In an New York Times Opinion article entitled “How to Fight Homelessness,” Mark Levine, a New York City Council member, and Mary Brosnahan, the president of the Coalition for the Homeless, have argued that preventing and eliminating homelessness is largely dependent on addressing its root causes. In particular, they discuss an “epidemic” of evictions as a key reason that growing numbers of individuals and families are being forced onto the streets (Levine & Brosnahan, 2015). They argue that a current piece of legislation on the floor of the New York City Council could substantially reduce “the human cost of homelessness” as well the monetary cost by establishing a right to counsel for all low-income tenants facing eviction in housing court.
…show more content…
Ultimately, however, this proposal is inadequate to address the sizable problem of homelessness in New York City and the U.S. The bill’s proponents aim, nobly, to address the root causes of homelessness; but they place chief value on ensuring legal representation while seemingly ignoring the two chief factors which numerous experts, including Maness and Khan (2014) and the National Coalition for the Homeless (2015) have identified as the chief causes of homelessness: poverty and a lack of affordable housing. Further, critics have raised the concern that this bill will unjustly penalize landlords seeking to rent out space; under the proposed legislation, if an individual was unable to pay rent but could not be evicted until after a hearing, the owner of that land would be losing potential income. Ultimately, this could lead to further discrimination in renting, and it does little to address the immense demand for and limited supply of affordable housing in urban areas such as New York City. As this bill does take steps to address one cause of homelessness (unjust eviction), it seems logical that the legislation has garnered support of 38 City Council members as well as groups who advocate for homeless populations (Levine & Brosnahan, 2015). However, I would anticipate several individuals and groups, particularly land-owners who rent property, to …show more content…
However, the best method of addressing chronic homelessness on local, state, and national levels would be a large-scale investment in locally managed housing-first programs. As Chisholm, Weinbaum, and Yoder (2010) have noted, these programs have been shown to reduce public spending by up to $7,715 per person, as the total cost of providing housing subsidies, resettlement assistance, and supportive services is significantly lower than costs of shelters and treating complications of chronic homelessness (p. 10). Moreover, these programs have been found to empower patients struggling to free themselves from comorbid social ills such as domestic violence, addiction, and poverty. In a qualitative analysis of the perception of women survivors of intimate partner violence, Clough, Draughon, Njie-Carr, Rollins, and Glass (2014) determined that access to housing and supportive resources was a critical factor in empowering domestic violence victims to seek safety rather than experience further abuse or homelessness. Further, a mixed-method case study by Meschede and Chaganti (2015) has noted that short-term rental subsidy vouchers, which provide two years of rental subsidy and support services with the goal of enabling beneficiaries to maintain market rate housing, can play
Ultimately, however, this proposal is inadequate to address the sizable problem of homelessness in New York City and the U.S. The bill’s proponents aim, nobly, to address the root causes of homelessness; but they place chief value on ensuring legal representation while seemingly ignoring the two chief factors which numerous experts, including Maness and Khan (2014) and the National Coalition for the Homeless (2015) have identified as the chief causes of homelessness: poverty and a lack of affordable housing. Further, critics have raised the concern that this bill will unjustly penalize landlords seeking to rent out space; under the proposed legislation, if an individual was unable to pay rent but could not be evicted until after a hearing, the owner of that land would be losing potential income. Ultimately, this could lead to further discrimination in renting, and it does little to address the immense demand for and limited supply of affordable housing in urban areas such as New York City. As this bill does take steps to address one cause of homelessness (unjust eviction), it seems logical that the legislation has garnered support of 38 City Council members as well as groups who advocate for homeless populations (Levine & Brosnahan, 2015). However, I would anticipate several individuals and groups, particularly land-owners who rent property, to …show more content…
However, the best method of addressing chronic homelessness on local, state, and national levels would be a large-scale investment in locally managed housing-first programs. As Chisholm, Weinbaum, and Yoder (2010) have noted, these programs have been shown to reduce public spending by up to $7,715 per person, as the total cost of providing housing subsidies, resettlement assistance, and supportive services is significantly lower than costs of shelters and treating complications of chronic homelessness (p. 10). Moreover, these programs have been found to empower patients struggling to free themselves from comorbid social ills such as domestic violence, addiction, and poverty. In a qualitative analysis of the perception of women survivors of intimate partner violence, Clough, Draughon, Njie-Carr, Rollins, and Glass (2014) determined that access to housing and supportive resources was a critical factor in empowering domestic violence victims to seek safety rather than experience further abuse or homelessness. Further, a mixed-method case study by Meschede and Chaganti (2015) has noted that short-term rental subsidy vouchers, which provide two years of rental subsidy and support services with the goal of enabling beneficiaries to maintain market rate housing, can play