Homelessness is arguably the most extreme economic hardship that a very small percentage of Americans experience. About 650,000 Americans are homeless each year, or about 0.2% of the country’s population. Importantly, about half of the homeless population finds accommodation each year.
Still, though it is rare, homelessness is a devastating condition. Homelessness is strongly associated with poverty and early death. There is a 60% increase in mortality associated with homelessness. Almost 50% of the homeless have formal employment in the year when they don’t have shelter. Homelessness occurs most often because of long-term economic deprivation, not a large sudden loss of income. The homeless have low incomes, leaving them vulnerable to the loss of shelter when they encounter even small disruptions to their economic circumstance.
Research also shows that mental illness, including addictions to drugs or alcohol or both, drives homelessness. Over 70% of the homeless population suffers from some form of mental illness disorder. This speaks to something: homelessness is largely a public health matter, not an economic issue.
State and local government struggle to deal with homelessness. California, with its vast wealth, is home to 30% of the country’s homeless. California spends about $50,000 a year on each homeless person. That is an extraordinary amount even in the context of shelter inflation in San Francisco where the median rent for a one room apartment costs in excess of $1,300 a month, or $15,600 a year.
The U.S. Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in a case regarding the authority of local governments to regulate homeless encampments. The specific issue at hand is: “whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.” The defendants in City of Grants Pass v Gloria Johnson argue that the city of Grants Pass cannot outlaw homeless encampments because homelessness is a state of being, a “status,” similar to addiction.
In the 1962 case, Robinson v. California, the infamously liberal Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, found “that it is unconstitutional for a state to punish a defendant for drug addiction, which is a status rather than an act, when the defendant has not engaged in any illegal conduct involving drugs in the state.” In plain language, a person could not be punished for being addicted to drugs.
But in Grants Pass, homelessness is not being punished by the city. The city is trying to control homeless encampments in the interest of public health and safety. Homeless encampments are a health hazard. They are a public nuisance, just as a factory spewing toxic chemicals is a health hazard and a public nuisance. No one would argue that Grants Pass could not regulate a factory producing carcinogenic chemicals. The evidence is beyond doubt that homeless encampments are plagued by drug addiction, crime, and increased health risks.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
A local government has the duty and the right to protect its citizens.
Government already has sufficient funds to address homelessness and mental health. Local governments have the right under the U.S. system of federalism, to allocate resources as they choose. There is no constitutional right to shelter. The Supreme Court will not create yet another economic entitlement.
James Rogan is a former U.S. foreign service officer who later worked in finance and law for 30 years. He writes a daily note.
