Note: I run a debate club, which recently debated the Motion “This House Supports Enforcing Public Camping Bans When Shelter is Available and Offered”. I was the speaker in favor of the Motion (i.e., banning camping). This series of posts summarizes my speaking points.

First, a few definitions and recap:

Camping:  Making living accommodations or preparations to sleep, sleep, erecting a tent, or storing belongings in prohibited areas.

Prohibited areas: public right-of-ways, such as streets, alleys, sidewalks, plazas, and entrances to buildings, as well as park areas with public access that are not designated camping sites or are off-hours for recreational use, e.g., overnight.   

Reasonable and safe shelter: at a minimum, conditions that are conducive to restful sleep: quiet, and supervised, with storage space and a place to keep pets. Also, sufficiently clean and uncrowded to protect shelter residents from contagious diseases and criminal victimization. (More on suitable and optimal shelters in a later post)

In the first two posts (here and here), I addressed why public camping should be prohibited, e.g., negative environmental impact, danger to public health, property damage, criminal activity (e.g., petty theft), victimization of homeless individuals (e.g., assault), threats to business viability, illegitimate use of public space, and costs to society (e.g., government, criminal justice, and medical expenditures). I then demonstrated that suitable shelter space for all unsheltered homeless in a given area was feasible and affordable and did not conflict with funding for permanent housing, because the very existence of shelters frees up funding that would otherwise be unavailable for permanent housing projects.

Onward to “Why not provide permanent housing instead?”.

Permanent housing is the ultimate goal for all the unsheltered homeless. And in some places, it may be possible to quickly provide very cheap housing for all unsheltered homeless in the area. But these are places that don’t have much of an unsheltered homeless population in the first place, because very cheap housing is already available, such as trailer and RV parks in rural areas. Unsheltered homelessness is mostly a problem in coastal cities where it is expensive to build and live. The unsheltered still need a safe place to stay while they wait for permanent housing to open up. Which can take quite a while, because…well just mull over the following comparison of costs and development time for permanent:supportive housing versus shelters in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Permanently supportive housing

  • Average construction cost per unit: Alameda County - $529,460; San Francisco - $730,560.

  • Operating costs: $23,000 - $32,850 per unit per year

  • Development/Construction Time: Five to seven years in Bay Area

Shelters 

  • Average construction cost per bed in Bay Area: $5,000-$50,000

  • Operating costs in Oakland and San Francisco: $21,250 - $38,000

  • Development/Construction Time: less than a year (e.g., cabin communities) to two and a half years, counting legal challenges (large SF navigation center, estimated five months of which is construction time).

Yes, the big coastal cities need to find a way to build housing faster and quicker. But in the meantime, folks need a place to stay, stabilize, and get help.

References:

Bay Area Homelessness: A Regional View of a Regional Crisis Bay Area Council Economic Institute. April 2019

Measuring the Housing Permitting Process in San Francisco Brian Goggin/Terner Center for Housing Innovation. July 24, 2018

Oakland Set to Open Latest Cabin Community and RV Homeless Camp  Rob Arias/ E’ville Eye. July 3, 2019

Report on Emergency Framework to Homelessness Plan submitted by Paul Duncan, Associate Director of Procurement and Performance Management/Los Angeles Homeless Authority. June 18, 2018