A thought experiment on solving homelessness in the USA

[Zaune]

Someone on another forum posted about this homeless man who improvised a dwelling for himself, and while reading the ensuing debate about the questionable morality of punishing someone for trying to improve their station in life versus the legitimate danger to public safety represented by digging shelters and erecting shacks willy-nilly, I had a thought.

Since it's currently politically infeasible to just build enough public housing for anyone who needs it, perhaps the next best thing is to make it easier for people to build their own.

The United States has a large amount of unoccupied land whose owners aren't using it for much. I'm also reliably informed that it's not enormously expensive to drill a well. And it wouldn't look much like the dreaded Socialism if the homeless were given a plot of land, some basic tools and supplies and a copy of Homesteading For Dummies and left to get on with it.

Is there some glaring flaw I haven't noticed, or am I on to something?

[Lord Revan]

Doing so wouldn't create a underclass permanently stuck in poverty and have to resort to crimes to make due and thus give politicians an excuse to throw them in prisons to appear to be "though on crime" without solving the underlaying problem.

[Simon_Jester]

The first issue is ownership of land. No landowner is going to willingly cede land like this without compensation, and the compensation is expensive. Moreover, if the homeless-homesteader becomes the new owner of the land, that is a very valuable up-front transfer of property.

The second issue is that most of the good agricultural land on which one could conceivably homestead is already taken up, or is zoned for purposes other than agriculture. After all, if a given place in America was such a good place to start a small farm, why wouldn't people already have done so?

The third is that it's not as simple as handing people a book, or even a large pile of books. In the 19th century it was quite common for Americans to move out to 'the frontier' and create their own homesteads, but in those days nearly all Americans were rural farm workers by trade, and even city-dwellers had extensive experience in basic skills like how to handle animals, how to cook over a fire, and how to cope with bad weather in the absence of well-insulated modern buildings with electric heat and air conditioning.

The fourth is that with the expenses associated with modern agriculture, small farms do not turn a profit. Not in most places, unless they can find some eclectic niche product to create. So the homesteaders thus created will gradually run out of money until none remains, at which point they default back to 'homeless' even if they did everything else right. Unless of course they just sell their land off to developers.

The fifth is that many of the people who are now homeless have problems other than simply lacking a home. Not all, probably not even most, but many. Issues may include untreated mental illnesses, physical health problems that either caused them to run out of money in the first place or are caused by the poor conditions they live under, an excessive number of dependent children to look out for, a lack of marketable skills, and so on. Many of them, if given a pile of supplies and resources to construct a functional business or home and told to 'sink or swim...' would sink.

[Broomstick]

The United States has a large amount of unoccupied land whose owners aren't using it for much.

In the US landowners are not obligated to do anything with their property. In fact, one of the reasons people own land is, in fact, to do nothing with it and leave it wild (writ large, that's sort of why we have places like Yellowstone and Yosemite). Even the government is not supposed to seize private property without compensating the owner.

That's sort of a big obstacle right there.

I'm also reliably informed that it's not enormously expensive to drill a well.

Depends on where you're drilling.

And it wouldn't look much like the dreaded Socialism if the homeless were given a plot of land, some basic tools and supplies and a copy of Homesteading For Dummies and left to get on with it.

Is there some glaring flaw I haven't noticed, or am I on to something?

Well... for one thing, a lot of homeless you see on the street are too dysfunctional to be able to engage in the sort of hard work, self-discipline, and long-range planning subsistence farming requires. The homeless you don't see on the street - the folks couch-surfing with friends and family - are functional enough they usually manage to re-integrate into mainstream society in a couple years.

Keep in mind, too, that even when a lot of folks were small farmers by trade and even city folks often had some skills suitable to the profession, that is, in the 19th Century, a lot of the folks who headed west died.

We don't really need more small farmers. We need to either find a way to re-integrate the homeless into mainstream society, or accept that some people simply are unable to fend for themselves and arrange a humane living situation for them.

[General Zod]

Simple resources is one big obstacle. The reason large tracts of land are unpopulated is because there's no supply of potable water to drill for and you wouldn't be able to get it without digging a massive duct to reach the next available well . . . which would require the existing landowners permission.

[Zwinmar]

Even if you did set aside land the rich would just buy it up for themselves on the cheap then charge ridiculous prices for it..just like they did when building the railroads.

[Mr Bean]

Even if you did set aside land the rich would just buy it up for themselves on the cheap then charge ridiculous prices for it..just like they did when building the railroads.

What about the Homesteader style act? Move here get land you must build a house and live on it, we are not selling it.

[General Zod]

Even if you did set aside land the rich would just buy it up for themselves on the cheap then charge ridiculous prices for it..just like they did when building the railroads.

What about the Homesteader style act? Move here get land you must build a house and live on it, we are not selling it.

How are the homeless supposed to pay for the building materials and get them to the site?

[Broomstick]

Not to mention the tools to build anything or farm or whatever - the homesteaders required a certain basic level of prosperity to set up a new homestead. Oh, and I think I mentioned before that a significant number of such people died either on the way to their new home or shortly after they arrived, homesteading being a somewhat risky endeavor.

[General Zod]

We have states that do homesteading today, but they have certain minimal financial requirements.

From what I understand Utah's done a pretty good job of tackling homelessness.

[Mr Bean]

Not to mention the tools to build anything or farm or whatever - the homesteaders required a certain basic level of prosperity to set up a new homestead. Oh, and I think I mentioned before that a significant number of such people died either on the way to their new home or shortly after they arrived, homesteading being a somewhat risky endeavor.

But it's a valid method of fixing the "Don't let the Rich buy up all the new cheap federal land"

Yes an exact copy of the Federal Homesteading act circa 2016 would be a mistake but that idea might work. But instead of micro homes in the middle of nowhere or poor people in tent cities why not start thinking bigger? New American city, shinning city on the hill and on that, yes it involves spending a fuck ton of money but hey it's one of those classic mega dam like investments where the tax revnue will offset the investment, just set up the basics and we can finally give them someplace to film another back to the future.

I might have gone on a tangent there, point is it's an idea but it would have to be carefully done and a pure repeat of the Homestead act would be yes dumb.

[Zwinmar]

Set up a city, Walmart moves in, same problem. Rich get richer on the backs of the people actually working. How many homes are sitting empty because of the greed?

You will have carpet baggers moving in and, right now, there isn't anything to stop them. I can guarantee that if you give a guy a homestead and the banks find out within six months a debt collector will be knocking at the door.

[Elheru Aran]

It's honestly cheaper to do what Utah's trying-- just straight-up pay rent for homeless people to have a place to stay. If they have a place to stay, it gives them stability, which helps them clean up their lives and find work.

Some places do this by renovating old hotels; other places have tried 'mini-dwellings' which are basically tiny one-bedroom houses.

Frankly, the fact of the matter is that homelessness is expensive to the government, thus by extension costing taxpayers money. It's a better use of said money to take care of the homeless rather than letting them rot on the streets.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The first issue is ownership of land. No landowner is going to willingly cede land like this without compensation, and the compensation is expensive. Moreover, if the homeless-homesteader becomes the new owner of the land, that is a very valuable up-front transfer of property.

I think the biggest issue isn't the quantity of land available, but rather its distribution.

While the issues you and Broomstick cite regarding land ownership are real, it wouldn't be that hard for the government to find enough raw acreage to use for this purpose. Between easements, leases, donations, repurposement of some of the many plots of largely unused public land, and through other methods, there is simply so much fucking land to choose from even if only a small percentage is available that finding enough to theoretically fit all or most of the homeless population isn't unthinkable. The problems really are where that land is distributed. Likely, there would be few large, contiguous pieces except in some of the more remote areas of states like Texas or Wyoming, and close to none available near places like New York City.

That results in the issues of relocating people to those locations so they can benefit, which besides being a massive logistical undertaking will also be a potential political scandal once some evidence emerges that paints the entire enterprise like relocating people to remote slums, which wouldn't be far from reality. Not to mention issues relates to the QUALITY of land available (there's a reason it isn't being used) and whether there are enough resources available, etc.

And this is all even assuming that it is possible for most homeless people to even survive in the way proposed. We don't even know if the homeless man in the OP was successful at it; for all we know, he was half-dead from starvation before he was arrested. It isn't uncommon for homeless people to construct makeshift shelters or even entire communities (e.g. the "mole people" of New York City. Watch the excellent documentary "Dark Days" for a look into that paradigm), even enduring ones, but it has done little or nothing to alleviate the wider problem.

[Solauren]

Sorry, without a partical overhaul of the United States current social-economic and political system, homelessness is not going away any time soon.

[biostem]

Sorry, without a partical overhaul of the United States current social-economic and political system, homelessness is not going away any time soon.

Even if you offered free housing to all people in a country, I imagine that there will be some who wouldn't use it, due to not liking the location, not wanting to have to be responsible for its upkeep, some sort of psychological issue, or a myriad of other issues that already exist or new ones that crop up. I'm not denying that there are things that need to be addressed, but is there any metric of how many people are homeless due to their own choices vs those that genuinely have absolutely no other options?

[General Zod]

Sorry, without a partical overhaul of the United States current social-economic and political system, homelessness is not going away any time soon.

Even if you offered free housing to all people in a country, I imagine that there will be some who wouldn't use it, due to not liking the location, not wanting to have to be responsible for its upkeep, some sort of psychological issue, or a myriad of other issues that already exist or new ones that crop up. I'm not denying that there are things that need to be addressed, but is there any metric of how many people are homeless due to their own choices vs those that genuinely have absolutely no other options?

That's just an excuse to not do anything. Even if a few people turn it down isn't it better to get everyone off the streets that are willing to take it?

[biostem]

Sorry, without a partical overhaul of the United States current social-economic and political system, homelessness is not going away any time soon.

Even if you offered free housing to all people in a country, I imagine that there will be some who wouldn't use it, due to not liking the location, not wanting to have to be responsible for its upkeep, some sort of psychological issue, or a myriad of other issues that already exist or new ones that crop up. I'm not denying that there are things that need to be addressed, but is there any metric of how many people are homeless due to their own choices vs those that genuinely have absolutely no other options?

That's just an excuse to not do anything. Even if a few people turn it down isn't it better to get everyone off the streets that are willing to take it?

No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything. This is going to sound bad, but what I'm curious about is how many people are homeless because they *want* to be. In other words, how many people are homeless because they don't or won't take advantage of services, programs, or facilities available to put them into a home? For instance, let's say that there is a program to get a homeless person a job and some form of roof over their head, but said person doesn't want to do that because then they'd have to take on a whole host of responsibilities that they find less desirable than simply finding a place to bed down each night or enough cans to turn in for a meal that day. Again, please don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I don't think anyone should be without a safe, clean, and warm place to stay - I'm just curious as to how many such people choose that life.

[Broomstick]

There's choice and then there is "choice" - a lot of homeless people avoid shelters because they're full of crime like theft and rape. They're "choosing" not to use a program, but the reasons go beyond "oh, I like sleeping on sewer grates".

[biostem]

There's choice and then there is "choice" - a lot of homeless people avoid shelters because they're full of crime like theft and rape. They're "choosing" not to use a program, but the reasons go beyond "oh, I like sleeping on sewer grates".

Again, I agree in terms of improving those facilities and making sure they're safe & available. What I'm talking about is more along the lines of someone who may not possess any advanced skills, and doesn't want to spend their days slogging fastfood or mopping floors, just to now have to worry about living in debt to pay for an apartment. I'm also talking about situations like a vet who was trained as a pilot or something, but couldn't find a job doing that when they left the military, and doesn't want to work some thankless retail job, and would rather be homeless than do something that they feel may be a waste of their abilities.

Again, I'm not advocating that we withhold opportunities from people that want to take advantage of them - all I'm saying is that there's more to why someone would be homeless than simply "oh I really want to work but I just can't find any job in any field, at any location".

[General Zod]

Even if you offered free housing to all people in a country, I imagine that there will be some who wouldn't use it, due to not liking the location, not wanting to have to be responsible for its upkeep, some sort of psychological issue, or a myriad of other issues that already exist or new ones that crop up. I'm not denying that there are things that need to be addressed, but is there any metric of how many people are homeless due to their own choices vs those that genuinely have absolutely no other options?

That's just an excuse to not do anything. Even if a few people turn it down isn't it better to get everyone off the streets that are willing to take it?

No, I'm not saying that we shouldn't do anything. This is going to sound bad, but what I'm curious about is how many people are homeless because they *want* to be. In other words, how many people are homeless because they don't or won't take advantage of services, programs, or facilities available to put them into a home? For instance, let's say that there is a program to get a homeless person a job and some form of roof over their head, but said person doesn't want to do that because then they'd have to take on a whole host of responsibilities that they find less desirable than simply finding a place to bed down each night or enough cans to turn in for a meal that day. Again, please don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I don't think anyone should be without a safe, clean, and warm place to stay - I'm just curious as to how many such people choose that life.

The only way to know for sure is to make sure everyone has a chance to get reasonable housing.

[Raw Shark]

There's choice and then there is "choice" - a lot of homeless people avoid shelters because they're full of crime like theft and rape. They're "choosing" not to use a program, but the reasons go beyond "oh, I like sleeping on sewer grates".

Bedbugs are also reportedly a major thing at the local shelter recently. I've never seen so many people choosing to sleep outside in the winter who seem to kind of have their shit together, building makeshift shelters in areas with windbreaks and cooperating rather than passing out face-down somewhere random.

[Lagmonster]

Since it's currently politically infeasible to just build enough public housing for anyone who needs it, perhaps the next best thing is to make it easier for people to build their own.

One guy, on his own, with know-how and determination, can set up a single farm or hunting lodge somewhere and survive. But urbanites are more likely to congregate and do something else, which you may know as "gypsy camps" or "shantytowns", or at worse, "slums". Even with only a dozen families you'd start to have all the problems of an actual city, without any of the solutions. Crime, potable water, hygiene, health care, all these issues start rising as population continues to increase. And since it's not a "real" city with taxpayers and a government, no public amenities or facilities are set up to care for them. Eventually authorities move in and destroy the place, scattering the residents and arresting others, because the place is a cesspool or a fire hazard or worse.

Yes, there are examples of successful do-it-yourself-off-the-grid communes, but they tend to be built by people with a common philosophical or religious purpose, and not just "all the poor people".

A better model, I think, would be to subsidize the sale of well-built microhomes to the poor, then plan your residential areas so that each street has a mixture of singles, townhomes and microhomes, with plenty of parkland and walking routes. That way you aren't grouping all of the poor in one place - they can own comparatively miniature and cost-effective pieces of land in the same good neighbourhoods as the middle-class in their singles.