![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyor more like several somebodies proclaim that there are more homes in the USA than homeless people.
I have no idea where they get this little factoid, but it's a pretty useless tidbit.
First, it's unclear how they're defining "homeless", or if they've given any thought as to how they should define it. Are we counting people who are chronic couchsurfers because they can't find an affordable place to stay, but who technically have a friend's roof over their head every night, even if they have to hustle week from week to find another friend so as not to wear out their welcome? Are we counting families who have split the kids up among relatives because Mom and Dad can't find a place with enough space for them AND the kids, but technically everybody is housed? Are we counting people paying exorbitant fees week to week to rent a motel room because they can't get the cash together for first and last month rent plus a security deposit on an actual apartment? How about families living "doubled up", as they say, sharing an apartment with two or more families that isn't big enough, really, for one - each family crammed into a bedroom and timesharing the bathroom and kitchen?
Or are they only thinking of the long term homeless who literally live on the streets or occasionally in shelters?
Secondly, while I agree that any solution to homelessness starts with giving people homes, the actual existence of houses does no good if they aren't where the people are! If my job is in NYC, and my kids go to school in NYC, and I'm hooked up to the social programs in NYC, and my family is in the greater NYC area, it does no good to tell me that there are hundreds of empty houses in Detroit. Even if I could get there, what would I do once I did? And at least Detroit is a city. Do we seriously expect the urban homeless population to decamp to the thinning out rural counties of America? Would they even be welcome, no matter how many homes they live in?
Utterly useless statement, there are more homes than homeless. Utterly, utterly useless.
I have no idea where they get this little factoid, but it's a pretty useless tidbit.
First, it's unclear how they're defining "homeless", or if they've given any thought as to how they should define it. Are we counting people who are chronic couchsurfers because they can't find an affordable place to stay, but who technically have a friend's roof over their head every night, even if they have to hustle week from week to find another friend so as not to wear out their welcome? Are we counting families who have split the kids up among relatives because Mom and Dad can't find a place with enough space for them AND the kids, but technically everybody is housed? Are we counting people paying exorbitant fees week to week to rent a motel room because they can't get the cash together for first and last month rent plus a security deposit on an actual apartment? How about families living "doubled up", as they say, sharing an apartment with two or more families that isn't big enough, really, for one - each family crammed into a bedroom and timesharing the bathroom and kitchen?
Or are they only thinking of the long term homeless who literally live on the streets or occasionally in shelters?
Secondly, while I agree that any solution to homelessness starts with giving people homes, the actual existence of houses does no good if they aren't where the people are! If my job is in NYC, and my kids go to school in NYC, and I'm hooked up to the social programs in NYC, and my family is in the greater NYC area, it does no good to tell me that there are hundreds of empty houses in Detroit. Even if I could get there, what would I do once I did? And at least Detroit is a city. Do we seriously expect the urban homeless population to decamp to the thinning out rural counties of America? Would they even be welcome, no matter how many homes they live in?
Utterly useless statement, there are more homes than homeless. Utterly, utterly useless.
