SF analysis: Subsidized housing a subpar strategy for reducing homelessness

The Manhattan Institute's Judge Glock takes on the central claim of Housing First for the WSJ, explaining that government-sponsored permanent housing—often without sobriety or behavioral standards—can't solve homelessness. In fact, this plan of action only amplifies homeless numbers and attracts out-of-area folks who have drug addictions, as observed in SF.

Many advocates claim that providing a welcoming environment for camping and drugs doesn’t attract the homeless, and that only more subsidized housing can solve homelessness. San Francisco shows the folly of those arguments (“Why San Francisco Is a Homeless Mecca,” Review & Outlook, Aug. 7). According to the city’s own statistics, almost 30% of the homeless moved there after they had already lost housing. Another 17% lived in the city for less than a year before becoming homeless. As Mayor London Breed admits, one reason people are coming is easy access to drugs.

The claim that enough subsidized housing will solve the homelessness problem is belied by San Francisco’s efforts. In the past 15 years, the city has created more than 7,000 permanent housing units, enough to house every homeless person at the beginning of the period, but the problem has grown worse. That 11% of the homeless population was already living in subsidized or government housing before becoming homeless—again, most likely—shows that more housing is insufficient to stop the crisis.

Although the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has put limits on what cities can do to remove encampments, some cities under its jurisdiction, such as Las Vegas, have managed to expand existing laws against street camping and provide affordable shelter alternatives. Unless San Francisco is willing to do the same, it will continue to be a mecca for the homeless.

This article originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Read the whole thing here.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity

Image by Wikimedia Commons

Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.