‘Ending’ Homelessness

Is ending homelessness just another tactic in the war against the poor?

I’m thinking of suggesting at some point that the Committee to End Homelessness change it’s name. I’ve been attending meetings on a semi-regular basis for over a year and a half, and the name of this group has long been somewhat of a sticking point for me.

It has less to do with the fact that the group sometimes gets confused with the COALITION to End Homelessness, and more to do with the fact that we can’t end homelessness if we don’t end poverty.

The committee was around before the coalition, by the way, and the two groups are quite different. The committee is a group of un-housed people and their allies who meet once a week to discuss issues on the street, and to work together to address these issues. The coalition is a group of businesses and governments whose primary goal is dealing with the disorder and threat to business and tourism that they feel the homeless addicts and mentally ill are responsible for.

What’s important to note is that addiction and mental illness do not cause homelessness. Lack of ‘affordable’ housing does not cause homelessness. Poverty causes homelessness.

When I hear the coalition talk about ending homelessness, I fear for the possibilities. While it’s true that the coalition is putting some energy into recognizing the root causes of homelessness, they don’t have the power or authority to change the conditions of poverty in this country so that homelessness can be ‘ended’ in ten years. All that will be accomplished in ‘getting people off the streets’, is that the problem will be hidden from sight. Poverty will continue, but it won’t be the Coalition’s problem after that. It will be in the hands of housing providers, healthcare providers and other agencies under the authority of a provincial government that has no regard for the rights and needs of the poor.

It’s like eradicating a symptom of the disease without eradicating the disease.

Obviously we are talking about an injustice that is a deeply embedded part of our society, one that can’t be removed soon enough. Which just makes it even more crucial that we make ending poverty a high priority. It’s a big job and and the sooner we get started the better.

Some have also argued that by focusing on the issue of poverty we neglect even deeper causes. Sure enough, while poverty may be something that the greediest among us create and foster, it is, like war and other evils, also a symptom of a greater human ill. (Some even believe poverty causes war). I’ve come across many people who believe we cannot hope to change the world around us until we change ourselves. While this may be true, there are things we can be doing to bandage the wounds of civilization until such time as we reach a collective healing point.

So while we are struggling to discover the factors that have brought us to this miserable point, it’s a completely valid goal to provide housing and supports. I’m not saying that instead of spending $500,000 on a consultant to help find ways to create housing that the coalition should have paid a consultant to find ways to create equality in our society. I’m just saying that it is a crucial part of any effort that we make as a society to understand just what we are trying to achieve and why.

The coalition has it’s reasons for getting people off the streets, but they are not the same as mine. Within a certain context, their reasons are vaild. Homelessness is bad for tourism, and sends a message (though not untrue) that something is very wrong with our society. It’s understandable that the business interests want to keep this fact a secret, especially since every other city is on the same track to sweep it’s poverty, inequality and injustice under the rug.

I’m less concerned about our ‘image’ and more concerned about equality and justice. That may be one way myself and other grassroots anti-poverty activists differ from the wealthy elite who are spearheading the ‘end of homelessness’.

It’s not even that our reasons for creating housing and supports differ. I could care less why the Chamber of Commerce wants to help create more housing. I’m glad they do, whatever the reason.

If the goal is to create housing and supports, then the mission should be to create housing and supports. Ending homeless, however, is a much different goal, which involves more than just creating housing and supports, given that lack of housing and supports is not the only reason that people are homeless.

One is then led to wonder, when the coalition (and other city-led initiatives in this country) have created all the housing and supports they can and they still haven’t ended homelessness, what other tools will they turn to?

To answer that question, we need look no further than the tools currently in place to reduce and/or discourage homelessness, such as the criminalization of camping, loitering, and other neccesities of life outside.

We can also expect an increase in the kind of actions being taken by the city to move along the homeless by removing benches and other ‘improvements’ to public space that are clearly meant to reduce their use by the homeless.

Since I in no way support these methods, nor do I support forced treatment for addictions and mental illness, I am not eager to align myself with the cause of ‘ending homelessness’.

Since lack of housing and supports is not the only reason some people are homeless, it seems likely that even with full access to these things (which the coalition promises, much to many people’s skepticism) there will still be people on the street. What of those who refuse the ‘help’ offered by the government? Will they be forced into homes? Jails? Hospitals? What other way will the coalition be able to get people off the streets?

So far the work of the coalition is all about quantity; number of homes produced and on-line to be produced. No mention is made of reform to a broken social service system that does more than it’s share to cause homelessness. Again, what does it matter to the coaltion what happens to people when they get off the street? That’s our job, as anti-poverty activists. As such our focus needs to expand beyond the limited goal of ‘ending homelessness’ and focus as well on the inevitable strain that will happen to an already underfunded welfare system once people are sweep off the street and shoved into supportive housing.

I’m not saying the committee to end homelessness needs to expand it’s goals to include ending poverty. I’m just saying it was never on-track to end homelessness in the first place, and nor should it. What it’s been doing, and doing very well, is advocating for the rights of the poorest of the poor, pushing at all levels of government to maintain it’s commitments to all citizens, and sponsoring worthwhile initiatives that uplift those experiencing the worst form of poverty. It’s current name does not give justice to the good work that it does, and since the City and the business community have hijacked that name, it needs to stop being confused with people who have a completely different agenda.