California has embarked upon an effort to “control” the homeless problem by providing tiny homes for those in need. The tiny “homes” are pretty tiny, and really sparse. More like storage containers than homes. Here is a typical example:

These are undoubtedly functional, and hopefully inexpensive, but I wonder about how appropriate they are given the problem(s) being addressed. I actually don’t have a problem about the size of the units – if they have the necessary amenities (bathroom, shower, kitchen with a sink, stove, counters, refrigerator, bed and sitting space) they are probably suitable. I have lived in smaller housing than that and found it to be satisfactory.

However, these efforts seem to be terribly short sighted. These kinds of solutions are obviously intended to be short term, temporary solutions to a transient, temporary problem. I don’t think we have a temporary problem, I think we have a permanent one that needs permanent solutions.

I first became aware of the impending “homeless problem” in my college economics/socially classes at around 1968. At that time the population trajectory for the United States (and world) was pretty well baked into the system – and it shows no signs of changing any time soon. When I was a child, the population in the United States was less than one half of what it is today. The population of California was about 10 million people, now it is almost 40 million – no wonder it is feeling “more crowded” – it is.

This would not be a problem if we lived in a world of infinite resources, but that is not the case. While it is true that we have managed to increase production of food and energy to sustain this growth curve, it has not been without massive negative impacts – especially upon the natural environment. But that is not the subject of this blog – everyone has been noticing those problems associated with the increased population. The population can be expected to double again in about 50 more years.

My economics classes pointed out that in order to sustain this kind of growth rate, we have to radically change our way of doing things, depending more and more upon machines and automation as a means to increase productivity and efficiency. However, the outcome of that would be fewer and fewer good quality jobs (or jobs of any kind). It was predicted that at around 1990 the increased use of automation would offset the need for human labor, and labor excesses (or lack of jobs) would start to become widespread throughout the country – especially the lower tier jobs most dependent upon manual labor (which is by far the easiest to offset with automation). The labor/job market would be much less than the number of people needing work. Therefore, it was clear that the job market for good paying manual labor would begin to dry up, followed quickly by a lack of jobs at all levels.

One of the main topics of discussion in those economic classes centered around what were we going to do with all of those “extra” people? We realized that the problem wouldn’t be that the people were lazy, incompetent or anything like that – it was just a fact that there would be far more people than “jobs”. We discussed the problem of changing society in ways that accounted for ever increasing economic pressures reducing “worthwhile” (economically) opportunities. Clearly something was going to be needed to open opportunities for a “good life”, one full of meaning and accomplishment, in the face of a severe lack of economic opportunities in the traditional form of “jobs.” Perhaps public work projects such as park maintenance, trail building, public art, and things. There is a tricky sort of dance between letting “industry” manage the job market based upon profitability, and public projects based upon the needs of the public and the public workers. You don’t want to create competition between the public and private sectors, but you also don’t want those put out of work to just languish for the rest of their lives.

Another major problem, that we hadn’t anticipated in the 1960s, was the shuttering of mental hospitals in California, and subsequently across the nation. At that time the mental hospitals had been severely underfunded and had turned into de facto prisons for hundreds of thousands of people who couldn’t take care of themselves. Rather than adequate fund these institutions, the decision was that the “humane” solution was to release them into the communities with support from smaller, more focused, clinics. Unfortunately, insufficient funding was provided so that by the early 1980’s the result that these unfortunate people were released to fend for themselves, quickly filling the prison systems and turning beautiful, clean cities such as San Fransisco into dirty streets and sidewalks lined with homeless and often mentally ill individuals.

Since that time the two problems have continued to grow, and blend into one rather large mess. Now there is a mixture of competent people that temporarily can’t find work for many reasons, a lot of people who will never find work because they have mental illnesses, and many people that have lost hope – unfortunately often turning to drugs or alcohol as a means for “getting through the day.” There are probably also a small population that just plain don’t want to work and are happy with their living situation.

We will almost certainly continue to have large populations of people that will be unable (or unwilling) to obtain gainful employment sufficient to sustain themselves. Trying to sort them out into those that”deserve” our help because they are somehow to blame, or not to blame, is a futile and non-productive activity. They exist, will exist, and we need to find a way to set up situations where they can live worthwhile and fulfilling lives. I think we need to “bite the bullet” and make appropriate living situations for these people, rather than just tiny shelters in the middle of a parking lot somewhere far from any services or community. The approach of warehousing them to get them out of sight will be ineffective, expensive, and in the end not resolve any of the problems leading to these failures of society.

I think these tiny homes should be designed to be tasteful and pretty, something that the occupants can feel pride in – it doesn’t cost more to make pretty buildings, it just takes a bit of imagination. They should be situated on nice, pretty, community friendly locations – perhaps with winding paths, trees with shade, lawns, lakes, and things to make a person friendly “home” community. They should have easy access to the necessary supporting amenities such as schools, stores, medical assistance, restaurants, libraries, sports facilities, public transportation, etc. What I am talking about is a nice community.

An interesting example of that might be useful to consider is the Yountville Veterans Home. Something on the order of 1500 disabled individuals call this home, enjoying a small personal home space – but with community and support near by. They have access to workshop space, libraries, sports facilities, theater, music, art classes, pretty grounds and paths, eating facilities, a hospital, care facilities – and jobs to help with the upkeep of the facility.

My point isn’t that we should build 150 year old facilities to “house” the homeless, it is that we should be taking the entire problem into consideration when investing in solutions. We are not facing a need for temporary housing, we are facing a need for permanent housing. We are not facing a need to “get rid” of a visual blight, we are facing a need to help people live good, fun, healthy, meaningful lives.

Another example might be the “poor farms” similar to that which operated from 1880 to 1963 in Marin County, Ca. My father worked as a waiter at the Marin County facility during the years. He indicated that it was an interesting, honorable place to live and work. This farm was an actual farm, growing much of what they needed, and perhaps providing some for similar needs around the county. Situated on 150 acres, it had a dairy, hay fields, row crops, orchards and all that. They produced more than they consumed, selling some of the products of the farm to help cover its expense.

I am not suggesting that we re-introduce “poor farms” (which have been a part of the USA since its inception), but rather that a world of opportunities exist to address the homeless “problem” besides offering unattractive, socially distancing, warehouse style solutions. We can provide comfortable dwellings, beautiful surroundings, interesting activities, access to necessary services, as well as assisting with medical (and mental health) needs if we open out reach to a more inclusive, human centered approach. Perhaps it will cost more than just tiny houses on a blacktopped parking lot, but what are the total costs to society for if we only provide the absolute minimum required to sustain physical life? It reminds me of the current approach of forcing homeless people to live along rivers and railroad tracks, without any hygiene facilities. Is the “cheap” solution of tolerating them, while periodically raiding their camps, really the cost effective solution? What about the costs of pollution because of a lack of trash pickup? What about the spread of disease throughout the community because of the lack of toilets? What about the costs of forcing mentally compromised people to live unattended, in squalid conditions? What about the social costs of society’s guilt for allowing such deplorable conditions to exist?

Sure, there might be people that find the sorts of “upscale” living conditions I am recommending attractive enough that they never look for work. Is that a terrible thing in a society where there isn’t enough work to go around? Perhaps instead of “working” these people gain a little additional self-respect and therefore become more active and valued members of their community and perhaps the community at large. Maybe the just sit under a tree and tell each other stories, is that such a terrible thing? Maybe some artist types will find the muse and entertain us all. Are these things bad because they are good? Do we have to continue to put people down just because they are having trouble standing up? Can we find compassion and joy in all of our community?