3.5 Million Homeless, 18.9 Million Empty Houses
There seems to be a simple solution
The
Housing and Community Development chapter in Roseland struck a chord with me as
I recently read an article with some staggering implications of the subject of
housing in America. Information gathered by the Urban Institute and Fox
Business estimate that there are 18.9 million vacant homes in the USA. The number of homeless is America is
estimated at 3.5 million. See the full article here. How is this possible!? Two legitimate national
concerns could be solved in one beneficial transaction.
It is completely understandable
to resist simply giving away empty homes, a great deal of people struggling to
pay their own rent would likely resent the ‘freebies,’ yet something needs to
be done with the houses. Houses can last for decades or even centuries if built
well and continually maintained. Without maintenance, houses quickly fall into
disrepair, become uninhabitable and a detriment to the community, as well as a miserable
testament to squandered resources. It
seems to me that this issue should be one that politicians, economists, and
activists could unite on and strive to find a solution that is beneficial to all.
Utah
has attempted to find that balance. The state government began a program in 2005 with a goal of eradicating homelessness in the state entirely by
2015. By 2013, homelessness had declined by 78%. Their incredible goal may be attainable after all!
The Utah project provides free housing to homeless people and also provides each person with a social worker to aid them in finding a job or to solve health/personal issues. Once jobs are found, the renters are required
to pay 30% of their income- the percentage considered to be affordable housing in the Roseland chapter. The government created this program after estimating
that the annual cost of providing emergency room care and jail time per homeless
person in Utah was estimated to be $16,670. Providing free housing and social
worker is around $11,000/person.
Not only has homelessness decreased,
community development has become stronger, property values have been steadily
increasing, and the taxpayers are actually saving money by funding housing rather than ER and jail time. The trail period of the program has not been completed
and the total results are yet to be determined, but it seems like no one has lost,
yet many have gained- a rare Pareto efficiency for all those econ minded folks.
Homelessness in a sea of empty houses is not only a problem in America but is being faced in Spain and the U.K. as well
as many other nations. However, the struggles of housing and community development is not restricted
to developed countries in which we have simply continued to build and build and build even
if there is no one to buy the houses. One of the most creative ways to solve the
crisis of homelessness in underdeveloped countries is show in the video below.
Constructing houses from discarded plastic bottles
It is interesting to see how similar
problems can be solved in a variety of different ways depending on context, available
resources, local policies and politics, economic status, support, and
creativity! I hope that there are many more innovative ways of developing more affordable
and secure housing for all, and that the U.S.A can make a positive shift toward
solving its own issues concerning homelessness while decreasing the number of
empty houses across the country.
Sources:
Toward Sustainable Communities. Mark Roseland. 2012.
Awesome post! I'm amazed at some of the facts you gave - I didn't know that there are more than 5x as many empty homes as homeless people. That fact gives me so much hope for ending homelessness. That sounds like an incredible program in Utah - and you're right this is a great example of a Pareto efficiency - which is extremely rare in real world cases. I wonder how much the cost of living impacts the affordability of this program. I imagine Utah as a relatively cheap housing available, but how would this program work in California? Excellent post - thanks for the new information!
ReplyDeleteCool post! I had not idea that such programs existed in the U.S. let alone in Utah, one of the most conservative states in the U.S. Reading about the Utah program, it made me think of Detroit, where I know a large percentage of homes are sitting empty and going into disrepair. I wonder if a similar program could be implemented there. One question I have is how they determine eligibility for the program. Being "homeless" seems like it would be hard to classify given many of the extenuating circumstances. I just would not want to see people take advantage of a free housing program by trying to apply for the program without the actual need. It sounds really cool though, and I think it would be a good model for other places to follow!
ReplyDeleteI love the example of the Utah Project--inspiring! I agree, it's terrible how many vacant houses there are and how many homeless people--but I wonder if the abandoned houses are all located in the same place as the homeless population? I also agree with Andrew that determining eligibility for the housing program could be difficult, but I think partnering with nonprofits could make the process easier and have fewer instances of fraud. For example, Shalom in Bloomington would be a great nonprofit to partner with--they have caseworkers onsite and are already working to get homeless people back to work, and finding them permanent housing could be an extension of their existing programs.
ReplyDeleteI actually helped out with the construction of a recycled bottle building in Peru. They stuffed the bottles with trash! It was super dirty, but a great way to teach people that trash is a) a problem and b) reusable. The only problem is that paradoxically, these buildings are really expensive! I mean, I guess if you didn't worry about it being structurally sound it wouldn't be... but if you do, then they are more expensive per square foot than conventional building methods. (This is just based off my friend's experience in Peru... maybe costs are different in other places.)
ReplyDeleteWhile important, I'm not sure thinking about homelessness in this sustainability context is necessarily the right way to go about it. We're dealing with issues that go deeper than figuring out what do to with houses that have fallen into disrepair. The Utah program sounds great, especially for decreasing the current homeless population, but there are some big social issues that lead to homelessness in the first place that need to be discussed. This is definitely not sustainability in the traditional context, and I'm all for talking about it in terms of saving resources and recycling materials, but not if it overshadows what might be bigger issues.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great find! I did not know there were any programs like the Utah one in the US, and I admit I was hesitant to jump on the band wagon. I'm certain the success rate is not 100%, but it is something, and something is better than nothing. With money saved using this project, I would hope that more resources can be utilized either for sustainability in Utah, or to help homeless concerns in surrounding states, especially California which is home to over 1/5 of the total American homeless population (check out page 7 https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/ahar-2013-part1.pdf). I have heard of the water bottle initiative and yes--it's better to reuse these bottles than have them end up in landfills or the ocean, but is it better than recycling the bottles...?
ReplyDeleteHa, Jackie, I tweeted about this last night before seeing your blog!
ReplyDeleteSo, I just typed a HUGE response about this, and when I went to post it, it messed up! :(
So, here are the highlights:
1. I think this idea of fully providing housing for the homeless is by FAR a better idea than what some cities have done. Many places criminalize and stigmatize the homeless - making it "illegal to feed the homeless" and banning panhandling. These efforts are entirely unnecessary and are simply driven by efforts to make a city appear "nicer" to tourists or other (usually downtown) visitors.
2. I believe the VA in San Diego is doing something similar. NPR had a big story about it a few weeks ago - featuring multiple homeless vets' pictures on their website with their story.
3. While I was in Berlin this summer, our tour guide explained that in Berlin (maybe all of Germany?), there is a safety net for citizens who have lost their jobs. In this case, the government will subsidize housing costs until the citizen can get back on their feet. Per the tour guide, if someone is truly homeless in Berlin, they are essentially choosing to be homeless b/c this safety net is in place to minimize this problem.
4. Finally, I just really don't think eligibility is an issue. I cannot think of a single person I know who would go to the lengths to pretend to be homeless in order to qualify for free housing. I'm not so naive as to think NO ONE anywhere would do this, but I don't think the minuscule percent of the population willing to: lie to every single person they know about their job status, relationship status, financial status, giving up all their belongings, living where ever the program allows in whatever type of arrangement the program provides - I don't think that should be a huge concern.
Haha, that's hilarious Katie! Great minds think alike, and I really think these types of projects are very cool and a very necessary part of society and local policy making. I also agree with you about the eligibility issue. While some people are always looking for a free ride and could cause kinks in the system, I think that the vast majority of people are trying their best to remove themselves from such a situation. Here are some interesting statistics on homelessness from http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org/page/hhp/overview-homelessness-america that might sway people to agree with us.
ReplyDelete"35% of the homeless population are families with children (the fastest growing segment of the homeless population).
23% are U.S. military veterans.
25% are children under the age of 18 years.
30% have experienced domestic violence.
20-25% suffer from mental illness.
In urban communities, people experience homelessness for an average of eight months".
An average of 8 months of homelessness does not speak to people trying to take advantage of a system but rather people or families that are seriously struggling and doing their best to get out of it as soon as possible. Programs like the one you mentioned in Germany could help to alleviate this problem significantly.
It sucks that a few people could ruin the system for everyone and create so many doubts within the public, but projects/policy's like these need to focus on the majority who are truly in need (same as with food stamps).