Ahead of the Olympics, the French government has bused thousands of homeless immigrants out of Paris, promising them beds elsewhere. But, as The New York Times reported, several immigrants arrived in unfamiliar cities and had no place to stay, while others were marked for deportation. Meanwhile, over in Chicago, a similar situation unravels. With next month’s Democratic National Convention approaching, the Windy City plans to clear out one of its largest homeless encampments, citing security reasons, and will permanently install fences to ensure nobody returns to the area. Twenty-two people have been living among the orange and blue tents abutting the Dan Ryan Expressway. Most agreed to stay at a city-operated shelter, an arrangement funded only until August 31, about a week after the convention. Other shelters will supposedly be available after the 31st.
None of this is new. The Chicago Sun-Times reminded its readers: “Chicago and other political convention cities have a long history of moving homeless people away from prominent areas in sight of visiting conventioneers and news cameras. Ahead of the 1996 DNC, Mayor Richard M. Daley cleared out the last of ‘Skid Row’ between the Loop and the site of the convention, the United Center.”
A similar situation occurred in November when San Francisco cleared homeless camps from certain streets to beautify the city before China’s President, Xi Jinping, visited the Bay Area for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Though 82 people had been placed in residential settings, three weeks after President Xi went home, many homeless people had already returned to those streets.
When will politicians learn that cleaning a few sidewalks and curbside campsites in their cities may appear productive, but it doesn’t solve the multi-faceted crisis keeping so many people stranded on the streets?
Should the Homeless be Punished?
A debate has carried on for years about whether clearing encampments is inhumane. Sweeps are becoming more common nowadays, too, especially in Democratic states, which have the largest homeless populations. Back in June, the US Supreme Court sided with Grants Pass, Oregon, in a 6-3 decision: The court said the city’s “enforcement of camping bans on public property did not amount to ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and did not violate the Eighth Amendment,” Berkeley News reported, calling it “a landmark ruling that will have significant nationwide ramifications.” The Court’s decision only alters current law in nine western states, including California, but many people fear it could be an impetus for other states to enact similar policies.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Photo by Jacquelyn Martin-Pool/Getty Images)
In an article for NPR, Jennifer Ludden wrote: “In dissent, Justice Sotomayor said the decision focused only on the needs of cities but not the most vulnerable. She said sleep is a biological necessity, but this decision leaves a homeless person with ‘an impossible choice — either stay awake or be arrested.’”
Humane or not, moving homeless people from site to site is costing cities millions. Based on a “first-of-its-kind report on tent cities” conducted by Abt Associates, Kriston Capps wrote an article for Bloomberg a few years back, which covered the clearing of tents in Los Angeles’ Echo Park, a unique event that turned disastrous. “Advocates and allies showed up to defend the park against authorities looking to sweep the encampment,” she wrote. One hundred and eighty people were arrested.
Capps continued:
“In many ways, the standoff in Echo Park illustrates the complexity of a problem that city leaders and residents struggle with across the country. Among the factors in play: dignity for unhoused people, political pressure from neighbors, concerns for safety and sanitation and stopgap solutions that seem futile against the backdrop of an affordable housing crisis. The strategy that cities have adopted — clearing and closing encampments, with varying levels of support for people living in them — comes with high costs and mixed results.”
Abt Associates concluded that “sweeping encampments is an ineffective response” to the homelessness crisis.
Too Many People, Not Enough Homes
Pew revealed that the US is short somewhere between four and seven million homes. Construction of new houses slowed after the recession in the late 2000s and hasn’t recovered. The country is battling inflation, rising interest rates, supply bottlenecks, and zoning restrictions. Worse, the homes that are available aren’t affordable for most people. Apartments are costly, too. Rent is about 30% higher than in 2017 and still rising. Half of US renters fork over more than 30% of their income to their landlords. This spring, Forbes noted “a 2023 survey conducted by Payroll.org” highlighting that “78% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, a 6% increase from last year.”
The Illinois Policy Institute determined: “Of the nation’s cities with populations above 1 million, Chicago has the sixth-highest poverty rate,” and: “Efforts to reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness in the city must be part of a larger plan to reduce poverty.”
But bureaucrats have a different theory. The Chicago Sun-Times stated: “City officials attributed the increase in an annual report on homelessness to newly arrived immigrants seeking shelter.” That’s not a far-fetched idea. The Center for Immigration Studies conducted a survey and found that the foreign-born population nationwide had increased by 5.1 million since March 2023, raising the total to 51.6 million, “the largest two-year increase ever recorded in American History.” However, pointing fingers doesn’t solve problems.
According to Chicago’s annual point-in-time count, 6,139 people in 2023 were homeless. The number is now 18,836. The Illinois Policy Institute reported that Chicago spent over $58 million last year attempting to alleviate homelessness. To spend that kind of money and have little or no impact suggests a greater malaise afflicts the city coffers when it comes to tackling homelessness. Perhaps prioritizing window-dressing solutions to shore up progressive bona fides is not the solution.
