Homeless in America

I currently live in San Francisco.  This morning I was walking to work.  I saw a homeless Vet pushing a wheelchair, probably to a more favorable money-collecting location, I assume.  I didn't judge him for pushing his wheelchair... it's only an observation.  I knew that he had served his country in combat before.  He was wearing a baseball cap that said "U.S. Navy Veteran."

I don't understand homelessness, and cannot imagine a solution.  The population demographic split in the city between 'homeless' vs. 'have home' seem about equal, at least on Market St. anyway.

So, the guy above was pushing his wheelchair, wearing his cap, looking sad and somewhat disheveled (I'm being polite).  Not knowing his unique circumstances, I thought that in his previous career he may have excelled in marketing, because the 'get-up' that includes passing off as a Veteran (whether real or not), sitting in a wheelchair, along with looking sad and forlorn... beats the very average "spare some change" guy's get-up, hands-down, any day.

I Googled "how to solve homelessness," but found a link to Mobile Homemaker's blog instead, entitled "Survival Guide to Homelessness".  You can read it here. 

He says that "no one understands what you are going through. People who know you are homeless are constantly trying to cure you of the condition. Cure you, like you have a disease." And "as a homeless person, I do not want someone to feed me. I do not want someone to house me. I do not want a blanket, and I will not work for food! You have to ask me what it is I need if you want to have an effect."

These comments made me even more confused, because all the things he said he didn't need, were the things I thought homeless people would want.

Fortunately, he also added his requirements for assistance:

"I've thought a long time about what would be useful to the homeless. We need public toilets. Not filthy portapotties, but proper restrooms that are private and clean. We need safe places to sleep. Capsule hotels, which are found in Tokyo and some other places in the world, would be most excellent. The rooms should be very cheap, and I mean five bucks is too much. They should be subsidized, and there should be twice as many as there is a demand for them. They should be extremely secure, and you should be allowed to stay for as long as you want. We need showers. Safe, secure, single occupancy showers. Those are answers that would help people."

I think his demands are reasonable, but I'm not confident that he and his friends would be willing to make a positive, ongoing contribution, assuming his needs were ever met.  For one, the most basic ask of "private and clean" restrooms may be just that when provided at first, but for how long?  And the same would be applicable to "safe, secure, single occupancy showers." 

I think it unlikely that people who take care of their own homes would cause restrooms/showers for homeless people to lack privacy, security and cleanliness.  In fact, it's likely that people who expend an effort to maintain their own homes would not even be likely to utilize the public amenities created for the homeless people.  So my question to Mobile Homemaker would be: "If I have to provide these amenities for you at my cost, would you and your friends respect the amenities with as much pride and compassion as the people who "subsidized" them on your behalf?"

My family and I manage and operate a 501(c)(3) charity called Memory Trees.  We don't make/take any money from it, using 100% of donations received to plant trees in public spaces.  Our charity is probably of little benefit to homeless people, save perhaps to provide some shade on a sunny day or cover in the event of inclement weather.  But, we do fund the planting of fruit-baring trees in low income areas.  That could be of benefit to homeless people.  Maybe we can declare San Francisco a low income area?  Perhaps we should ask 'City Hall' if we could arrange some donations and planting of fruit trees in San Francisco public spaces.  Mobile Homemaker - would that be of any benefit to you and your friends, even though you said you don't want someone to feed you?  As in, if you were to pick it yourself, that may engender a sense of pride.  I'm only asking, because I don't know.

In May 2011, the San Francisco Human Services Agency released their findings following surveys conducted with 1,024 people at emergency shelters, transitional housing facilities and other sites throughout the city.  It was part of a biannual study of San Francisco's homeless population, which is required by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department in order to authorize funding. The city typically receives $18 million in McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act funding, the primary federal legislation dealing with homeless shelter programs in the U.S.  Just to prevent my Republican friends screaming "entitlements!," I should add that this Act was was passed and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on July 22, 1987. 

That means we're already paying for Mobile Homemaker's needs via our tax contribution - $18 million is probably sufficient to provide some clean, safe and secure ablution amenities?  I don't know though, because I don't have any standing or knowledge regarding the cost of building and maintaining public amenities.

It's also possible that the bureaucrats of the City of San Francisco may prefer the annual HUD payment of $18 million, in preference to the actual task of addressing and/or trying to fix the city's socioeconomic problem of homelessness... but I have no standing or knowledge about their preferences in this regard either.