Homelessness in Perspective

Providence, with its massive downtown redevelopment, has been a centerpiece of the Rhode Island renaissance. During one of the city’s first Waterfire events, a group of Brown student activists and allies from HOPE (Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere) dropped a massive sign over the river, lambasting the city’s performance on homeless and affordable housing policy. These advocates were wondering how Rhode Island’s supposed renaissance could be reconciled with the 6,000 homeless people living within its borders.

The definition of homelessness varies, but the legislative consensus classifies it as a condition of lacking fixed, regular and permanent housing and/or relying on shelter or other private or publicly overseen facility not ordinarily used for human residence. Crossroads Rhode Island, a homeless advocacy organization, estimates that over 750,000 Americans experience homelessness every day, with RI state shelters showing a net 24% increase from 2001 levels. Rhode Island is not unique, as major urban areas across America have experienced dramatic increases in housing costs, overgrown and poorly maintained shelter systems, and longer waits for housing benefits. To effectively tackle this burgeoning problem, several approaches should be addressed.

The Spectator sat down with Geoffrey Gusoff and JT Do, two of HOPE’s leaders, and discussed the homeless crisis facing Rhode Island, their preferred solutions to the problem, and ways to fight homelessness nationally. Both Geoffrey and JT advocate a supportive housing proposal that targets the chronically homeless (about 10% of the national homeless population). They would also like to see the warehouse shelter system eliminated. As JT said, “individuals who are chronically homeless suffer from a lack of combination of housing and supportive services . . . when you provide housing for someone that is a catalyst for all sorts of change.” Geoffrey added that, “the problem of homelessness is an issue of social exclusion. It is an issue of people making policies that exclude certain groups.” Criticizing the state for seeing the homeless issue as one of “shelterlessness” as opposed to “homelessness,” both leaders rejected the idea that the provision of housing should be conditional upon the fulfillment of strict criteria and a clean bill of health from applicants. While both voiced sharp opposition to the public housing model of the 1960’s and 70’s, there was a clear consensus for a sustained federal and state presence to leverage the costs of market-based programs.

Yet HOPE’s position is relatively centrist when compared to other groups. For instance, the National Coalition for the Homeless frames the affordable housing issue not in terms of simple economic scarcity, but rather economic justice and housing rights: “Every member of society, including people experiencing homelessness, has a right to basic economic and social entitlements of which safe, decent, accessible, affordable, and permanent housing is a definitive component.” This approach seeks to substitute economic prudence for political catchphrases, resulting in the pain of the homeless being exacerbated. Shortages become more severe, investment declines, maintenance stagnates, and misuse of existing housing policies grows exponentially.

Whether or not housing is regarded as a right or an economic good, each approach sees a sustained state and federal presence in the housing market as favorable. According to them, getting the homeless out of public high-rises and shelters into something close to permanent homes will roll everything else forward. Both approaches open themselves up to a number of serious critiques.