progressive with the influx of wealthy young professionals, one might just wonder whether "progress" shouldn't look less like registered Democrats in luxury buildings, and more like guaranteeing housing to those who by these registered Democrats (of which I would certainly be one, if I were a US citizen; I'm not) are being displaced.
This is powerful! Thanks for sharing the personal experience and basing it in a place and how policy influences outcomes
I posted the 2024 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress on a Bay Area subreddit and a YIMBY slack group about a week and a half ago, and was reminded how complex the homeless crisis is - how myriad are our collective interpretations of root causes and how personal experiences at the neighborhood level shape public opinion around the issue for better or worse.
While I can’t say that everyone can agree on prescriptive solutions to address homelessness, one thing is certain - we all agree there is a crisis. That gives me some hope.
Curious what some of the loudest opinions you heard were
Top comments, paraphrased (ordered from most to least upvotes):
1) Complaints about housing prices. Median home price in bay area is roughly $1.5 million. $2 million in Santa Clara County for comparison (Silicon Valley).
2) Crisis is attributed to lax law enforcement, unchecked criminality. Admittedly lots of debate on this particular thread.
3) Sympathy for laid off tech workers and struggling families. One person suggested in this thread that they have not seen any homeless children in their Oakland neighborhood.
4) Comparison to Tokyo. Less than 1000 homeless while twice as populated as the Bay Area.
The YIMBY slack post surprisingly did not generate a lot of discussion. I suspect in part because it’s a volunteer group (hundreds of members) and the post was made shortly after New Years. But it got a few unhappy, mad and sad emojis. I think the LA fires have largely consumed the available bandwidth for discussion in those circles since then.
No mention of Tiny homes being restricted in many cities? If they were allowed, as in the backyards of homeowners, I believe this could help those who really want off the streets, find something affordable. My takeaway, as someone whose brother has chosen the streets for 30 years, families and then young people should be prioritized. Even over most, not all, with mental illness. In my opinion when someone lives on the streets for over a year or two, no matter the cause, they become content with their choice, and remain perpetually homeless. In my city, in Southeast TX, the chronic homeless are given everything they need, except a roof. Many of those, clothes, shoes,food, water, hygiene necessities, are hand delivered to the person in the areas where they hang out, often enough where many don't worry about doing laundry, as they know they'll be delivered clean clothes next week. I just believe it may be worth trying something new, and to use all the money, volunteer hours,and government's effort spent on homelessness, instead find unrestricted housing, and see if that reduces the need to pass restrictive camping or loitering laws. Which are mostly ignored anyway.
Tiny homes could certainly help with the supply problem, but I dont agree that someone who has been homeless for a year (or even 2) is staying homeless because they choose to. Yes homeless people have access to many of the resources that you mentioned, but beyond a roof they often also need a job or stable income to keep that roof and stay off the streets. Getting a job without a home address is incredibly hard
Agreed. Housing supply and demand is the clearest predictor of which states and cities have a homeless problem.
On the subject of people "choosing" to be homeless I'd offer a more nuanced take. All-else-equal, few of the homeless would choose to be homeless. But, if the choice is between spending money on rent and spending money on drugs, quite a few addicts will choose the latter, and you're much more likely to actually have to face that choice in CA than you are in WV, to say nothing of the fact that the choice becomes more appealing when your basic needs are met by volunteers.
So it's a little of all of the above - a choice, the availability of housing and ease of living on the streets.
PS, and Denver homes have gone through the roof, stupidly so. IMHO
The numbers reported by HUD are not representative of the total population of people experiencing homelessness in a given year. They are PIT (or point in time counts) and measure the number of homeless people on a given day. Since a ton of people float in and out of homelessness over time, the actual number is likely much higher.
100% agreed
The solution is to tax more billionaires. Elon Musk has enough wealth, BY HIMSELF, to solve the homeless issue, the drug abuse and mental health crisis, and many other social ills. That's an abomination. Eat the rich.
Taxing the ultra wealthy can help raise funds to address the homeless crisis - and much more!
When it comes to (mostly) fake asylum everyone is welcome to have their own opinions. But I'm probably pretty close to the median voter when I say it bothers me a lot that people are abusing a system and it's causing American families to be homeless. I fear we're going to get a lot more Trumps, both here and in other developed countries, if the Left can't be more responsive to the median voter.
Abusing the system in what way?
Knowing they will not be granted asylum, but they can work here for a few years while they wait in line.
The valid reasons for asylum, according to international law, are well-founded fears of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political leanings or membership in a particular social group. If they face such legitimate persecutions, and are truly in fear of their life, they could just go to a neighboring country (or even a part of their own country). The only people who are likely to be pursued by international drug gangs are people who have betrayed or stolen from them.
Or just do a quick google search of "gdp per capita Guatemala" or "homicides per year El Salvador Honduras Guatemala" and you can see that the asylum wave is correlated with drops in crime and improvements in economic circumstances. Improved economic circumstances and time have allowed smuggling "businesses" to improve and refine their methods. The Central America to Southern Border flow is professionalized and incentivized by dollars, not fear.
I mean, there just aren't enough annual homicides in those countries to justify the millions of asylum seekers. The numbers don't add up, and lots of them end up in dangerous US neighborhoods anyway.
Are they able to get work visas? If so, I wasn't aware of that. I'll add one thing, as a friend of several "illegal" immigrants. If our soulless employers didn't hire "illegals" I suspect they would not come in the numbers they have. Some how they're finding work, homes, vehicles, insurance, bank accounts, schooling, and WIC for mother's with children, or remittances to Mexico only, of approx 63,000,000,000 last year alone. Capitalism's hunger sees only Dollars.
There's also the terrible humanitarian tragedies of rapes, abuses, deaths in trailers + the additional destabilizing component as Mexican Cartels fund an increasing portion of their violence and corruption through human smuggling.
Btw I'm guessing most chains of employment begin with an employer paying under the table, but then they extend through word of mouth in the immigrant communities. In a lot of cases (again, I am speculating) that it's often very small employers, as small as a single white collar worker who wants to hire a baby-sitter. Or big farms that would literally go out of business if they flipped the switch and suddenly obeyed the rules.
I'm retired and haven't played executive Chef in 25.years now. But, when I hired new employees, using the E-verify system, whenever a SS number came back negative , we were required to give them 30 days in order to correct the error, if not then we were forced to terminate the individual. All in all that was a 2 to 3 month process, and as they moved to a new hotel or? I had a stack of applications to start the process anew. Luckily back then, I'd eventually was able build a decent crew.
The other way they're able to get decent work is to become an independent contractor. The contractor has no obligation, nor motive to check SS numbers of his hired, who filed out all the correct paperwork the city requires, thus letting him off the hook for the crew of 5 to 20 subs under him. But yes, like my 88 year old mother, she's hired her lawn out to the same neighbor for a decade now
He's still working in getting his paperwork. But. he's a proud homeowner in the same development. Uncertain how that works. I do know when I've been hit by another driver, the police are required to issue the ticket, and request a licensed driver to come get the vehicle, allowing the non-licenced driver to go home. As I've, twice, stood there knowing who'll be paying my 1,000 deductible. It's a cost of our freedoms, and freedom is a beacon to many individuals everywhere.
From stories I've heard they generally just work under the table. I didn't mean to imply they were given visas. I think most of them just find work somehow, because why wouldn't you?
I don’t think building housing is the obvious first priority because we already HAVE many times over the units we would need to house the unhoused. Who we need to be saying no to are the assholes who are hoarding housing instead of offering it at affordable rates where there is demand. Own multiple properties? Our county needs more housing; you will provide a portion of your properties to meet our community’s needs. Have a property with many units, luxury or otherwise? You will make a portion of your units available to meet the needs of your community. Have a hotel? You will provide a portion of your units to meet our community’s needs. The wealth hoarders don’t need to keep exploiting workers and taxpayers and leaching resources from their communities for their greed-warped brains. Guillotine the hoarders who don’t give a shit about their community.
Building 4plexes in residential areas won't solve homelessness. Are these as yet fictional places going to rent for below market rate? If so, how far below? Look at the median rent figures--that's more than low income people have per month in total. Will the neighbors just go along? That's seldom the case.
Sounds to me much like the talk of political candidates who promise to do something. They proudly announce that some ugly new human kennel will have a few affordable units. They know darn well (or should) "affordable" is a distinct category; not the same as "low income." It depends on program funding, but "affordable" is based on a percentage of an area's median income. Those types of apartments require income above a certain point but below an upper limit. Rent is set at a specific amount. Whereas "low income" rent is based on 30% of someone's income. Thus people in a low income building pay different amounts. Actual low income places are in short supply.
Another aspect is that dealing effectively with chronic homelessness requires understanding the clientele. They are often mentally ill. Besides, even people who didn't start out that way develop issues because the experience is so horrific. Many are dual diagnosis, meaning mental problems and addiction. Many have had severe traumas in their lives. So then what are called wrap around services are needed, which do cost money. However, there are plenty of statistics showing the full service model saves money in the long run.
Re: stats linking asylum seekers and the number of homeless people in NY, CO, MA, and IL. On the surface, sure looks like support for MAGA antipathy for immigration. Yes, I realize both legal and "illegal" immigration are not the same. But fine points aren't good political fodder. Are there factors like loss of well paid manufacturing jobs, tech downturns, and mass layoffs of the kind that have been done to finance stock buybacks to enrich CEOs and banksters? (Between 1996-2021, 30 million U.S. workers have been hit by this.) Nor does correlation equal causation. Why would CA not be among the listed states? Why is CO, even though not a high population state? And how many asylum seekers are there? 40? 400,000? Seems difficult to compare directly since the actual # of homeless is likely very, very undercounted. Mainstream political organization and govt. bureaucrats aren't all that interested in knowing for sure.
Is it saying the obvious that removing the profit motive from housing would make an enormous difference?
The cities with the worst housing crisis also have the most renter protections that dampen the profit motive.
California has more rent control, more eviction hurdles and more affordable housing requirements than most other states, yet they have a far worse homeless crisis than Texas, Georgia or Florida, for example.
The thing to do is build housing of whatever kind. The government could build more housing, and that would be great, but let's not needlessly hobble the private housing that already builds millions of units. With less NIMBY rules, private developers would fill the gap easily. It would be harder for governments to fill the gap because they tend to be slowed down by regulation much more than private industry.
Capitalism is the root cause of American suffering. Not the savior of society. Lack of regulation has never resulted in a healthier culture or social landscape.
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness.
What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. As many who want to and are able to work should be hired to help feed others and to maintain the facilities. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities were available they should send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who did not physically resist.
They should require custodial care for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current housing first attempts to fix the problem. Most of our homeless lack the capacity to live unassisted in modern society but that is not an excuse to destroy our beautiful cities for the rest of us.
There are cities that have done those same things. Mine actually had implemented most. Austin I believe tried a version as well. There are two hurdles in your well meaning suggestion. First, they aren't fond of the rules imposed on government run shelters like tent cities or tiny homes have. Though for needed reading. Second, like my city council rejected, if they're not located close to their soup kitchens and volunteer help/Salvation Army building, the edge of town will be an empty camp. Unless we're willing to hire a separate police force to constantly monitor tents thrown up on city propertyike sidewalk areas, the chronicly homeless in they can't arrest them all, only rarely are the arrested, let alone ticketed. Which cost us taxpayers more again. Tickets won't be payed, warrants are issued. If arrested, they know a night or two eating bologna sandwiches will pay off the fines.
Personally I would not try to stop a new house or apartment from being built based on untested ideology.
Show me a country that has removed the profit motive from housing and also has a porous border that large numbers of asylum seekers regularly cross.. They don't exist, and the vast majority of countries, including the US throughout it's history, have had mostly for-profit housing development.