Working By Design: The US Homeless Crisis

This was written in February 2023 for an English class.
It is about an 8 Min read.

In 1980 the United States was in an age of flux. Many existing government systems were displaying signs of decay, and new strategies aimed at resolving many persistent and emerging social issues were up for consideration. During that same year, President Jimmy Carter signed into law a measure aimed at addressing two of the aforementioned issues: homelessness and mental health. The act was called the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, or MHSA for short, and it was created so that citizens could access community health centers that would specialize in the needs of their local area. The program was slated to offer support through medication, therapy, and most notably temporary housing. This was the plan until conservative President Ronald Reagan, already known for his callus opinion of the disenfranchised during his tenure as the Governor in California, gutted the program into extinction in 1981. The program was replaced with the much more conservative and ineffectual, Mckinney Homeless Assistance Act six years later (Greenblatt). The MHSA never had the opportunity to demonstrate its efficacy, and the tale of the MHSA program serves as a poignant allegory for the broader issue of homelessness in the United States. For the past 40 years, conservative forces in the United States have shown a blatant disregard for the mentally ill, historically marginalized groups, and the economically downtrodden. Their actions can be seen as a form of political malfeasance, as they have consistently cut funding for programs for the homeless and refused to make any significant changes to the existing, unsuccessful status quo. With regards to the community programs that are needed, it is important to recognize that the issue of homelessness is a complex and multifaceted problem that requires a systemic approach. The most apparent solution and debate point to the issue of homelessness, quite simply, is a home.

Sometimes the initiatives for homes for the homeless are referred to as a “housing first programs”. Additionally, increasing access to government owned public housing, encouraging the development of mixed-use homes, and addressing the underserved "missing middle" sector of the real estate market would all contribute to reducing the overall cost of housing and, in turn, reduce homelessness. There are two types of public housing, and both are paid for by the taxpayer. State-owned public housing refers to housing units owned and operated by the government, typically at the state or local level. These units are federally subsidized, and rent is controlled based on a tenant's income with the goal of providing affordable housing options to low-income families, elderly individuals, and others who might struggle to afford market-rate rents(Greenblatt). This is different from the dominant form of public housing in the US that is mostly state sanctioned. The difference between state sanctioned and state-owned public housing is how the rent changes with overall market forces. State owned housing does not seek to make a profit from tenants, while state sanctioned housing does. The profit motive drives up prices for housing that should cost next to nothing. So, most current programs designed to reduce homelessness instead exacerbate the issue at the base level. Then there are mixed-use homes, which were historically important to urban development but are virtually non-existent in the US today. These kinds of homes would be the second positive step in dropping housing costs. Mixed-use homes combine business and residential spaces and encourage small business owners to live where they work, freeing up housing for others in need. The side effect of this kind of development is also a less car-centric city design which would also be a benefit to the homeless. Lastly there is the ‘missing middle’. This is a real estate development term that describes a building designed to house 2-4 families at once on an average sized suburban lot. In the same way mixed-use homes drive down the price of housing, a duplex/fourplex style lot drives down these prices exponentially faster. The effect of these different levels of socioeconomic populations shifting in unison would create the space needed for, and reduce the cost of, housing. But how do we know this?

With regards to the efficacy of housing first programs, one need look no further than Finland. It is common knowledge and a perfect example of how politics plays a role in solving homelessness. In the 1980s, the crisis in Finland saw that homeless constituted an alarming percentage of the country's total population. The rate equated to about 25,000-30,000 individuals out of 4 million total citizens. The Finnish government enjoyed bipartisan support for addressing the issue, with conservatives focused on the anticipated reduction in crime that would result, and progressives focused on the element of human decency. Despite an initial learning curve, the program proved to be highly effective over time. Today only 4,000 people of the Finish population are considered homeless. That is an 80% reduction since 1980 which is an incredible figure considering that the population of the country has risen by 3 million since the program's inception(Greenblatt). Another success story of the housing first initiative has been documented in Australia. In 1989 400,000 of Australia’s 17-million-member population was living without a home. After many years implementing a housing first approach, the current population of 25 million Aussie’s now only has a homeless population of about 100,000. Unfortunately, 40% of those without a home currently are under the age of 25 but despite this, the overall program continues to lend credence to the proponents of the housing first movement internationally(Greenblatt). So why have these obviously beneficial programs failed to materialize in the United States?

Conservative voices will point to areas where housing programs have failed in the US, whether that be by a failure to meet expectations or because of the cost of running the programs. However, these reasons are unsatisfactory and can be dismissed after understanding that their incredulousness on the subject is glued to the failing conservative programs already available. They would rather turn the focus on ‘building the economy’ and thus a blind eye. As if a sick joke, the economy they unwaveringly support through their action and inaction is the reason that this homeless crisis exists at all. The lack of progress in implementing an effective homeless mitigation program in the US can be attributed to corporate interests. The ‘economy builders’ in question, particularly those connected to conservative politicians, are those who oppose programs. The reasons for this situation are twofold.

The first underlying reason for opposition for low-income development is rooted in the profit-driven nature of the housing market in the US. Houses in the US economy are not a right guaranteed to the citizenry, despite the fact the US has recognized internationally that housing is a human right through the UN. This is because the housing market in the US is big business. So, instead of creating what is needed, the focus of the US market is on building homes for higher-income populations, contributing to the scarcity of affordable housing and artificially driving up housing costs. The resources to provide a roof, four walls, heating, water, electricity, and the internet are not scarce.

Moreover, the second more malicious reason for the opposition to any tangible housing solution is that no part of the economy is incentivized to solve the issue. The Homelessness issue serves as a means of control for the working class. The ever-present but unspoken threat of homelessness keeps workers trapped in low paying/minimum wage jobs and forces them to work longer hours or take on a second job to afford their most basic necessities, this includes home ownership (Greenblatt). As home prices go up, more low paying jobs begin to be filled by the desperate which is a benefit to businesses.  If there was a broad affordable housing option, this exploitative system would collapse in on itself. Conservatives claim that housing is “just different”, but that is because they know the lowest level of workers would be free to pursue education or better paid positions without the fear of eviction(Greenblatt). Companies would be forced to eat the loss of revenue by way of increased wages to maintain themselves or risk having their employees leave enmasse. To combat this threat to their business model, corporations pay to lobby primarily conservatives as they, by definition, seek to conserve the status quo.

In conclusion, the United States homelessness is not a bug, it is a feature, and it is working by design. Despite this, there are many community programs, including recent developments like ‘housing first’, that are realistic solutions. These solutions have been made evident by the fact they have worked at relevant population scales in other countries, but conservative forces in the US seek to prevent these solutions because they benefit financially voting against them. Through political donations from those that perpetrate the crisis, inaction occurs, and legislative gridlock is born. Logically, we can determine that the current system is not a failure, rather, it is designed to allow for intentional human suffering for profit.  So, we must decide if we wish to support a system that would happily throw us to non-metaphorical wolves or do the humane thing and care about our society’s most vulnerable. Because our most vulnerable may be us or someone we love someday. I for one choose empathy, I choose programs like the MHSA, I choose housing first.

Work Cited Page

Greenblatt, lan. “Homelessness Crisis” CQ Researcher, 23 Dec. 2022, library-cqpress
IIIIIIIIIIIcom.proxy189.nclive.org/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2022122300.