Thirty-two percent. When rent prices are thirty-two percent higher than the average neighborhood income, homelessness increases exponentially. That’s when housing prices exceed the median income by more than three times. If you remember the numbers from the previous column, you’ll see we’re already there and have been for some time. 

It’s been a truism since the early 1980s–coincidentally the beginning of the Reagan Era–that wages have not kept pace with living costs. This disparity is now so glaring that it’s impossible to ignore. It’s on the local and national news every night–homeless encampments seemingly everywhere, especially on the West Coast. (If you’re going to be unhoused, it might as well be someplace warm.) Governors and mayors in California, Oregon, and Washington are desperately searching for answers and finding the same old tired ones: fines, jail, confiscation of property, involuntary hospitalization.

The housing crisis is being driven by five primary factors:

1) The ongoing repercussions from the American subprime mortgage crisis, which occurred between 2007 and 2010, contributed to the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and led to a severe economic recession, resulting in millions of job losses and the bankruptcy of many businesses.

2) The ongoing problem of wages not keeping up with the rising cost of living.

3) The imbalance between supply and demand has resulted from strong economic growth, which has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs, which increases the demand for housing; however, there has been insufficient construction of new housing units to provide enough supply to meet demand.

4) Foreign investors buying up homes as investments, easily and relentlessly outbidding private home buyers and consequently driving up prices beyond what average Americans can afford.

5) The ending of the “eviction ban” instituted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. This factor alone has caused 27% of renters nationwide to report serious problems paying their rent since the restriction was lifted.

“So what should we do–just give homeless people houses?”

Such a concept is supposedly opposed to the American way of doing things. But yes, a thousand times, yes, that is EXACTLY what we should be doing. 

Providing homes for the unhoused allows them a stable foundation and a base of operations from which to handle activities of daily living. When you have a more or less permanent address, it makes it easier to handle mail, find employment, keep regular schedules, and feel like you are a functioning member of society. Most importantly, it promotes a sense of dignity–the status of the homeowner, which is so absolutely critical to have in a society like ours.

For the unhoused who are mentally and physically stable, this means less oversight will be required because having a job and a social life will be possible and will aid in stability. The mentally and physically disordered homeless are a different matter. A laissez-faire approach won’t work here; in fact, such an approach will lead to chaos and further setbacks in acquiring housing for these individuals. Enter the concept of supportive housing.

Supportive housing is, as the name implies, housing with mental and physical health support systems: on-site psychologists and psychiatrists, financial counselors, and physical therapists, whose main jobs will be to facilitate overall mental health and help their clients deal with everyday activities of daily living: going to and from work, working, socializing, paying bills and encouraging self-help activities. 

“But what’ll it cost, man? What’ll it cost?”

Surprisingly, supportive housing turns out to be much cheaper than putting the homeless in jail or in shelters, even if the state or federal government has to pick up part or all of the costs. The costs associated with jails and shelters – providing food, shelter, clothing, bedding, etc., on a daily basis – are actually higher than setting up apartment complexes with on-site and on-call psychiatric, physiotherapeutic, and financial assistance. You need roughly the same number of employees employed in jails and shelters, but they are more specialized and better trained. It’s counterintuitive and counterproductive to expect jailers and shelter staff to act as physical/mental therapists and financial advisors, especially if they have no experience, training, or inclination in these areas.

Don’t believe me? I don’t blame you. Let’s look at the numbers, as Kai Ryssdal would say:

According to the Jamboree Housing Corporation, a non-governmental organization that states its aim is to “deliver(s) high-quality, affordable housing and services that transform lives and strengthen communities,” the annual cost of services in California for a chronically homeless person is $100,759. By contrast, permanent housing with support services is nearly 50% cheaper – $51,587 each year. That’s a pretty substantial savings.

Is it still expensive? Yes, but less so. And if you start with homeless people who are mentally competent and not addicts, you start to see increasing productivity as the newly housed work to create new lives on a solid foundation. You start with people who want to be off the dole and regain their dignity and a semblance of joyful living. As they say in AA, if you don’t think the program is working, you can always go back to how things were. So why not try it?