After reviewing the white paper once more and going over unanswered questions from Professor Krinsky’s class, it was determined by the group that a more concrete proposal was needed to address homelessness. Formulating such a proposal at first seemed like a daunting task because of numerous possibilities that the policy could take. It was critical to reorganize and develop a strategy for creating new policy. However, due to the members’ general unfamiliarity with policy beyond the scope of the class, drafting policy from scratch would not be a practical method for creating a solution. The group elected to review more historical approaches to the issue, this time including successful, partially successful and unsuccessful models to analyze and understand. While policy that works out is wonderful and could possibly create a lasting precedent, the environment of New York City is so unique that it is difficult to isolate an application from elsewhere and visualize it’s implementation. Just as it is important to highlight what makes policy work, it is just as critical to understand what causes policy failure and how people and institutions react to the problem.

The framework for revising policy was based on the goals of Picture the Homeless’s initiatives. During the first meeting with them, they explained how eminent domain, community land trusts, and rent stabilization could be used to solve the problem of CLT’s and create a more rehabilitative system where chronic homelessness can be cured. While these are good ideas and seem to be able to work in New York City, the class discussion on Monday and mapping out the issue exercise convinced the group that the policy needed to address more than just the goal. While it would be convenient to cure homelessness by putting everyone in buildings on community land trusts, there are more factors affected by these decisions. Creating effective policy requires a selling point. Through the lens of the class discussion, the idea of removing land from a prospective market and making it non-for-profit was a retrograde approach to increasing funding. Because raising taxes and drawing more from the city’s budget are unpopular options, saving money on current wasteful policy will have to be the bottom line.

The following are a few highlights of policy that the group collectively explored and attempted to follow in its development, implementation, implications, and success.

Mayor Ed Koch’s administration saw the first rise of family homelessness. While his administration first put these people in hotels, the numbers continued to rise until he was forced to take on the issue more directly. Koch’s policy avoided a more permanent solution in fear that families would become dependent on “welfare hotels” and as a result become chronically homeless. Barrack style shelters were created to emphasize the temporary aspect, and expansion of affordable housing and transitional programs produced record lows of homelessness after Koch concluded his last term.

Under Mayor Bloomberg, the number of homeless individuals and families soared to all time highs. Bloomberg’s general business approach to running the city not only contributed to this problem but also created extreme rent rise further widened the economic gap. He replaced federal housing programs with wasteful short-term subsidies that avoided a permanent solution and instead emphasized the private market. His failures have shown how turning over the solution to private companies
(CLT’s) creates big business and lack of permanency and increases homelessness. What can be concluded is that the policy proposal must include government owned and operated shelters because no profit margin means money is not flowing into someone’s pocket.

Oftentimes understanding the root of a problem is the best way to solve it, by working backwards and developing a more all-encompassing approach to address it. From the class on Monday the group developed a tree model where the economic causes branched out into social and political points of the issue. Since the 1980’s, homelessness experienced a new demographic shift known as economic homelessness, where individuals and families are on the streets because they are unable to afford housing. The main reason behind the lack of affordability is a stagnant minimum wage in comparison to the rising costs of living. In this unbalanced race one cannot keep up with the other, and as a result the income gap widens. The ultra-rich are profiting from not only homeless services and cluster site housing, but in general labor from the lower class that has been devalued from a lack in raise of the minimum wage. When one value is being depreciated and the other increased, the gap pulls in both directions and further widens.

While turning over control of shelters to government or non-for-profit organizations could cut out the notorious Podolsky family and save the city money, it will not address the underlying cause of economic homelessness. Creating affordable housing means either lowering rents to affordable rates or increasing wages to compete with rising rents. Such a solution would not only solve the solve the shelter issue but reduce it and put people in homes rather than cluster sites.

The group is going to meet today with Picture the Homeless to clarify policy goals and ask for their input on more permanent solutions and sell-ability of the policy to city council.