Sprawl or Homelessness?
What are we to think about a homeless camp that lasts 20 years with its own government, moving strategy, and regulations? Besides admiring their tenacity, the need for a homeless camp that persists over a 20 year span is troubling.
I just did a metropolitan profile on Seattle last month. By every indicator, Seattle is not just booming, it’s on fire. Unemployment is low, wages are high, transit is everywhere, disposable income is great. However, one statistic really stuck out: the housing price index (in comparison to the rest of the US) is 407 — which means that the typical housing cost in Seattle is 4 times as high as the rest of the country. The median house price is $714,400. This is in large part because of the urban growth boundary that limits where new development (and thus new housing for a growing city) can occur.
Being in Seattle last week, I am struck by the equity issues that urban growth boundaries cause. One of the locals told me that the poverty line in Seattle is around $75,000 per year and it is clear that housing is well out of attainable range for most. One of my train companions just got a raise as a kindergarten teacher to to bring her up to affordable standards. She now makes $58,000 a year — which still puts her well below the poverty line. She and her developmentally delayed child live with her mom because she can’t afford a $375,000 house on that salary — which is the going rate for a 2 bedroom, 1 bath condo. Many who work for Google are now living in RV’s because they can’t afford a house on their 6-figure salaries. Simple housing availability is the issue — not even the price.
It is shocking (by Florida standards) to see tents set up on city sidewalks by the homeless, but with sub-zero temperatures at night, I can understand the need. This was common in Portland, but not as common in Seattle. According to one local, the community has set up homeless camps in local fields, but that doesn’t seem like a good long-term solution, either. As the article below describes, 60% of those that live in Seattle’s primary homeless camp have jobs. Often people who work at night or on changing shifts can’t stay in a homeless shelter because they can’t check in or out at typical times.
I understand that urban growth boundaries increase density which allows transit to flourish, supporting low income (!!) residents, but the unintended consequences are not pretty. The city council has discussed moving the urban boundary, but has rejected doing so out of hand, claiming that there is still plenty of developable land within the boundary. This is not just a Seattle issue. The same problems are common in Portland, San Francisco Bay, and Los Angeles (which has more of a physical boundary than a legislative limitation). At this point, I would seriously question whether market forces agree with the commission or the planning analysis that supports their decision. Groups like the Incremental Development Alliance often find parcels that are “administratively contaminated” by competing regulations that make parcels undevelopable, and often the local jurisdiction is unaware that their own regulations are keeping parcels from being used.
One of the biggest transportation issues of our age is curb space management. How can homeless tents compete with Uber/Lyft, transit shelters, scooters, food trucks, freight loading areas and ordinary pedestrians? Is it fair to local residents to increase density to levels that make living in the community beyond even “attainable” levels? How long can this go on before residents revolt? I watched a street scuffle on the streets of Portland two nights ago where a homeless man had tried to steal a case of beer from a local resident. After the resident got his beer back, he yelled, “Get out of my town!” to which the homeless man responded, “I’ve lived here my whole life.” It can be easy to think of it as a problem of Us against Them — but They are Us too — and the homeless are often the very people we planners are trying to help with transit when we push to increase density. The cure seems worse than the disease.
Florida rarely has such issues, partly because we are not good at enforcing urban growth boundaries. We have homeless people too — maybe even in bigger numbers because the warm weather makes it easier to survive outside. I’ll grant that chronic homelessness is the classic wicked problem with no easy solutions. Even Jesus said, “The poor you will always have with you.” The issue comes when the poor who can’t take care of their own basic needs includes people who hold down full time jobs as teachers, janitors, store-clerks, or public servants. If the choice is between sprawl and affordable housing, I’m not sure the density is worth it.
There has to be a third way. I’d love to know if anyone has any suggestions for balancing resilient transportation with affordable housing. This one may take a while to crack.
https://komonews.com/news/local/after-just-weeks-seattle-homeless-camp-prepares-for-another-move
Patricia Tice is an engineer, planner, human factors researcher, and recovering suburbanite. She is the President of Creative Resources Enhancing Workable Sustainability, LLC.