The Viral Candidate - Housing

Am I actually running for president? Not now. I am reasonable enough to know that an idea borne of frustration at lacking a candidate that represents me and my family is not going to change the world. But an idea can change the world, and these generations are the ones most capable of doing so. I am going to dream of a world where no one is hungry, thirsty, or at the mercy of the elements.

If I was running for president, I would need to explain my platform, get feedback, and adapt it to the needs of each community. The problem is most people focus on one or two issues and try to solve them independently. What I have learned as a science teacher and a student of the social sciences is that many issues are intertwined and need to be addressed as a whole, instead of in parts, if they are going to be any good for the average American.

              For example, I want to tackle homelessness. That is a doozy and requires so many different fields of study to work together for an effective solution. There are many things to consider with homelessness: who is homeless? Why are they homeless? What services are available vs. what services are effective in addressing the problem? And, of course, how are we going to pay for it?

              I didn’t want to start with homelessness, but it is so intertwined with other issues that it is as good a place to start as any. First, most homeless people are veterans, which is not okay, and most of them have mental health issues (PTSD and SUD) that are not addressed, which is also not okay. Even sadder was that it took a music video on YouTube from a band I didn't know to open my eyes to this tragic fact (Click Here to see Wrong Side of Heaven by Five Finger Death Punch). There are cities, like mine, that are experiencing a housing shortage. There are still other people in my community that work full-time and cannot afford a room, let alone a small apartment, with that money. It was only a generation before mine where one income could support a family of four (my generation 3 – one parent – is more likely, but the principle remains the same).

              If I was to be completely idealistic, I would want everyone to have their own home with yard and vegetable garden. I do believe that all people deserve consistent shelter, and I have read that having it is associated with more positive outcomes across the social issues spectrum. However, I am a optimistic realist, and I know that housing has a market and contributes to the economy, so the latter needs to be considered in any decision-making. The underlying assumption I will operate using is that the economy needs markets to keep functioning, but the size and characteristics of those markets may need to change to meet the needs of the people, which is my goal anyway.

              Remembering some of the great ideas Americans have used, I came across tenement housing from 100 years ago. Then, we tried to provide a roof over everyone’s head. People worked and paid what they could, and the amount of work and pay determined, in some measure, the quality of housing. How do we determine what is considered quality housing? In our modern society I think it needs to include the following: a bedroom, a kitchen, a bathroom with shower, sink and toilet; no leaks, reliable electricity and clean drinking water, no mold, asbestos, or other health hazards; and internet access. If any of these breaks, it is the responsibility of the owner to fix the problem or reimburse the tenants for doing so themselves. That seems like common sense to me.

              How do we enforce these rules? Obviously, laws would have to be passed, and I will only point that out in this early episode to avoid the teacher’s nightmare of repeating myself. What follows throughout this journey are policy proposals written in normal, not legal, language so we can agree on the principle and the means. If the owners of the property do not honor the legal and humane requirements, they can sell to the tenants as a co-op, have their property repossessed by the government and sold to a landowner who will care for their tenants, or be fined for double the cost of repairs. In this last scenario, half the money would go to the tenant as restitution, and the other half would pay for the repairs.

    Historically, the size and quality of housing for people with low-income levels leaves much to be desired. However, people respond to incentives. If there is no incentive to work for the roof, then fewer people will do it. This is the principle underlying why we don’t guarantee stable housing for every resident. How could we do this? I have an idea that is less fully formed than some others, but I want to start the discussion about it now: what if people paid a percentage of their income (25-30%) for their housing, regardless of how much that came out to. I would say put a cap so wealthy people didn’t pay so much for housing, but introductory economic courses taught me that price ceilings will drive down quality.

Not everyone wants to live in the same community, or even the same state, for long periods of time. I want to allow people to roam the country (as I would like to do for research on how to meet the country’s needs at a state and local level), and be free to live the life they prefer, so there would be no penalty for living houseless, and some space with electrical and sewage hook-ups, as well as a rec center, would be needed as designated spaces to prevent NIMBY laws from leaving them without basic necessities. Yes, there’s a rec center because social interactions are good for our mental health (more on that in a later episode).

              Most people who are homeless are not so by their own volition and lack the ability to do so independently with the above solutions, I’m going to borrow an idea from the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) as it applies to students with special needs: least restrictive means. Many homeless are veterans, and as payment for their service and ruining their mental health for life, we should provide them with community housing that includes mental and physical health services. This should be comfortable, not barren. They also need to be conected to their community, whether family, brothers in arms, or neighbors. We also want to provide them with the most effective care that separates them from the rest of society as little as possible; this idea also applies to those suffering from addiction.

              This model works similarly for those who suffer from SUD (substance use disorders). For someone addicted to a substance, there are many ways to treat them, but one of the fixes that reduces negative outcomes across the board is a stable living environment. I remember the whitewashed prisons that served as mental health facilities in stories like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Girl, Interrupted. Just looking at those facilities makes me feel less stable. In an idea I will also develop in another episode, I address the fact that all people deserve dignity and just because they need our help doesn’t mean we have to give them the minimum our distanced consciences will allow. This model is explained and evaluated in Beth Macy's journalistic masterpieces about the opioid crisis: Dopesick and Raising Lazarus (Click Here to go to her website for more information). If we give people a stable place to live, people in recovery stay there for longer and can maintain a job for longer periods.

       There are places that are brave enough to try models that address these issues. For example, the mayor of San Jose, CA is proposing tiny communities of small mobile homes. The communities are staffed with, I believe, a mental health professional and a nurse (there is some support provided, that I am sure of). This plan costs less than 1/3 of the original housing proposal and can be done in less than 1/3 the time. I hope to see this prove successful over the next couple of years, though it has yet to be approved by the city council.

    The stress of not having stable housing hurts single families the most, in my opinion. The less stable the environment is for a parent and their children, the more negative their health and social outcomes are later in life. The stress of not knowing where one is going to live, especially in times of more severe weather, can hinder decision-making and force people to forgo future prosperity for short-term survival. This stress serves to sever people from the services and communities that would provide that prosperity and instead continue the cycle of poverty that is intractable in our current policy system.

              The provision of stable, safe housing and respectable living conditions will reduce our stress and open our minds and hearts to the people around us, so that we can further develop healthy mental, physical, and social habits that will, by their existence, stamp out the darkness that has settled over our society. One of the things we can do when we aren’t struggling to survive on a daily basis is be informed, then we can all be changemakers through civic participation.