Support the Café
Search our site

Are cities responsible for their homeless?

Are cities responsible for their homeless?

A Los Angeles Times interview with “Father” Alice Callaghan, former Catholic nun, now Episcopal priest and advocate for the homeless in Los Angeles, is the prompt for a discussion at the Burbank Leader‘s In Theory about cities’ responsibilities toward their homeless populations.

In the L.A. Times story, Callaghan talks about Los Angeles’ approach to homelessness and says it is more about visibility than it is about finding ways to end homelessness itself:

In the past, the city redevelopment agency had a plan to save skid row housing, to fix it up, to maintain it, because the city understood then that if you didn’t house people on the row, you couldn’t solve any other problems in downtown. That plan lost support in the late ’80s. With term limits, there were no champions left, the redevelopment agency began to lose its power and downtown became laissez-faire economics, which it is to this day.

New York announced a $41-billion, 10-year plan to save housing, with an emphasis on the lowest[-income] 25%. We have no plan out of City Hall. I don’t think our city has the slightest interest in the homeless except for visibility. [And yet] if you eliminate the housing, you are now saying the de facto housing for the homeless of this city for decades will be on the sidewalks.

Callaghan outlines some of the local changes over the last decades that have made homelessness a bigger problem, along with the fallout from the Vietnam War, PTSD and the economy’s downturns:

On skid row in the 1960s, we had almost 10,000 affordable housing units, SROs [single-room occupancy hotels]. A general relief check used to cover the rent. They were occupied by the same kind of people who are now on the street. By the 1980s we were down to about 6,700 [units]. Now, in the 50-block [skid row] area, we are down to just 3,600 SRO units. When people say, “Why are all these people on the sidewalk?,” there’s a simple mathematical equation: They’re on the sidewalks because we have eliminated their housing.

In Theory asks the question:

How much responsibility should be placed on cities to secure truly affordable housing to accommodate the homeless? How does a city address this ethical responsibility when it conflicts with the rights and desires of landowners and residents?

The voices responding ranged from a rabbi to an atheist to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The first perspective came from an Episcopal priest, The Reverend Amy Pringle of St. George’s Episcopal in La Canada, California, who says she carries plastic cups of change in her car to give to people who are begging for money:

I’ve always thought that developers should be required to build a certain percentage of low-income housing, and another percentage of middle-income housing, for all the high-rent stuff they build — maybe 25% low income, 15% middle income, and 60% higher income. It’s the only way I can think of to ensure that a city can provide good homes to its people — all its people.

A city isn’t made beautiful by scuttling all the “undesirables” off stage; a city is beautiful when even the people off the stage are allowed to live with an adequate measure of human dignity, health and safety.

Follow the links above to read the original story in the Los Angeles Times and the full collection of responses in the Burbank Leader.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Allen

I like the idea by the Revd Pringle (her name makes me giggle a little) but would she propose that developers build the low and middle income housing elsewhere or co-mingled with the upper income housing? And would we then end up with separate entrances for the different economy levels sharing the development as happened recently in NYC?

http://nypost.com/2013/08/18/upper-west-side-condo-has-separate-entrances-for-rich-and-poor/

Bro David

Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_012
2020_013_B
2020_013_A

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café