Aside: having a little first and close secondhand experience of homelessness and hostel provision, it seems to me that many people think drugs and mental health issues are the key causes. This is untrue. I'd say there is a "core problem" of those issues, which would be very difficult to solve, but it is a minority. I also wonder how much those problems are secondary symptoms rather than causes. Live on the street long enough and you'll be wanting an escape, for example.
In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc.
It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.
> (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries,
This is not repeated as often as it should. I live in an Eastern European country, not a poor one but definitely not a rich one, and only recently I have learned about LA's Skid Row. Because I was curious I went on Google StreetView and what I saw there [1] literally shocked me, I didn't honestly think scenes like that were possible in a developed country. We certainly don't have them here in my country, we do have our share of people living rough [2] and the like but not on the same scale as I saw in those photos.
This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).
Romania has its plethora of (mainly Roma) shantytowns across the country, like Pata Rât which you link. But reasons why no one resorts to tents on a sidewalk are e.g. 1) weather in Romania is more or less the same across the country, unlike California which draws homeless from across the country for its clement weather, and 2) the Romanian authorities are more hands-off with enforcing building codes in Roma settlements, so you can erect actual buildings.
Also, perhaps emigration to Western Europe has served as a safety valve for homelessness. Some down-and-out Romanians can move to Italy or Spain and immediately improve their prospects. Down-and-out Americans, on the other hand, have nowhere to go so easily.
Actually only a small minority of California's homeless come from another state.
"L.A.H.S.A.’s 2019 homeless count found that 64 percent of the 58,936 Los Angeles County residents experiencing homelessness had lived in the city for more than 10 years. Less than a fifth (18 percent) said they had lived out of state before becoming homeless."
Those studies are always without any proof. Just because someone says they were “living” there doesn’t mean it’s true or in what capacity. I live next to a cop and believe me we are getting homeless druggies from all over because other states would rather send us their problems and those druggies would rather be here where we have loose and permissive laws. Our DAs regularly refuse to prosecute people who have dozens or even hundreds of felonies.
Saying “I live next to a cop” doesn’t provide much proof either.
I think a big issue is that in the US people aren’t willing to acknowledge how blatantly corrupt ALL politicians are. People are really caught up in the tribalism of the two party system.
It’s not necessarily corruption. There’s plenty of voters who vote against making housing more affordable. The entire state of CA has built this mess with their zoning laws
Zoning is the big problem in the US. It is illegal in most cities to build a tiny house, or a decent shelter to sleep in, even if you follow all the safety codes. Zoning says you must have a minimum of 1000+ square feet (100+ square meters), a kitchen, a bathroom, a minimum lot size, minimum setbacks, minimum parking in some areas, etc. A sheriff with a gun will show up eventually to evict you. You either can afford city rent, or you are kind of screwed.
It's a shame that most places won't even allow these people anywhere to pitch a tent, somewhere with bathrooms and access to a bus stop.
> Zoning says you must have a minimum of 1000+ square feet
Minimum lot and habitable space rules vary by state and locality, not only is 1,000 sq. ft. usually above the minimum for habitable space, its often above the minimim for lot size by a wide margin.
Is that common or an exception, particularly in cities where the jobs are?
And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes? It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?
> And does that change the point I was making, that zoning is a bigger impediment to more/cheaper housing than codes?
Zoning is codes, and safety is one of the overt purposes of such codes. And, conversely, state building/safety/hability codes can have zoning-like exclusionary purposes as well as their overt purposes. You can’t really cleanly divide them as unrelated orthogonal rules.
> It isn't safety codes that says I can't put six locked insulated sheds in my back yard for six homeless people to sleep in and a port potty, it's zoning, right?
No, in most cases using sheds and not having in-unit bathrooms would violate safety/hability codes at the state level, not just local zoning ordinances.
Now, building an otherwise legal multiunit apartment complex on your single-family-zoned lot would also be a zoning violation, true.
I appreciate the clarification on codes versus zoning.
However I did some digging and found that there's a big difference between what the commonly used international residential codes allow, and what zoning commonly allows.
From an article on tiny houses [0]:
> Most of the country’s local building codes have been adopted from the International Residential Code (IRC) for one- and two-family dwellings, which contains size specifications like rooms (except bathrooms and kitchens) must be at least 70 square feet, while ceiling height must be at least 7 feet.
> Zoning regulations are based off more local factors, and determine the size requirements of your home based on what zone it’s located in. You will need to call your local zoning or planning department to find that info. Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land, according to Tiny House Community.
And from a separate linked article on minimum dwelling size to satisfy codes [1]:
> I find no requirement that the sleeping area or kitchen must be in separate rooms, and instead could be combined in a studio arrangement. So I believe it could be legitimately argued that a minimum legal area by 2015 IRC standards could be as small as one habitable room of 70 sq. ft. with sleeping area and kitchen, plus a bathroom as small as 18 sq. ft. while meeting minimum spacing requirements.
So it does kind of look like zoning is still the big cost multiplier, since codes say 88 square feet minimum (separate bathroom), while zoning in most cities/counties in the US mandate 1000 square feet minimum. Quite a difference. And that's before getting into minimum lot size.
“The IRC codes require that all homes must be built on a minimum of 320 square feet. The minimum square footage for a house is 120 square feet, and at least one room must be habitable. Habitable rooms meet other regulations, such as needing a closet and at least one window. Other rooms, not meant for sleeping, must be at least 70 square feet.”
It also weasel words (and apparently succeeds in tricking you with it) about what zoning requires; what you interpret as “most” is actually described inbthe article you cite with the far weaker “many”:
> Many cities and counties, however, have a minimum size requirement of 1,000 square feet or more for construction of a new home on its own land
Have I been tricked, or are you being pedantic? Based on my experience looking at a variety of specific city, town, and county zoning regulations I hardly see any that allows a primary dwelling anything close to as small as 120 square feet. 750 square feet? Sure, there's a bunch of those. 400 square feet? Some. Less than 400 square feet? Hardly any. Even places that allow accessory dwelling units are rare/uncommon.
The places where an overwhelming majority of people live (where the jobs are) have zoning regulations that do not allow 120 square foot houses, or anything close to that small. There's a lot of people who want a tiny house and can't find a place to legally put one. It still looks like zoning defines minimums for the most part, not safety codes, and there is a big difference, which was my original point.
That is what I tell Americans all the time—go to any poor country in Europe and it never looks as bad as even the richer parts of San Francisco or LA. In California we simply have given up on the homeless.
We squander hundreds of millions and billions into completely untracked and unaccountable programs where executives skim off the top. We spend money on giving drug addicts more needles (but not to diabetics!) and blankets and $5000 tent camps or other useless or less than useless solutions. It’s pathetic that in the richest state and with so much wealth, we allow this inhumane situation to continue. COVID gave local mayors an excuse to do even less. Now there are city streets covered in filth, rats, feces, lawlessness, drugs, prostitution, etc are all on the street in broad daylight.
We should be embarrassed but most people just shrug it off (or downvote for bringing it up). Whatever we are doing is clearly not working and it’s a policy failure we should look into.
Then we have morons like the DA in San Francisco, Chesa Boudin, who have effectively stopped the police from enforcing the rule of law which is attracting more of the homeless who just want to do meth and steal bikes and break them down for parts. Every freeway overpass is covered in trash and homeless creeps are all over. I’m taking my wife and kid and moving out of California soon, this is just a disgusting way to live for the astronomical cost of living.
I don’t think it’s a question of money. The main constraints are:
1) No one wants homeless shelters, supportive housing, mental institutions, day program facilities, etc. in their neighborhoods.
2) Well meaning but naive people constrain the solution space.
For example, there’s been a movement to reduce arrests for various things. An unintended consequence or that is that homeless people that victimize other homeless people (including theft and assault) are less frequently arrested and so homeless shelters become less attractive to the homeless.
>> This is a failure for the US society as a whole, I am really surprised it's not a bigger discussion topic in the US mainstream media (at least I wasn't able to see it).
It's not a failure of the US society. In some parts of the world, which include the US, if you're out on the streets on your ass it's your fault. In other parts of the world, if you're out on the streets on your ass it doesn't matter whose fault it is, we'll take you in. Usually "we" is the family, sometimes "we" is the state.
But it's a feature, not a bug. Some parts of the world are so individualistic that everyone is on their own, for good or bad.
The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London. Both of these cities have the distinction of making various lists with titles like "The 11 most expensive cities to live in around the world in 2020" [0].
So while I don't disagree that that far tail of people probably do need some welfare to get a house, I do want to state that if someone is going to get welfare so that they can live in a house, it should not be a house in London. It should be a house somewhere somewhat cheaper than London.
If someone honest to goodness can't keep a roof over their heads, they deserve help but really shouldn't be trying to make it work in one of the worlds most expensive cities.
Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not.
Forcing folks to move can easily mean forcing folks to leave behind what family and friends they have, and seems cruel. Some of the folks will have jobs that don't pay enough to live in the city they work in, and I don't think we should punish people by making them have hours of commuting either.
"You are too poor to live here" is also "you are too poor to afford to take this basic job" as well as "you are too poor to stay around anyone you know".
> Most people have little choice in where they live. It doesn't matter if the city you live in is expensive: When you are poor, you can't move. Some people might like to move: Others would not.
That is only true if someone has roots: a job and/or family. If you are single and don’t have many possessions, let alone a job or anyone to look after or be looked after, you are incredibly mobile. Prisons on egress will even ay for your bus ticket to go wherever, if you are without any roots to return to (because they never existed or were long burned away), that literally can be anywhere.
Finally, if you need help to survive and live in a place like Great Falls MT, you aren’t going to get anything there unless you family or some other roots to rely on. You’ll probably wind up in Spokane and then Seattle. If you weren’t mobile, you probably did get help or weren’t helpless in the first place.
I guess there is some confusion between poor and homeless. I totally agree that poor people should be given help to keep living in their own communities, but not necessarily to move into a higher priced community. People without any housing at all are a different story all together. There is no reason why they should be housed in higher priced cities if they don’t have jobs to commute to in the first place.
Sure. Poor people don't do this all the time, though. Moving requires things like deposits and first months' rent. If you change utility companies? More deposits.
I've had to turn down jobs because I couldn't afford the startup costs. One was just red shirts, and I couldn't afford one.
A time or two, the reason I was able to move was because I could stay with family.
Transportation isn't enough. People should be able to live near work: Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes. Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter, a basic need. And so on.
Sure, there are lots of things that should be, but aren't.
Not everybody can live near work, especially not in the nation's most expensive areas. Being able to live near work is not a basic right, nor should it be.
> Being poor shouldn't mean spending 4 hours a day on commutes.
Ideally not, but if that's all you can get then at least it should be an option.
That being said, the best way to level the field is to have the aforementioned subsidized means of leaving for a low cost of living area.
> Being poor shouldn't mean moving away from people you know just to have shelter
Why not?
If you cannot afford to live in a high cost area, why should somebody else pay for your right to live there?
If you cannot pay your way, what right do you have to occupy a space that somebody else needs and can pay for it? Merely being there first should not confer any special privilege.
Having shelter is a basic need. Living near people you know is not.
A lot of homeless people have jobs. Jobs are in the city. Are you suggesting all the homeless need to do is rent a parking space downtown for their Bentley and they can commute from a nice tent in a farmer's field outside of town?
For goodness sakes, a shack on a lake north of Toronto goes for millions of dollars these days [0].
A few years ago a conservative government in Alberta tried to solve their homeless problem by giving free one-way tickets to Vancouver to the homeless instead of welfare cheques. Dumping your problem on someone else converts a cost into an economic externality but is sure to get you hated.
I live in one of the cities listed and if I were allowed to build my own shelter in the middle of one of it's public parks, I too would jump at the opportunity.
This is some of the worlds most desirable real estate here. This isn't even a case of bad government policy, which I would usually arc up about. The article is homeless people taking over public land for private use without doing anything to justify that privilege. That isn't fair, if it is up for grabs I want it and I'd be behind a long queue of other people who want it. The right to use that land is worth a fortune. Being homeless, while sad, is not actually something that should be rewarded with free space in the centre of a metropolis. If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
This is a marginal case of private use of public lands. These are shelters, rather than homes. The size (2' by 6') and construction offers little more than physical security while sleeping.
There are reasons why some homeless people prefer parks. For example: parks tend to be closer to social services and other means of support. There are also homeless people who find other places to squat.
> If we are going to support them, we can support them to live somewhere less desirable.
Unfortunately, there are also people who believe that type of support means forced relocation. There are many reasons to oppose force relocation. In the mildest of terms, it is never intended to solve the root problem of poverty.
There is a line to be drawn on what people can do in public parks. At the extremes:
* It is totally reasonable that people sit in them and enjoy the sun.
* It is totally unreasonable for a billionaire to wall a section off and build a mansion in it.
Now we can debate where that line is drawn, but a professionally built plywood structure with door locks and smoke detectors is a lot closer to the unacceptable end than the alternative. That is starting to build up a permanent dwelling in a public space.
I don't know how to solve homelessness, and I'll admit to not trying very hard. But if we can just hive off public spaces for people to live on, then there is no way the homeless are getting first pick. I know people who had to leave a major city due to housing costs and move to the country. If the topic of debate is repurposing public land for longer-term dwellings, they should get priority access to it over these homeless people.
> if you can’t afford a home you probably can’t afford a car
That’s simply untrue. Owning a car is vastly less expensive than renting a dwelling in most cities. I’ve known people that went homeless, and it’s pretty common for them to...live in their car.
Those cars and vans quickly become non functional, however, at least where I live. The tires deflate and they become a hard temporary shelter that occupies on street parking rather than space for a tent in a park.
Well, most of them would be foolish to accept - they'd be trading a chance at getting the services they need for better immediate shelter, but be trapped in an economic dead end with no social services, no health care, lousy education and no way out. And then someone would whine that we shouldn't give handouts to people who live in rural areas, they should eat some bootstraps and move somewhere with opportunities......
Maybe we need to dedicate lots where self-policing groups of homeless people can put their temporary shelters, provide them with a porta potty, somewhere near a bus stop so they can get to work. This would be such a boon for so many struggling people.
In most large cities squatting cannot be a longer term solution, as it often doesnt take long to be explused from a place (in paris for example squats stay around from 2 to 6 months on average if you are lucky enough to manage to secure the place for the first week or so).
Also depending on who runs and occupies the building, it might actually not always be a safe/sane housing option neither.
My open question wrt to squatting is the potential to incentivize keeping real estate in active use. If "use it or lose it" is official policy, it might help mitigate hoarding.
A bit like some cities are now penalizing unoccupied condos, where investors buy up condos and then don't even rent them out.
> The article is talking about Toronto. You're talking about London.
Sorry, no I wasn't, my fault for not being clearer. I gave an example of London but my experience is beyond that city, that's just where I happened to talk directly with a lot of homeless people about why they were on the streets.
My observations generalise to the rest of my experience, for sure, including in very poor towns with low rents in the UK.
The other distinction with Toronto is the government hasn't "removed their welfare" as the other user suggests. Most of the homeless have a source of income.
Is it really surprising that drug addicts can’t afford housing in the most expensive cities in the world? In San Francisco we are constantly fed propaganda to tell us this is a housing crisis, but someone on meth or heroin can’t afford the rent regardless if it’s in SF or Des Moines. The drugs are the big issue but no one wants to address it.
Homelessness exists in cities because it's possible to be homeless in cities. It's not possible to be homeless (without a vehicle) outside cities. Ergo, cities cultivate homelessness. If you make living as a homeless person impossible in cities, homelessness would disappear.
By what mechanism would homelessness disappear? What would happen to the existing and newly homeless? Because it sounds like the answer is "starvation to death".
You assume that none of the homeless can lift themselves up from homelessness. I've read some interviews with them, and it seems that a portion of them just prefers homelessness to hard physical work for meager pay (which is an only option available for them). With the support systems provided by cities and states, homelessness can be seen as a favorable option by people who have an extreme aversion for labor (not to mention that without having to show up for work every morning they can freely pursue their drinking habit). I don't see that angle discussed here.
Maybe it depends on the country. But after working with homeless people in the Netherlands I completely agree with you.
I helped homeless people who had a job but could not afford a house anymore for different reasons. Most were helped with housing after some time. But if that time is long the temptation to take more alcohol than you should is right around the corner.
The Netherlands has a pretty effective social housing program. Not flawless but millions of people have a roof over their head thanks to government assistance.
The effectiveness unfortunately has eroded over the past years. There's a huge supply gap in almost all major cities. Moving people to the other side of the country for a house might not always be a bad things (it could help them break away from a toxic social circle) but it also tears them away from family, their job and their support system.
With the forecast being that the housing crisis will last until 2030 I'm not sure how much longer it will be effective.
Possibly depends on the country and region. But I worked very closely with the homeless population in Seattle from 2001-2010 and the key issues prevalent in almost every case was chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, and mental illness.
I left Seattle in 2010 and went back a couple years ago to visit and it looked like the homeless population had doubled in the time since. Seattle has an enormous problem that they have no idea how to solve.
My wife is a welfare case worker and freely shares her experience with this sort of thing at the end of her day.
It is her observation that mental illness tends to precede everything. It tends to be what leads to addiction, though self-medication. It tends to lead to homelessness through a lack of cooperation with the housing providers, with the welfare providers who would pay for housing, or with the ability to live in a closed space. Even if your rent is paid by the state the landlord will kick you out for destroying property. When the leprechaun tells you to burn things, don't light a fire on your bed.
There are the generationally poor, the people whose luck took a turn for the worse, and refugees from violence but those populations don't usually end up living rough unless they also develop mental illness.
People aren't worried about homelessness per se, they are worried about the impact on their own quality of life, which is primarily from people with drug and mental health issues.
Slews of people with mental health and drug addiction issues aren't homeless, and few worry about them if they are keeping to themselves. And slews of homeless folks don't do drugs nor start out with mental health issues. After all, job loss is a thing and drugs are expensive.
People could just house others, which is cheaper and more humane than our current actions, and they could go back to pretending mental health issues and drug addiction do not exist.
I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for?
Coming from Berlin (which has sizable population of homeless) it was shocking to see many people sleeping on the street in Belfast. There's a lot of homeless in Berlin but I guess they can go to shelter at night. Not so in Belfast.
It's not heartless to point out that most people don't care about the actual problem of being homeless except for the way it affects them, and it's relevant to point it out because it's an important part of understanding why the existing solutions have been chosen.
I think it's because on the other side of the station there's the "bahnhofsmission" branch of berliner-stadtmission. https://g.page/bamizoo?share
Homeless are there because that's where they need to go, not because they like Bahnhof Zoo all that much.
If talking in absolutes, Berlin is most populous city in European Union (talking population within city limits proper - Paris and Madrid are larger if you take urban agglomeration in account.) Sure you will see larger absolute numbers than in any other city.
Curious: what do you think Madrid is doing differently, if you think they have less visible population of homeless?
> I am not sure why it's relevant to point this out. Actually I think it's rather heartless. Don't you have some ideals to strive for?
It seems you're talking past the parent comment.
The fact that some people are down on their luck does not cause crime and insecurity per se. However, mental illness and drug abuse does have a considerable link with safety problems.
Let's put it this way: if you grant housing to someone who suffers from drug addiction or mental illness, those person's problems and the negative impact they have on society won't go magically away.
In fact, think about it for a minute: why are homeless shelters and drug clinics notorious hotspots of insecurity?
>This is what Wendi from Houston, TX had to say about her shelter experience:
>“The largest homeless shelter in Houston is the Salvation Army, or “Sally House” as it is commonly called. It has been shut down three times in the last two years due to bedbug infestation, abruptly forcing folks who were trying to get their lives together to abandon most of their belongings and head back to the streets. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
>Staying at Sally House means having a 5pm curfew, and being awakened at 4:30am to be ready for 5am church, in order to get a breakfast of cold cereal and sent on your way for the day. These hours are totally unrealistic for getting a job in the real world; thus the system forces you to stay in these conditions.
>On top of all of this, you aren’t allowed to have any of your belongings. They are placed in a closet for ‘safekeeping,’ which is usually anything but safe. But more on that later. Instead of your sleeping bag or bedroll, you are given a thin hospital quality blanket, no pillow – and either a cot (if you are lucky) or a thin foam mat on the floor (like a yoga mat). This is where you will sleep, 6 inches from a stranger, after attending the 6pm church service in order to get a sack lunch for dinner.
Showers and laundry are allowed once per week.
>Rarely does a ‘client’ get assigned shower and laundry on the same day, so both pretty much defeat the purpose. You either have to bathe and put dirty clothes back on, or do laundry and put your clean outfit on a dirty body. You can be kicked out if you are caught taking a sponge bath or rinsing out your undergarments in the restroom sink.
>Please don’t think I am just picking on Sally House. These are the rules at every shelter in Houston. Times may vary a bit, but the main points are the same. Star of Hope is commonly referred to as Star of Dope because most of their staff is ‘former’ addicts who are not only still using but actively dealing. Restoration Hope Ministries forces its clients to panhandle all day and then confiscates the money. The list goes on and on. This is why many of us choose not to go to shelters.
>When personal property is put in a closet, unless you are the first one there in the morning you risk things being stolen (if the staff hasn’t done so already). When the stranger bunked next to you (and the staff) are high as a kite on every substance known to man, you risk being assaulted, raped, or killed. Sleep doesn’t come easy when you have to live with these facts.
>I sleep better on a sidewalk with my homeless ‘family’ around me than I ever could in a shelter.”
A lot of them will magically go away, is the thing. Even more of them will magically go away if you give them actual healthcare and social workers along with the housing.
> A lot of them will magically go away, is the thing.
No, they really don't.
Someone's schizophrenia doesn't magically vanish if you get your own two-bedroom apartment, nor does your heroin addiction magically vanish if you get a fancy studio apartment with the nicest view. It's outright insulting to every single person who ever struggled with mental illness or drug addiction to even suggest that real estate is a magical cure to problems.
From where I'm standing, this looks an awful lot like correlation being passed off as causality. You see happy families in the suburbs, with their nice house and nice life, and then you see people struggling with mental health and drug addiction, and all you see is that one's have a house while others don't. Well, guess what needs to be in place in your life before you can even be in a position to buy a house.
This isn't hypothetical and it isn't some silly correlation, there are plenty of successful programs doing exactly this, commonly called "housing first". Real estate magically reduces your need for whatever substance you can find to feel relaxed enough to sleep on concrete. Being in the same place every day magically cures your ability to have your medication available every morning. Living in a house magically stops you from needing to wear the same wet socks until your feet peel off. Sleeping in a bed, staying warm and fed and hydrated - all of these make a huge difference to physical and mental health. Do they fix everything? No, that's why I mentioned the supports that need to be added. But they're significant improvements anyway.
I hear a lot of people say that there's too much welfare and support for homeless people and it makes them want to get in on it, but none of them have ever gone to live in a park to get on that list so I think they're not being honest. Generally I think there is a path pretty far away from your silly picture, and also pretty far away from making them all die outside.
I did live kind of like that off and on for a year in my first Afghanistan deployment. You are correct that most people have absolutely no idea what it’s like to live like that, but once you do you realize it’s both restrictive and liberating. Being outside all the time makes it hard to be inside in a way that’s hard to explain.
I didn't say whether they knew what it's like to be homeless, but no, living outside is not the defining feature. I said that even people who complain that the government is making it too attractive don't follow through to do it by choice, because they're wrong and they don't believe their own arguments.
oh wow what an insight - this is why people focus on that part. It had never occurred to me before, thanks! So the quiet majority of homeless people don't get discussed because they don't bother rich people... that makes so much sense.
>When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.
It's not just about what they provide, but also how they provide it. If the bureaucracy to take advantage of these housing benefits is too thick, then the people that need it the most won't be able to get them.
This is one thing where individuals trying to help are likely going to do better. An individual isn't going to have a bureaucratic mess that you need to navigate to get help. The government might have such a mess though.
Precisely. Due to the pandemic we now know two things in the UK. First that there are 9 times as many homeless as stats claim and second that all people can be housed. This is due to the fact that this was accomplished during the first lockdown. There just has to be political will.
It's housing costs entertwined with mental problems and drug use.
In many countries you can afford a shack with US equivalent of $100 a month. In rich countries such shacks are illegal and all the regulation and land cost raises minimum rent far above that.
At least 2/3 of homeless are addicted or mentally ill. The fraction that isn't typically doesn't live on the streets for more than a few months.
In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.
> In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.
I also wonder how much more likely certain countries are to quietly move mental health cases into clinics. This implies a whole lot of things about freedoms and due process.
> In my experience you don't see many homeless in poorer countries because housing is cheap relatively speaking.
India has well over a million homeless people, including (by some accounts) over 100,000 in the capital Delhi. I personally remember seeing quite a few people who appeared homeless in Delhi, including families squatting in historical sites (the Old Fort).
Big cities in places like India and China are an exception. In these places average salary can be 10X higher than rural areas of the same province. Because the big cities are much father along towards being developed country than outskirts. So housing here is expensive and has the same result.
There are people making $2000 a year living in heated somewhat comfortable homes. Homeless in the US make more than that just in welfare benefits but they live in tents on the streets
In my city in the states, easy homelessness cases are easy to treat so they get treated, and plucked from the pool of visible homeless rather quickly as they obtain and maintain transitional housing. That leaves behind a lot of chronic cases that aren’t easy to just throw some resources at, the ones where drugs and mental illness are involved.
Also, the more successful anyone city treats its problem, the worse it becomes if the larger context it exists in doesn’t treat it as well. For example, I read a story about an ex-con who is released from a prison in Texas, is given a bus ticket to go anywhere, and picks Seattle (not having ever been there) because they hear that is the place to be right now (they might have picked LA before). So the problem is influenced by regional and National governments as well, one city or even metro can’t work alone its way out of the problem.
I imagine it’s similar in the UK, just maybe on a smaller case (our problem over here has exploded in the last decade).
(b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness.
In NYC that difference in policy was not anything to do with social welfare payments. It was a reduction in arrests for quality of life crimes. Fewer people in jail, more on the streets. At least in the medium term—-in the decades’ long view the larger change was closing the big mental institutions in favor of “community treatment”.
It’s worth noting that NYC is legally obligated to provide a bed for everyone. The people on the street don’t want to use the shelter system for a mixture of reasons.
> When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.
Such social services are, themselves, often chains that bind people down. The requirements to receive them often lead people away from incremental work that would allow them to dip their toes in and potentially get back on their feet. Minimum wage laws increase the barriers further for the down and out.
Additionally, there is a kind of depression that hits when you are not providing for yourself. Especially for men.
It's my opinion it's the barriers we build that's the root cause of the cost minimums. The tight and restrictive zoning laws are more to blame for homelessness. Restrictive zoning cause the minimum income level to get housing to be quite elevated, and if you find yourself below that level - you are homeless. Minimum wage barriers to work stem from pricing caused by the zoning. If a society is able to lower that minimum income level significantly, then there will be a lot fewer on the streets.
I always fancied allowing for parking lots that let people live out of their cars, or a tent if you can't manage a car. The lots could charge for rent and provide basic amenities such as bathrooms, wifi, communal kitchen, and maybe power for a heated blanket. Then pretty much any down and out commercial property could be turned into such a lot without much work.
Here the minimum rent is about $1000/mo, if you're willing to be a roommate you can get that down to about $500/mo. A car-turned-home-lot at local real estate prices could support rents as low as $75-100/mo per slot and be quite profitable for the lot owner. If done as a non-profit it could be $40-50/mo at current interest rates. An order of magnitude lower.
Such options give people the dignity and self respect of caring for themselves. And accomplish it at a much much lower cost point. Remove the minimum wage barrier and an individual with no skills but a willingness to work could support himself in a reasonably healthy lifestyle at $4/hr. This would, IMHO, go much further to solving these issues.
It sounds like you’re advocating for a $4 minimum wage and a living situation that requires a vehicle, while only providing anecdata and opinion in attempt to contradict the very qualitative and well-studied benefits of social programs. Is that accurate?
I think it’s fair to say that quality of life can reach far and beyond the kind of conditions you’re describing, especially given the surplus of wealth that goes towards other government services. As a taxpayer with representation, I would prefer to see more of my dollars go toward raising the lowest standard, not rationalizing poverty for the sake of an impressive military.
I lived in Lausanne and used the youth hostel when I first moved there. There was a homeless drunk guy that the police would put in the hostel every night, he smelled horrible. It wasn’t a great experience for me but at least he wasn’t sleeping on the street. Lausanne also had a lot of squatters, mostly young foreigners, but that was a completely different subculture. I never figured out why the police didn’t come down hard on them, they did on everything else.
I was homeless for a few months. It was shit, and the shelter I was able to access was just ok, but not a safe place.
This guy saw a need and did something. Whether it is legal or not, isn’t the question. Why the government isn’t working with him rather than against him is the real question.
Very few people have the balls to even try anything to help, even just giving money. The fact the government doesn’t want to tackle the homeless problem is just another version of “wait until they go away”.
This is not a new problem. Not all homeless people are druggies or crazies. And the homeless problem will only get worse, not better.
It’s too bad Toronto wants to waste time and resources on seeking legal action on the guy for trying to do the right thing.
> I am not commenting on the moral side of this persons actions, only the legal side.
But this is a false sense of neutrality and objectivity. Asking about the legality of aiding humans cannot be done without considering the moral side of the law and the moral side of the actions. Especially since the law itself has a moral component.
illegal is not the point....he did a good thing. the law is wrong. Toronto is a bureaucratic nightmare and they would help people if it doesn't align with their corruption.
Some interesting notes about the shelters from the video:
- they are on wheels, and because they're off the ground they stay warm and dry even when it's raining
- they can be locked from the outside or inside, which gives people a sense of safety (e.g. people's tents can get slashed up, but these are strong), and they can also safely leave possessions there
- they let people sleep much better (longer, more comfortable)
The amount having these things improves a person's psychological state is immense.
Homeless shelters are awful places. Not only because of the conditions there but also sometimes the conditions for being there. I know someone who was kicked out of one once for not participating in a Christian prayer (he is Muslim).
I can't imagine a better and cheaper solution than the man in the article came up with. It's clear the city leaders prefer to stick their head in the sand than to entertain real solutions
There’s nothing a city (or state) can do that will not result in higher and higher expenses from other cities (or states) sending you their homeless. It’s the same problem as providing healthcare (or even just mental healthcare).
In the absence of federal action, the solution thus far has been to use police to harass homeless and keep them moving along or sequestered in certain areas, or to live in suburbs that you need cars to survive in.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted because you raise a valid point: cities often “solve” their homeless problem by shipping their homeless to other cities. After all, a bus ticket is cheaper than providing shelter.
Cities that are extremely homeless friendly find themselves with an influx both organically (some choose to relocate themselves) and from other cities.
This is an issue in Portland and SF, to name just two.
Note: I’m not advocating ignoring or not helping the homeless. It’s just a difficult problem.
This was my thought when reading the parent's comment, though I was curious if they had a particular idea in mind at the city level. It seems like everyone shits on the city, and sometimes rightfully so, but cities ideally function as high-bandwidth/low-latency diverse economic regions where space is consequently at a premium. It seems like there's not a lot of margin within that system if a bunch of people fall outside of that (or are literally shipped in) the nature of the city would have to evolve to solve an intractable problem on its own. Maybe they even make some headway for a while, now the streets are empty and some other cities decide they can start shipping their homeless again.
Legalize drugs, prostitution and all other vices that prop up organized crime.
People who can't contribute within a city, need to be sorted and moved to places where they can contribute in some basic capacity, as simple as working in a grocery store part time in a small town.
It doesn't cost hardly anything to have a small apartment in a small town and have food, a community and a good simple life.
Everyone needs to either contribute, or receive a subsidy from someone who is currently contributing. Society works when people work to make society work. People seem to have lost sight of that.
These would be alternative to tents, slightly more permanent, and therefore have the advantage of allowing some control over their placement. I can see this as a beginning to an alternative way to solve it that could make everyone happy, by spreading out semi-permanent shelter strategically, and preventing all kinds of things by isolating people this way while at the same time providing shelter and ideally hygiene also.
The point is that we should be housing folks with proper housing instead. Sheds do not make everyone happy - would you, if you found yourself homeless, be happy living in a shed for months? What if you have children?
Do you want to share showers and toilets? Always eat communally? Be without your own refrigerator?
Do you feel comfortable with family and friends staying in these sheds?
Sure it's not a straight forward solution. "Proper housing" however, as defined by many city/county authorities, tends to be an overkill solution, in my opinion. I believe setting someone who was on the streets for some time with a regular apartment, might be setting them up for failure because it could prove to be too big of a step to take. One day you have no responsibilities, and then you have to pay rent and keep a job presumably (if we're talking about a real solution that helps them help themselves). A semi-permanent and cheap alternative gives people extra time to figure their life out and make the proper moves to then be able to keep a place and a job.
I was looking for the same thing. I came to the conclusion that the reason the article didn’t share any is because a 6x8’ (ironically, slightly smaller than the dimensions of a jail cell) plywood shack, constructed by a 28 year old, that is given away, probably looks worse than the shanties of the poorest Brazilian favelas.
As a side note, it’s often times easier to gauge the bias of a news source by what they deliberately won’t show you, than the entirety of the content they craft to try and persuade you.
> probably looks worse than the shanties of the poorest Brazilian favelas.
They're intended to be temporary shelters, not homes. In any case, isn't the correct comparison to the tent or sleeping bag someone would otherwise be living in?
> ironically, slightly smaller than the dimensions of a jail cell
The major difference being that you aren't locked in. (Side note: I belive you will need a second escape for this to be legal in Norway and a number of other places.)
Furthermore, for the same type of geometry more room means more surface which means either more insulation and higher build cost or not being usable in winter without extra heating.
Also, for reference, my "corona office" that I use now is 1.6mx1.8m and contains a 1.4m desk and a 0.4m width filing cabinet on one wall, a chair in the middle and a bookshelf and an area were I stack plastic boxes behind me. It is cramped and I often opt for the kitchen when I can but when schools are closed it feels like it is the difference between working productively and going nuts.
Yeah... Everybody is kind-spirited until you start living in slums. What's a pity here that the media is doing victimbaiting to get some extra page views.
Most of the people do not want to have random and scruffy-looking shacks on side-walks while they are getting to work in the morning.
The local government is just enforcing that because that's the job they've been elected to do. That might be a hard pill to swallow for somebody who likes to pretend that they care about other people, but, most likely, that municipality will be reelected because most people support what they are doing.
If cities don't want slums to exist, they need to provide subsidised housing. Shelter is a basic human need, so either a city builds it or people will build their own.
No, the city can just provide public land away from the city center where people are permitted to set up their own tents. Like in a fruit orchard or something.
Budgets are very constrained to the amounts permitted by sales, property, and excise taxes with many voters not really wanting to increase the first two. In my city, the city has already closed down 3/4ths of the libraries due to budget constraints.
The cost-benefit analysis of creating subsidized housing oftentimes just doesn’t pan out and there are better uses of city funds —- like on libraries.
They built an encampment like this under the 27th street overpass in West Oakland. It immediately turned into a festering cesspool of filth. Putting people in doghouses is not a solution to the homeless problem.
I happened to be touring the area in the not too recent past and had to travel by Amtrak long distance. When it passed through Oakland and the east bay I couldn't believe the devastated scenes I was able to witness. These sights are otherwise hidden from plain sight since trains typically travel through less than desirable areas. My jaw dropped. I saw stretches of abandoned vehicles, burned out vehicles, trash piles, shanty towns, it was crazy.
The micro/tiny homes in Portland seem to be doing pretty well. Hasn't turned into a disaster like some people said would happen. It sure beats seeing people living in their own trash piles under bridges. It's really sad the gov isn't doing more, and gets upset when people try to help. The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place.
>The people who complain about homeless camps are also the same ones partially responsible for it in the first place.
We are all responsible at some level for not holding politicians accountable for a problem that they created. The real problem is the long term, destitute, mentally ill homeless. Not the crust kids or the down on their luck people who are out of work. They can be handled mostly with jobs programs, community outreach, and a housing based approach. But the people who are physically incapable of caring for themselves require legal intervention. We used to institutionalize these people, and give them some modicum of a dignified life, but that ended with the Reagan administration [0]. The result is that now we literally treat stray dogs with more compassion in this country.
There's plenty of evidence that even people who can't fully care for themselves will be better off in supportive housing. For a simple example, it's a lot easier to stay on medication when the bottle is in the same place every time you need it.
Options for upgrading the typical tent to shelters, yurts, microhomes would be awesome.
Society should also provide ad hoc sanitation, waste management, misc safety and convenience. These semi permanent encampments should automatically get honeypots, water stations, trash bins, and so forth.
Something, anything. Just to make their lives less terrible, less dangerous.
The city won’t allow professional homebuilders to construct enough real housing units that meet the building code, why would they let amateurs build pseudo housing?
I have a feeling they won’t. I saw a video about a similar project in LA. City came down on it hard while some bureaucrat rambled on about some vague “plan to end homelessness” of his.
I'm always a bit unsatisfied with the reasons given for homelessness and the handwaving that goes on.
(anecdote alert) Being old enough to have seen a real sea change in the problem, I'm unconvinced that the town I grew up in (which went from essentially zero homeless people in the 1960s to a very largish and noticeable contingent now) had a huge increase in alcohol/drug abuse, house price to income ratio (I looked it up), ramp up in mentally ill.
It's easy to slide into using changes in the social substrate (single parent households, death of small business, lack of peer pressure, lack of strict law enforcement) as reasons, but then the handwaving just starts all over again.
As far as building small people-boxes is concerned, I've seen that very movie before, and more than once. What usually happens is that some local stores donate materials in order to gain social credit score, people get together over a couple of weekends to screw together moveable teeny-tiny houses, declare victory, in six months the wood has become scrap and is dragged out of the woods or vacant lots bit by bit. I'm not so sure that a favela, if that's really what you want, can be grown inorganically.
Maybe if the city of Toronto isn't happy with tiny shelters, maybe they should allow new 'proper' houses to be built. Toronto is the sixth most expensive housing market (by income) in the world, yet they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas. People talk a lot about mental illness and drug addiction, which undoubtedly is part of the problem, but when you have such an extreme cost of living burden for living in a basically mediocre city, I'm not sure why anybody is surprised at the social problems that result.
Do you really think the solution to homeless people is to just build more buildings and give it to them for free?
Hint: if you announce to the world that you're doing that, there'll suddenly be a lot of homeless people coming from everywhere to partake in your generosity.
As an aside: I'm in need of money, how much are you willing to give me? You'd be resulting in a social problem by not giving me money. Let me know how much you're personally invested in solving social problems.
If you think it's an absurd ask, I agree. That's exactly how I feel about the homeless. If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to, anymore than I get to take some of your money because you happen to have more.
Pretty sure the parent poster wasn’t talking about giving building housing and giving it away for free.
> they still mostly use a 1960's era city plan that forbids dense residential development in most areas.
I big source of homelessness is... well... simply being priced out of living somewhere.
> If you can't afford Toronto, go live somewhere else. It's not a God's given right that you get to live in the 6th most expensive city because you want to
I don’t think most people live where they do out of some sense of entitlement. They just live there because that’s what they once could afford or where they found work. Losing one’s home can also mean losing one’s job and ultimately homelessness. Bad city planning only worsens income inequality and the only ones benefitting from this are landlords and speculators.
Moving is also extremely expensive and isolating. If you can't afford housing, you can't really afford moving either. They can either stay where they have social and charitable connections and maybe irregular work to a place where they have none of that with a much smaller job market. Plus, if you have no home, job or other creature comforts, it's kind of nice to at least be somewhere familiar. It's not surprising people get stuck where they are.
Ha placing homeless people on mass into very small towns doesn’t help. My small town had a major influx of homeless from the big city and we didn’t have the resources or opportunities to help them.
Also you seem to be responding to things the original poster didn’t say.
Did I say for free? No, I didn't. The idea is that you allow anybody to build more supply, and the price comes down.
Did I make any mention of spending to solve the problem? No, I didn't so quit putting words in my mouth.
Making economic migrants of everyone is not a good solution. Believe it or not, some people have roots in their communities. Not to mention cities are where jobs and amenities are. What, is everybody going to move to Barrie all of a sudden? Terrible idea and 100% lacking in empathy or good sense. Oh also I don't know if you noticed but the housing crisis is national now.
I built over twenty of these mobile nanoshelters so far. $155 each. The excuse of not a long term solution equates to corrupt morals and could be a sign of anti human bias or some mental issue.
Tents aren't either. We should tell homeless people because they don't seem to be aware.
When people in charge do not care, some people have the courage to look for achievable betterment. If I was homeless, I would really prefer the dog house and I would be glad somebody really cared. Plus they look great.
Shanty towns aren't a solution but they are the best achievable solution to the people that build them.
Or is it really a lack of care or do homeless people have the social role of reminding working people what could happen to them if they decided to did not want to do that shitty job anymore ?
I am aware that homelessness is problem that is more complex than it seems. Unsurprisingly, those who fall into homelessness, generally start in life some kind of handicap whether it is a psychological, social or physical handicap. Drug abuse is a real problem but experiments show that a more stable and less stressful life leads to reduced and better drug use patterns rather than buy all the drug you can because there might be no tomorrow. I won't go into discussing whether drug abuse is a cause or consequence of homelessness as it can be both or none. Having said all that, I doubt there's any political will to "solve" as those people don't vote, just get the cops to make them go away from the places where people who vote live. But It's possible I am being cynical.
The article claims there is insulation in the units he built, vapor barriers. This is a massive difference over a tent. A live-or-die difference, especially if one is sick with a cold or flu.
For example you can lock them. This gives other opportunities than a tent.
They give better protection against the elements. So the body will have less stress giving the mind more focus on planning ahead.
Homeless people are in survival mode all the time. A tiny firm shelter can change that mode. This is also the reason why 'housing first' projects work. They take away the survival mode and make thinking about the future an option again.
To see a short interview of the carpenter along with some footage of the construction of the shelters, here's a Good Morning America segment on the story: https://youtu.be/0zkrH6yquWM
Somehow related to the general problem of lack of housing, in Toronto you could build laneway suites [0], and there is a proposal to allow backyard suites.
Again, real problem is socialism [thinking] - that system will resolve all problems. But any systems are unperfect - "never say never" do not apply here.
We have society/tax/government sponsored homeless shelters, food points, social workers etc etc. But it is obviously not enough because every "system" is generalization -> some or most cases are resolved but some cases are lost.
More, having "help system" sometimes PROHIBITS real help, example: article above ! It is epidemy and they prohibit more then sensible help ! Possible fire problem ? Or just someone didn't like this ? Other example: some baker was giving free food to poor peoples and government tax institution send him to court because someone (poor people) gained somerealynothing and no tax was paid... - beyound stupidity or evil .
Even more: when there is official help system some people take it as excuse for not doing personal help, eg: "GO TO FOOD POINT YOU $%%*(&^". Socialism mentality is like this. Plus corruption acceptance, IMO always.
Help systems are part of our better civilisation. But preventing personal help is effective destroying that civilisation.
My proposition: every city clerk take one mini-wooden-shelter with homeless person on his house front grass
lawn. And providing some food for your poor neighber is pretty obvious, right ?
If you look at history you will see that this situation has occurred several times in the past on a fairly predictable schedule. It is generally followed by large-scale warfare which resolves the economic issues by deploying massive coordinated killing efforts.
We're due and ready. China seems ready, too, and without them we're ready for civil war on our own. It's tragically, unfortunately true, that a (big) war would be like a reset... economic rebuilding follows, but in what kind of society and economic organization would then be the question.
I think a civil war is exactly what the CCP wants (obviously) and is fomenting. It would destroy us. Ww3 would probably unify us, but carries huge risks. Fun times.
To be clear, I believe that wars are tragic and criminal, and that humans have always at least pretended to be better than animals. But wars bring humans down to the level of ant colonies.
We really are better than ants though. And individual human lives have value. There is no reason for war to resolve our technical issues. The economy is a technical and logistical problem.
'people without housing opted to sleep outside in tents rather than accept the heightened risk at the shelters'....
This issue is more complex than it appears. The catchall phrase 'homeless' doesn't begin to describe the three horsemen of the unsheltered apocalypse: Substance abuse, Serious mental illness and indigents.
While the shelters are often very rough drug dens, ironically many substance abuse casualties refuse care and walk out of other services facilities because they won't or can't abide by the sobriety rules.
I'm very enthusiastic about firms like palletshelter.com because local authorities can quickly set up their heat & ac equipped tiny homes on local land and infrastructure to serve the three distinct group's very different needs. What doesn't work is allowing addicts to camp out in downtown areas for obvious hygiene and practical reasons. This chap who is using his carpentry skills to 'help the homeless' is arguably a well meaning co dependent.
California is an absolute disaster area right now, with half the USA homeless and more coming, 13 billion spent in the last three years on a problem that is getting worse, and the misguided 'housing first' dogma dominating political decision making. The sooner we start behaving responsibly towards the unsheltered and take their disparate issues and needs seriously in the western world the sooner we can begin to tackle this huge issue. Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons.
How about we stop moralising and just provide shelter? Half of population is hooked on opioids and psych drugs. But somehow it is unacceptable for homeless to get high.
It is responsibility of city hall to provide basic infrastructure. That includes showers and toilets!
>Building favelas and skid rows in major cities is a recipe for disaster and so are attempts to provide free housing for everyone who doesn't have one for obvious economic and behavioral/medical reasons.
Where is "obvious ... reasons" being applied in this sentence - to the people's lack of housing, or to the problems with building housing for all?
Favelas and skid rows: Public hygiene, safety, degradation of public facilities, stress on resources.
'Housing first': the economics of providing free housing has been historically demonstrated by then mayor of San Francisco Newsom, who pledged to 'end homelessness' 17 years ago.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/archive/item/A-decade-of-homeles...
The result was an expensive disaster - the more housing was provided for the 'homeless', the more people came to get free housing in a temperate climate with a casual attitude to drug use.
Last year Newsom as California governor used billions of covid relief money to buy motels under 'project homekey'and is planning more of this spending in 2021 in a repeat of his San Francisco Mayor disster. Housing 31 people in hotel room 'homes' locally to where I am sitting now cost around 18m, just over a half million per person plus annual service costs - 3 hot meals a day delivered from a local restaurant (Mexicans who immigrated illegally and now run a thriving business).
In the western world urban centers the homeless migrate to, housing and utility costs are very high compared to the rest of the world. LA beachfront housing is famously high, yet local politicians are packing Venice Beach and other areas with street dwellers.
'Housing first' is an academic philosophy originating in 1980's UK that suggests that public spending to give permanent free housing to the homeless is a viable solution as that de stresses the person being housed and 'allows them to get back on their feet' in society, solving their SMI and substance abuse issues. This has been proven over and over again to be the wrong answer while being blindingly expensive and effectively advertising free houses through the grapevine.
Well meaning compassionate people buy in to politicians saying these things (and arguably become co dependents to those for whom obtaining drugs for their habit is paramount). All too often politicians create a Potemkin village housing a few homeless in show homes to parade in their media while ignoring the rest, all while quietly cutting housing costs elsewhere.
An example is these San Francisco housing projects residents discussing how they may be evicted after the pandemic.
As I said previously the answer is mobile home/tiny home facilities on public land/infrastructure run at a federal level to prevent mass migrations to where the grass is greenest, and large scale spending on substance abuse and SMI care in separate locations.
In London my experience was that a large number (majority?) sleeping on the streets were there because of benefit sanctions, i.e. they simply could not afford to live in a house as the government had removed their social welfare. Some people were waiting to be housed etc.
It only takes a moment's thought to notice (a) the difference in prevalence of homelessness between countries, (b) the difference in prevalence over short time periods within the same country, to see that it is government policy that large determines the extent of homelessness. When governments don't provide good welfare nets, social housing, and social services to help people, homelessness is higher.