The real problem with how society deals with the homeless, I believe, is the social system itself. America has always been a place where society in general believed that we put ourselves in our own predicaments. So instead of helping the homeless, we have a school of thought that believes that the reason that people are homeless is their own behavior. As “Hidden City” explains that there is one philosophy that believes that homelessness is  caused by the attitude and the lack of character of the homeless, while others believe that the true problem is a lack of affordable places to live and a lack jobs with wages that support that rent. The bottom line is that we need to stop just thinking about personal choice being the only cause of homelessness and consider other factors such as: the presence of mental illness, a lack of family ties, the gap between the cost of living and the lack of jobs to meet those needs, just plain bad luck or just a combination of these things (Kleniewski 233). And as society’s thoughts on homelessness and its causes change, perhaps it would be easier to create policies that attack the causes of homelessness and not the individuals who are homeless.

Question: If we change society’s view of the causes of homelessness, would it be easier to enact policies that try to aid those who are homeless instead of enacting policies that try to hide the appearance of homelessness in every day urban life?

The state of homelessness in the United States is ridiculous, and while Kleniewski seems hopeful about finding a solution, I, for one, am not. The root causes of homelessness in the US are not being addressed, and I do not have faith enough in the collaborative powers of Congress to address them at present. Kleniewski acknowledges this, and points out that to prevent homelessness in the future we need, in essence, to revamp our social welfare system. This is imperative, but will Congress (which ultimately has the power over social policy) be able to do such a thing? I personally don’t think so, especially because income inequality is entrenched in our current system, and will take massive collaboration to remedy. But something needs to be done; real effort needs to be made. The way we treat the neediest people in this country is, to me, disgusting, as illustrated by Frazier’s portrait of New York homelessness. So, the logical solution seems to be mass action: the collaboration of citizens. Congress can’t ignore the unanimity of the people, can it? After all, income inequality affects far more than just homelessness. What should we do?

All three of the readings give a comprehensive overview of the situation of homelessness in New York City. In “Criminalizing Homelessness” and “The Homeless,” we get a clear picture of how most cities treat homelessness and some of the possible causes for the increase in homelessness since the 1970s. “Banking on Vacancy” offers a possible solution to the problem- stopping warehousing thereby increasing affordable housing- and “Hidden City” gives a more hands-on account about the shelter system in New York City.

While reading “Hidden City,” I decided to look up each of the shelters mentioned to get a better idea of what the conditions were like. Interestingly enough, most of the people in the pictures were African American. As in Black Corona, the homeless population is mostly made up of black people, most likely due to institutionalized discrimination. Inside the shelters were mostly decrepit looking, and one even looked like the walls were falling apart.

It was also interesting to read about the people’s comments about shelter life. Most dread staying in a shelter while others would rather receive money to get their own apartment. So, the question is: Why doesn’t the government listen and find a way to stop warehousing and give these people a way to earn money for affordable apartment rent?

In Kleniewski’s “Homelessness,” the issue of austere treatment of the homeless is addressed. Kleniewski points out that the homeless are a diverse group of people. I think this is an important point to address because there is often a stigma that all homeless people are where they are for the same reasons or all belong to a certain demographic. Kleniewski also states that though many homeless people may have faced similar situations that lead to their homelessness, it is important to realize that this group is very heterogeneous. Therefore, a number of different measures should be taken to address the problem of taking care of our homeless population. Possible solutions include raising the minimum wage, providing more affordable housing and providing more services for low income families (like healthcare and childcare).

In Frazier’s “Hidden City,” Frazier writes that there have been more homeless people in New York City in recent years than before. People who are part of the mainstream middle class do not realize this, because they cannot see it. This may be due to reasons stated in the above mentioned article: more stringent policing of anti-vagrancy laws and reduction of public benefits that would otherwise keep these people in homes.

Question: Other than top-down measures, are there any other alternative (say, grass-roots-type) measures we can take to educate the public about stereotypes about homeless people in order to try and influence policies made?

“Theoretical Perspectives on the City” discusses Emile Durkheim and how he viewed the rapid change from rural to urban society life of Europe during that time. Durkheim had a very interesting theory about traditional small communities (gemeinschaft) and the modern urban society (gesellschaft). He said that the people of these small communities were equal in many ways; they had similar jobs, the same religion, same global view, and everyone is close to or related to one another. This creates a sense of community, and bond between the people of the neighborhood. This can directly to apply to NYC neighborhoods because it truly explains the development of small communities, like “Little Italy” or “Chinatown.” These neighborhoods are created and thrive because the people are so similar, in ways of their religion, worldview, and sometimes occupations. That sense of similarity helps them to expand and interact within their neighborhood, without having to leave the comfort that familiarity brings. However, neighborhoods with a mix of different type of people and occupations also have a reason to thrive; because they have different occupations, they depend on one another out of necessity. This is a theory that could explain the other neighborhoods of mixed occupations throughout the city.

So, upfront: I’ve experienced homelessness; I was homeless for about three (four?) months over the summer between my junior and senior years of high school. Homelessness, for that reason and more, is an issue that hits fairly close to home for me. These readings, in that respect, I found to be really good for understanding homelessness: in the Klienewski, we get the harsh, governmental angle on the problem; in the Picture the Homeless article we get possible solutions; and in Hidden City we get a human portrait. Especially as shown by Hidden City and the video we watched on Tuesday, I think the humanizing aspect of talking about homelessness is incredibly important—most homeless people obviously aren’t such by choice, it’s because of forces (sometimes Kafkaesque ones, like those happening to Christina in Hidden City) outside of their control. Most of the reason homelessness is such a problem, from my point of view, is because of failures of empathy—homeless are people, in need of help, that’s all. So maybe me question is, how do you teach empathy?

As food for thought, here’s this cool awareness campaign run by Canada’s Homeless Youth organization:

A very interesting point brought up by the New Yorker article, “Hidden City,” was the repeated assertion that it costs more to find temporary housing for the homeless through a flawed system than it would cost to directly pay the homeless individual. As mentioned by one lady in an interview, welfare pays, “three thousand four hundred and forty-four dollars! Every month! Give me nine hundred dollars of that every month and I’ll find me and my kids an apartment, I promise you” (Frazier). While I agree that often the system for housing the homeless is more expensive (in the long run) than offering affordable housing and always more expensive than giving dividends with which to pay for housing, there is an overlooked problem of where that money may go. For instance, if there is somebody who is homeless because of a chemical addiction or alcoholism, the money he or she receives will not necessarily go towards finding affordable housing. However, if there is found a way around this issue – perhaps through a screening and medical examination – the idea of giving money straight to the individual and cutting out the middlemen of PATH and other services is one worth pursuing. What ways, if any, offer a practical possible solution in this vein?

I was particularly taken by the second article, as it detailed the lack of sympathy I often take issue with when reading about the intricacies of black poverty. The de-politicization of struggles inherent in “inner city” communities (mentioned on page 6) is perhaps the biggest obstacle to overcome when attempting to better the areas through official action. Often, this mentality fails to view the state of poverty with any empathy and instead dismisses it. By arguing that the disparate quality of life between “mainstream America” and the “inner city” is due to “a breakdown of family values and structure” (6), rather than any overarching inequalities, allows for those making said accusations to both: vilify the people stuck in this impoverished cycle; and remove themselves from the moral obligation of helping. If black poverty is seen as a fault of the people involved, it becomes infinitely easier to aver that there’s nothing an outsider can do, or should do. Obviously the creation of policy cannot be ruled by emotion, but how much – if any – focus should be placed on empathy?