No, really. Here are the first two paragraphs.
You don't want to go down there. Not even in broad daylight, and certainly not alone.
That was the warning I got from some Seattle Parks and Recreation employees the other day. And they were right. On a tour of several homeless encampments Thursday with a group of parks people, I could have been stabbed, raped, infected, or fallen to my death.
You will want to read the whole thing.
If you read my report on the homeless in downtown Seattle parks, you will not find any great surprises in the column. But it is good to see a "mainstream" journalist facing facts, often unpleasant facts. Including the fact that some are homeless because they want to be.
The column isn't perfect. Brodeur does not admit that she has voted for many of the politicians who helped produce this mess. But it is a fine start.
Posted by Jim Miller at November 30, 2007 01:39 PM | Email ThisI don't know your position on it, but those words are at odds with the liberal love and defense of abortion and the sacrifice of living embroyo's for other "more valuable" lives.
And there is the lesson that many on the left driven purely by their compassion should heed. Much of our homelessness problem is not forced upon many of the homeless, but a choice made by the homeless who want that lifestyle. Rational choice, maybe not. But all the homeless cities out there, supported out of compassion by compassionate people, are but invitations to some people who are then allowed to feel even more comfortable with a lifestyle choice that society should not be endorsing.
Posted by: MJC on November 30, 2007 03:50 PMThe Labeler
Posted by: Huh? on November 30, 2007 03:54 PMhttp://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_skid_row.html
Posted by: Amyzzon on November 30, 2007 03:55 PMKinda says it all, doesn't it? Unless of course managing his debit card and welfare checks get to be a problem too. Then he'll see his state-funded financial adivsors.
Get the mentals some help and throw the bums out; that also means those temporarily disadvantaged get help.
Posted by: swatter on November 30, 2007 04:07 PMHow is it that these vagrants are allowed to camp in public parks and green belts? Isn't that against the law?
Why aren't these people rounded up for a "three hots and a cot" vacation at the county jail?
As long as the police are going to turn their heads while this is going on, it will never end.
Clearly you and I believe in VERY different concepts of God. As I recall, Jesus wasn't exactly "non-judgmental," and while I definitely CAN'T judge another person's value (since I am not God), I most certainly CAN judge their behavior. And when that behavior sucks, I'm going to say so. Some behavior isn't okay, no matter how much you want to pretend.
Posted by: John Galt on November 30, 2007 04:34 PMDictionary.com kiddo.. the definition of BUM
I have no doubt you will pick and choose those you like and whine about the ones you don't but neither will change the FACT of the definition.
**
Your Political Correctness Offends me
the under belly of society, rural or urban has never been pretty
but, these folks need basics ... three cheers for the missions
Posted by: Raphael on November 30, 2007 04:40 PMnicole was born in the cabbage patch and still goes there to think
bad ass stuff exits in every society, rural or urban
people who are in that down and out predicament need some help and understanding ... and a better way out
three cheers for the mission
and the rest of the pricks here, hope your christmas is horrible
Posted by: Nate, formerly under the bridge on November 30, 2007 04:44 PMPosted by: Organization Man on November 30, 2007 05:00 PM
Let us not judge others by our own definition of home.
The fellow humans we are speaking of have made thousands of choices leading up to their ultimate decision to choose the naked heavens as their roof.
Please eliminate our judgemental labelling of our fellows and call these wanderers, "The Star People".
Most of them have made life choices along the way that has resulted in their present situation. I am not in favor of tent cities, so they can play act their way into the good graces of the do-gooders at the various churches while they thumb their noses behind the backs of the do-gooders.
I am not in favor of apartments for the alcoholics such as was built in Seattle recently, where they can drink to their hearts' content.
I am not in favor of the police rounding up the worst & taking them to Harborview to dry out or come down from whatever high they are on.
If they are drinking in public, buying or selling drugs, urinating in public or anyone of the usual behaviors seen around Pioneer Sq. & other areas of Seattle, put them in jail & give them stiff sentences until they get the word that their behavior won't be accepted. Don't release them for a later court date; throw them in the slammer immediately & maybe they will take the hint.
If they have mental problems, put them back in institutions where they can get some help. Mainstreaming the meantally ill isn't and won't work; they need to be segregated from the rest of society until or if they learn socially acceptable behavior. If they can't or won't learn it, they stay institutionalized where they can't harm themselves or those around them.
In trying to be compassionate, caring & concerned, we have let the inmates run the place & it's time to take back control.
Posted by: Clean House on November 30, 2007 05:53 PMThere are ways to be compassionate without being stupid. There are ways to help others that actually do help them beyond the moment you've patted yourself on the back.
However, it is also a 2 way street, and there is never any thing as a free sunch... or dinner.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2007 06:01 PMSorry, your "But for the Grace of God go you and I" isn't the correct phrase. The difference between you and I - and those who choose to live like that is - they gave up, we haven't. And they are being supremely aided by the coddling of the state.
Posted by: ClearView on November 30, 2007 07:14 PMCOMMITTEE TO END HOMELESSNESS
AND TEN-YEAR PLAN....
· More than 8,000 people are homeless each night in King County
· This includes approximately 5,200 single adults, 2,500 people in families and 450 youth and young adults
· Approximately 24,000 King County residents experience homelessness annually (i.e. people move in and out of homelessness, but 24,000 experience it every year)
· This is a regional problem - see figures on North and East King County Fact Sheet.
· Homelessness is expensive. The 40 highest users of the sobering center and Harborview cost over $2,000,000 annually. Supportive housing is much less expensive. Similarly short term rental assistance or intervention for families is much less costly that taking a family into the homeless system and then trying to re-house them.
Among their suggestions:
· Prevent homelessness with rental assistance, better discharge planning from health facilities and jail
· Increase availability of affordable housing
· Develop wrap-around system of social services combined with housing to allow people to succeed in long-term housing....
Regarding the mentally ill homeless in King County:
King County has a special court to deal with mentally ill offenders and they make up a significant population of the jail system and homeless population. The following article published by the American Pyschological Association discusses courts specializing in mental illness.
http://www.psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/4/477
The population of homeless includes different segments including long term substance abusers.
There should be solutions directed at each segment. I suppose some could label a homeless child a bum.
Nope, but I would have no problem labeling his irresponsible parents as such.
No one becomes "homeless" overnight or by surprise. I will grant you that those mentally incapacitated or incable of understanding may be taken by surprise, but those of normal cognitive abilities are not. They chose not to reconize or chose to ignore their downward spiral and the took helpless children with them.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2007 09:14 PMI do understand the anger though. I live in Seattle and love it. I ride Metro and often take the bus on Third Avenue. I know more about street life than I care to. The people who live here with the assistance of the bicyle security and really great bus drivers try to make the city more civil. Even though I agree with the tough love approach of Rudy to making a city liveable, I still wouldn't call anyone a bum.
Posted by: WVH on November 30, 2007 09:43 PMForeclosesure doesn't happen overnight, medical financial disaster doesn't happen overnight and even women suffering the fallout of horrendous relationships or widowhood doesn't happen overnight. And because those things don't occur like spontaneous combustion, because there are always warning signs, people have choices and options to heed those signs and to prevent becoming homeless... particularly with children.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2007 09:59 PMThese bums choose to live in a manner that is the opposite irrational, and is often dangerous to the rest of us. If your neighbor starts playing inappropriately with fire, it's in your best interest to judge him and get him to stop.
It's sad testimony to the world that Progressives have dumped upon us, such that we can no longer even confront people with severely suicidal behavior without being reprimanded by political correctness.
A culture that tolerates such an inhuman morality of self destruction is far worse than a culture that's willing to confront and demand that people either seek help, or at least commit their suicide in a facility where no others will be endangered.
Put the homeless in jail? Are you prepared to pay for that many more jails? Wouldn't it be far cheaper to give them apartments? And do you really think a night (or month or year) in jail will cause most alcoholics and drug addicts to quit?
Put the mentally ill in institutions against their will? Sorry, that's unconstitutional. You can force someone into an institution if they're a serious danger to themselves or others, but sleeping in a park or other "socially unacceptable behavior" doesn't qualify.
The above points are pretty obvious to anyone who gets past rhetoric and thinks for a few seconds. Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: Bruce on November 30, 2007 11:15 PMThank you Duffman, you have made me laugh, and in times like these, that is important.
Posted by: Moondoggie on November 30, 2007 11:46 PMIn the context of the powerful and the powerless, many of the powerful make really bad decisions that lead many astray and are often of greater cost to society than the wrong decisons made by the powerless. Are both groups, the powerful and the powerless both to be labeled as bums?
Posted by: WVH on November 30, 2007 11:59 PMThe poverty, the aimlessness, the homelessness, the meth. Washington is painted as a high tech wonderland, full of happy systems analysts.
The Washington I see is more like the Ozarks. A hidden substrate of people who were slammed headfirst into a world in which they can barely cope.
When I watch the news and see Jeff Renner spending a full five minutes on the "ski report", it seems that the leaders of the Puget Sound are afflicted by Rip Van Winklism. No, it's not the 80s, when Seattle was basically a well off middle class suburb. This is 2007/8 and the Puget Sound is a polluted, festering, traffic ridden, crime ridden, hell whole with islands of robber barrons, wealthy Bellevue-ites with starched blonde hair socialites driving Mercedes convertables, crooked bullying bosses, drunk-driving politicians, unfettered bureaucracy, and McMansions.
It is everything that we hoped it would never become.
You are being a brat. Now, don't get me started with the war against Christmas and Christians, that is a whole other thread. Got anything further to say about the homeless and how they are treated?
1. Walters, glad that you are at least fair in the labeling. I really would call the Enron weasels and others like them evil more than bums, but they do qualify as bums. Some of the homeless population are in fact evil predators, many are not evil, however.
2. Terry H., many years ago the state developed a policy of de-institutionization which was supposed to go with group homes. The group homes were never funded and many mentally ill are on the street or in jail. A thread about funding social services ought to provoke fireworks.
3. John Bailo, I agree with you. According to the Church Council and others, a lot of the problem is hidden in the burbs. The homelessness is there, just not as in your face as Seattle. One might have a divorced woman who is technically not homeless because she has managed to hang on to the home, but there is no heat and the kids are malnourished, she is barely a step up from homelessness. I sure that some here will say she has made bad decisions and is still making bad decisions, though.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 10:53 AMNo, but we will say she can make constructive CHOICES rather than let her children starve.
She can ASK for help from churches and other organizations.
She can get a job.
She can babysit children of people that have jobs.
She can go back to her lawyer who can explain to the judge why she can't take care of her children on what he deemed daddy should pay.
If you are not mentally incapacitated there is no good reason to allow yourself to fall that far. Lazyness is not a reason. The decisions of OTHERS are not reasons. It's called personal responsibility.
A story: During the depression my mothers father died suddenly. He left a widow who barely spoke English, and did not read or write a word of it. He left a widow who was virtually alone in America. He left her with 4 children under the age of 10. On top of all that, they suffered a tornado and lost most of the roof of their home. NOT ONCE were they homeless, nor did they depend upon the government. IT'S CALLED PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. It's called doing without extras to survive. It's called pride and self reliance. It's called understanding that America offers opportunity not grab bagfs full of goodies. It's calle ingenuity and industriousness.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 1, 2007 11:16 AMBoo hoo hoo.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 1, 2007 11:19 AMWithout knowing the individual circumstances, you are judging. First, woen still make about 60-70% of what men do. A homemaker who has been out of the workforce will not make a substantial amount upon return to the workforce in most cases. The reason many women hang on to the home is to keep their children in a good school. Churches and food pantries do help, but donations are down. The Salvation Army had a kettle taken in Spanaway and that hurt the Pierce County group. Last year this time, they had 4200 toys for donation, this year they have 60. Perhaps, people don't have your skill of always making brilliant choices, often situations at the individual level are a bit more complex than you care to acknowledge.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 11:37 AMThe point is that people don't suddenly find themselves in dire situations that make them warm and cozy one day then cold hungry and homeless the next.... again, not including the mentally incpacitated.
They have signs and warnings. They can choose to heed them or ignore them. Those that ignore them, who blithely continue on thinking their savior is around the corner are the ones that frustrate and yes, anger me. There is no reason to be that immature and dependant. NONE.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 1, 2007 11:45 AMWhen you are teaching a class a kid doesn't suddenly fail. You have signs of grades going down. HE knows his grades are going down. You don't run to him and say 'here, let me give you an A to get you out of the depths of failing'... at least I hope you don't. You say, 'hey I noticed you aren't doing too well here, what are you going to do about it and how can I help?'
You don't GIVE him good grades, you offer him the tools to get them himself. He can CHOOSE to ignore the warnings and your offers or he can TAKE RESPONSIBILITY.
It's the same principle.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 1, 2007 11:55 AMI do my charitable giving where I want it to go, not where you tell me it should go (taxation substituting for charity).
Get Lost Duffman.
Posted by: Hank on December 1, 2007 12:13 PMThe fact that a majority of adult Americans will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances, and right today she loses easily to any Republican candidate, does not transalate into a sure thing, unless of course you are contemptuous of facts reality and history.
As to the re-election of Comrade Christinovitch, who is running scared in her soiled dainties lately, we shall see, my election stealing socialist loser friend........
Posted by: Hank on December 1, 2007 12:36 PMI think your analogy for the kid in school is apt. I am on the board of an agency that helps homeless kids and foster kids get their GEDs and get into college. You are correct that if there is early intervention to prevent homelessness or prevent the reduction in life circumstances, that is the optimum. Sometimes that intervention doesn't happen and then people get into survival mode where decisions are made simply on what it takes to get them through the day. Day by day the motto for sobriety has real reaonance with the kids. Many people in survival mode simply don't make good decisions.
Posted by: WVH on December 1, 2007 12:40 PMEnding Starpeopleness (homelessness) within six years is among the highest priorities of King County and Seattle government officials.
You Star People sympathizers should scour the downtown streets and hand out the e-mail address of county councilmemeber Bob Ferguson to every Star Person you can find. Our libraries have free internet access. Bob will help them. Using my meager savings.
And isn't this thread about Nicole Brodeur's excellent newspaper columns? My favorite was the one where she interviewed the Fat Tuesday killer of Cristopher Keim and at the end of that column she confessed, "Ya know, I kinda like this guy".
Posted by: Bart Cannon on December 1, 2007 02:02 PM"Wrong sir...you'll put your money where we (the ruling party), thru tax structure tell you to put it. Period!
It's going to get so much more interesting under Mrs Clinton (& our current Governor...once she gets a clear and overwhelming mandate)...and it WILL happen. Hang on to your wallet as best you can; but we will decide how you spend."
They have been seduced by the prospect of the power to decide how other people live, think, earn, and spend their earnings. A sense or right or wrong is not in the equation at all for them. The only important factor is the lust for power and control, establishing themselves as an elitist ruling party. Keep strutting your stuff, Duffman. Voters need to hear this, loud and clear, over and over.
Posted by: katomar on December 1, 2007 02:35 PMSo when government provides benefits to the homeless, it tends to increase the number of homeless people. And when government taxes income, property ownership, or retail purchases, it tends to get less of all those, and the result is lower productivity, less job creation, and more poverty, which also could lead to homelessness.
When people give food or money to beggers standing at I-5 off-ramps, they tend to encourage people to live that unproductive and self-destructive lifestyle. Don't give to them. It HURTS them. It prevents them from solving their own problems.
Private charities have some success in helping the homeless without creating dependency. Give to them if you like, instead.
But people have a right to make bad decisions, as long as they are not hurting someone else. I think that people have a right to be homeless, but they have no right to expect help in their self-destructive choice by individuals, organizations, or the government.
The mentally ill often find themselves in the streets. The peaceful among them have a right not to be forced into an asylum. They have rights, and just because they seem "odd" to us, does not mean we have the right to lock them up and medicate them against their will.
I have heard that about 75% of the homeless are funding a drug or alcohol problem. This is self-medication for many of them, but it is one more reason never to give cash to a street begger. Most of the time it will be fueling a self-destructive addiction.
Are you compassionate about the homeless? That's up to you, but if you care about them, don't give them food or money. It may look like it is helping them, but in the long run, it HURTS them.
The government needs to admit defeat on this issue. The politicians know they can keep power by persuading soft-hearted but weak-minded folks that they can help the homeless with their and others' taxes. Well, this is mostly a lie. The politicians hate to admit that private charities work better, because it threatens their power. They need us to believe that they can fix anything, and that therefore we should grant them more power and money and control over our lives. Well it is rubbish. It is all about their power, and more of the voters need to be educated about it.
It all comes down to the government. We need less of it. MUCH less. We need more private initiative and personal responsibility, NOT collectivism.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 1, 2007 04:50 PMThat is an EXCELLENT comment.
But people have a right to make bad decisions, as long as they are not hurting someone else. I think that people have a right to be homeless, but they have no right to expect help in their self-destructive choice by individuals, organizations, or the government.
They also have no right to pee wherever they choose and defecate in doorways - that harms others.
They have no right to harrass passers-by - that harms others.
They have no right to prevent access to walkways, parks and buildings - that harms others.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 1, 2007 05:21 PMAnd some of the folks above are right about labeling. Calling them bums may be accurate, but winds up being counter-productive. Bruce is right @39.
So let's work on solutions. The underlying problems include:
Slow economic growth
inflation
substance abuse
mental illness
street handouts
government handouts
failing government schools
government barriers to job creation
government zoning, growth management, and other government programs that make housing more expensive
Other than mental illness and street handouts, I think all of these are government created or at least govenment aided causes of the homelessness problem.
Liberals and other big-government fans, care to respond to those accusations?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 1, 2007 05:33 PMThe real question is: What should we do about this? You get extra bonus points if your answer is constitutional.
Posted by: Bruce on December 1, 2007 06:59 PM1. Stop issuing SSI checks for being a drunk.
2. Make panhandling illegal.
3. Make living on public property illegal.
We have a bum problem because we enable them.
Posted by: Organization Man on December 1, 2007 07:56 PMRegarding homelessness. There are two major works that look at an economic model which explains homelessness. I am not a lameotarian, so I am not familar with the lameotarian theory. The recurring theme seems to be just eliminate government. Just curious, in your world is there any government of any type? The researchers are:
1. Brendan O'Flaherty
Published 1998
Harvard University Press
Homelessness
ISBN 0674543432
"Mentally ill people turned out of institutions, crack-cocaine use on the rise, more poverty, public housing a shambles: as attempts to explain homelessness multiply so do the homeless--and we still don't know why. The first full-scale economic analysis of homelessness, Making Room provides answers quite unlike those offered so far by sociologists and pundits. It is a story about markets, not about the bad habits or pathology of individuals.One perplexing fact is that, though homelessness in the past occurred during economic depressions, the current wave started in the 1980s, a time of relative prosperity. As Brendan O'Flaherty points out, this trend has been accompanied by others just as unexpected: rising rents for poor people and continued housing abandonment. These are among the many disconcerting facts that O'Flaherty collected and analyzed in order to account for the new homelessness. Focused on six cities (New York, Newark, Chicago, Toronto, London, and Hamburg), his studies also document the differing rates of homelessness in North America and Europe, and from one city to the next, as well as interesting changes in the composition of homeless populations. For the first time, too, a scholarly observer makes a useful distinction between the homeless people we encounter on the streets every day and those "officially" counted as homeless.O'Flaherty shows that the conflicting observations begin to make sense when we see the new homelessness as a response to changes in the housing market, linked to a widening gap in the incomes of rich and poor. The resulting shrinkage in the size of the middle class has meant fewer hand-me-downs for the poor and higher rents for the low-quality housing that is available. O'Flaherty's tightly argued theory, along with the wealth of new data he introduces, will put the study of homelessness on an entirely new plane. No future student or policymaker will be able to ignore the economic findings...."
2. Quigley and Raphael of University of California
"The quantitative analysis suggests that relatively small changes in housingmarket conditions can have substantial effects upon rates of homelessness.Consider, for example, a reduction in the rate of homelessness by one-fourth. The quantitative results suggest that this could be achieved in thesehousing markets by a 1 percentage point increase in the vacancy rate (froman average of 8.4 per cent) combined with a decrease in average monthlymedian rent-to-income ratios from 17.5 to 16.8 per cent. Given the natureof the underlying data, the accuracy of these precise estimates is open toquestion. Nevertheless, the calculations suggest that modest changes inhousing market conditions can have substantial effects upon the incidenceof homelessness.These consistent statistical results and simulations contrast with the con-ventional wisdom regarding the causes of homelessness. In particular, theresults suggest that a simple economic model of the tough choices faced byhouseholds and individuals in the extreme lower tail of the income distri-bution goes a long way towards explaining the problem. Most importantly,our ndings suggest that homelessness may be combated by modest supplypolicies combined with housing assistance directed to those for whomhousing costs consume a large share of their low incomes. Homelessnesscan be reduced by attention to the better functioning of housing markets.John M. Quigley and Steven Raphael,University of California, Berkeley, CA, USAe-mails: quigley@econ.berkeley.edu; raphael@socrates.berkeley.eduACKNOWLEDGEMENTSA previous version of this paper was presented at the Keynote Session at theAREUEA/ENHR Conference, Gavle, Sweden, June 2000.NOTES1In general, the housing price function need not be linear, and homelessnessdepends solely on the maximum of d(H, Y). For simplicity, however, we depictlinear price functions in Figures 2A and 2B.2Equation (1) implies 0 = UH2 UCBHor BH= UH/UC. The RHS is the absolute valueof the marginal rate of substitution. With diminishing marginal utility, B increasesin H at a decreasing rate.3To see this, differentiate (1) with respect to Y, yielding UC|C =Y= UC|CRudy was a successful mayor because of the theory of taking care of the little things such as removing graffiti and swegee guys. NYC improved. I don't think there are many of any political persuasion that actually live in urban areas that will disagree with his approach.
Regarding homelessness. There are two major works that look at an economic model which explains homelessness. I am not a lameotarian, so I am not familar with the theory. The recurring theme is eliminate government. Just curious, in your world is there any government of any type? The researchers are:
1. Brendan O'Flaherty
Published 1998
Harvard University Press
Homelessness
ISBN 0674543432
"Mentally ill people turned out of institutions, crack-cocaine use on the rise, more poverty, public housing a shambles: as attempts to explain homelessness multiply so do the homeless--and we still don't know why. The first full-scale economic analysis of homelessness, Making Room provides answers quite unlike those offered so far by sociologists and pundits. It is a story about markets, not about the bad habits or pathology of individuals.One perplexing fact is that, though homelessness in the past occurred during economic depressions, the current wave started in the 1980s, a time of relative prosperity. As Brendan O'Flaherty points out, this trend has been accompanied by others just as unexpected: rising rents for poor people and continued housing abandonment. These are among the many disconcerting facts that O'Flaherty collected and analyzed in order to account for the new homelessness. Focused on six cities (New York, Newark, Chicago, Toronto, London, and Hamburg), his studies also document the differing rates of homelessness in North America and Europe, and from one city to the next, as well as interesting changes in the composition of homeless populations. For the first time, too, a scholarly observer makes a useful distinction between the homeless people we encounter on the streets every day and those "officially" counted as homeless.O'Flaherty shows that the conflicting observations begin to make sense when we see the new homelessness as a response to changes in the housing market, linked to a widening gap in the incomes of rich and poor. The resulting shrinkage in the size of the middle class has meant fewer hand-me-downs for the poor and higher rents for the low-quality housing that is available. O'Flaherty's tightly argued theory, along with the wealth of new data he introduces, will put the study of homelessness on an entirely new plane. No future student or policymaker will be able to ignore the economic findings...."
2. Quigley and Raphael of University of California
"The quantitative analysis suggests that relatively small changes in housingmarket conditions can have substantial effects upon rates of homelessness.Consider, for example, a reduction in the rate of homelessness by one-fourth. The quantitative results suggest that this could be achieved in thesehousing markets by a 1 percentage point increase in the vacancy rate (froman average of 8.4 per cent) combined with a decrease in average monthlymedian rent-to-income ratios from 17.5 to 16.8 per cent. Given the natureof the underlying data, the accuracy of these precise estimates is open toquestion. Nevertheless, the calculations suggest that modest changes inhousing market conditions can have substantial effects upon the incidenceof homelessness.These consistent statistical results and simulations contrast with the con-ventional wisdom regarding the causes of homelessness. In particular, theresults suggest that a simple economic model of the tough choices faced byhouseholds and individuals in the extreme lower tail of the income distri-bution goes a long way towards explaining the problem. Most importantly,our ndings suggest that homelessness may be combated by modest supplypolicies combined with housing assistance directed to those for whomhousing costs consume a large share of their low incomes. Homelessnesscan be reduced by attention to the better functioning of housing markets.John M. Quigley and Steven Raphael,University of California, Berkeley, CA, USAe-mails: quigley@econ.berkeley.edu; raphael@socrates.berkeley.eduACKNOWLEDGEMENTSA previous version of this paper was presented at the Keynote Session at theAREUEA/ENHR Conference, Gavle, Sweden, June 2000.NOTES1In general, the housing price function need not be linear, and homelessnessdepends solely on the maximum of d(H, Y). For simplicity, however, we depictlinear price functions in Figures 2A and 2B.2Equation (1) implies 0 = UH2 UCBHor BH= UH/UC. The RHS is the absolute valueof the marginal rate of substitution. With diminishing marginal utility, B increasesin H at a decreasing rate.3To see this, differentiate (1) with respect to Y, yielding UC|C =Y= UC|C --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homelessness is not my area of research. I suppose there are plenty of arguments pro and con regarding the role of the Fed, government, and government policy in housing.
1. Stop issuing SSI checks for being a drunk.
I didn't think we did that. Please explain what specific procedure you are proposing here.
2. Make panhandling illegal.
That's been found unconstitutional (free speech) unless the panhandler harrasses.
3. Make living on public property illegal.
Define "living". And, more important, what should we do? Arrest those people and put them in jail? Which jail? For how long? And then what?