Sweeping up the homeless doesn't actually solve homelessness



Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all.

homeless camp

Image: Pete Linforth/Pixabay

by Farrah Hassen
      OtherWords


This summer, the Supreme Court’s Grants Pass ruling made it much easier for local governments to criminalize homelessness. Since then, cities and states across the country have stepped up their harassment of people for the “crime” of not having a place to live.

Penalizing homelessness has increasingly taken the form of crackdowns on encampments — also known as “sweeps,” which have received bipartisan support. California Governor Gavin Newsom has ordered state agencies to ramp up encampment sweeps, while President-elect Donald Trump has also pledged to ban encampments and move people to “tent cities” far from public view.

Evidence shows that these sweeps are harmful and unproductive — and not to mention dehumanizing.

Housing justice advocates caution that sweeps disrupt peoples’ lives by severing their ties to case workers, medical care, and other vital services. Many unhoused people also have their personal documents and other critical belongings seized or tossed, which makes it even harder to find housing and work.

According to a ProPublica investigation, authorities in multiple cities have confiscated basic survival items like tents and blankets, as well as medical supplies like CPAP machines and insulin. Other people lost items like phones and tools that impacted their ability to work.

Teresa Stratton from Portland told ProPublica that her husband’s ashes were even taken in a sweep. “I wonder where he is,” she said. “I hope he’s not in the dump.”

Over the summer, the city of Sacramento, California forcefully evicted 48 residents — mostly women over 55 with disabilities — from a self-governed encampment known as Camp Resolution. The camp was located at a vacant lot and had been authorized by the city, which also owned the trailers where residents lived.

Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness.

One of the residents who’d been at the hospital during the sweep was assured that her belongings would be kept safe. However, she told me she lost everything she’d worked so hard to acquire, including her car.

The loss of her home and community of two years, along with her possessions, was already traumatizing. But now, like most of the camp residents, she was forced back onto the streets — even though the city had promised not to sweep the lot until every resident had been placed in permanent housing.

Aside from being inhumane, the seizure of personal belongings raises serious constitutional questions — especially since sweeps often take place with little to no warning and authorities often fail to properly store belongings. Six unhoused New Yorkers recently sued the city on Fourth Amendment grounds, citing these practices.

Sweeps, like punitive fines and arrests, don’t address the root of the problem — they just trap people in cycles of poverty and homelessness. Encampments can pose challenges to local communities, but their prevalence stems from our nation’s failure to ensure the fundamental human right to housing.

People experiencing homelessness are often derided as an “eyesore” and blamed for their plight. However, government policies have allowed housing, a basic necessity for survival, to become commodified and controlled by corporations and billionaire investors for profit.

Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant at $7.25 since 2009 and rent is now unaffordable for half of all tenants. Alongside eroding social safety nets, these policies have resulted in a housing affordability crisis that’s left at least 653,000 people without housing nationwide.

While shelters can help some people move indoors temporarily, they aren’t a real housing solution, either.

Human rights groups report that shelters often don’t meet adequate standards of housing or accommodate people with disabilities. Many treat people like they’re incarcerated by imposing curfews and other restrictions, such as not allowing pets. Safety and privacy at shelters are also growing concerns.

Officials justify sweeps for safety and sanitation reasons, but in the end they harm and displace people who have nowhere else to go. Instead, governments should prioritize safe, affordable, dignified, and permanent housing for all, coupled with supportive services.

Anything else is sweeping the problem under the rug.


About the author:
Farrah Hassen, J.D., is a writer, policy analyst, and adjunct professor in the Department of Political Science at Cal Poly Pomona. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.





Viewpoint |
Bring back normalization with Cuba; the benefits will be well worth it



President Trump’s decision to roll back our opening with Cuba was disastrous. As he takes office again, he should reconsider.


Photo illustration: Brigitte Werner/Pixabay

by Lissa Weinmann
      OtherWords


Ten years ago, the U.S. and Cuba announced the start of normalization between our two countries. Americans and Cubans alike could see a bit of light through a crack in the wall of U.S. restrictions that, for six decades, have blocked normal interaction between close neighbors.

The brief opening was largely ceremonial — President Trump rolled much of it back in his first term. And only Congress can truly end the world’s longest running embargo.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, President-elect Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, embraces the same old Cold War playbook on the issue: punish Cuba, stoke chaos and civil unrest, and hope the government collapses. As far back as JFK, U.S. officials have been trapped in this irrational family feud that empowers hardliners in both governments while holding citizens here and there hostage to a bureaucratic status quo.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Two years of limited opening had a positive impact and was supported by a majority of Cuban Americans. Buoyed by Cuban government reforms and cash from families in the U.S., the island’s private sector boomed. Internet access increased and social media exploded with honest voices. American tourists flocked to the country.

Then Trump emphatically rolled this progress back — he even added Cuba to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” despite a complete lack of evidence.

Today, after a brief glimmer of hope, Cubans are suffering. Hardliners have stopped the economic reform process. Confusion plagues new leaders transitioning from the Castros’ dominance. The pandemic gutted tourism, while storms and flooding ravaged crops.

The results have been predictable: An exodus from Cuba has surpassed all migration since the imposition of the embargo in 1962. At least half a million have migrated since the end of Trump’s first term — and more are on the way. The island has lost around 10 percent of its population in recent years, a staggering total.

We need to break our addiction to this big government policy that displaces people and blocks the rest of us from engaging with our neighbors. Ending the embargo would also open doors for Cuban reformers, dissidents, human rights activists, and religious leaders alike by removing the Cuban government’s excuse for its failures.

A bipartisan majority in Congress could potentially back a full lifting of the embargo. Gulf Coast states who took the big hit in the 60s when they lost a top trading partner in Cuba could be especially delighted to renew those relations.

”In a scenario of unrestricted trade, the aggregate of food and medical exports alone could amount to $1.6 billion with 20,000 associated U.S. jobs,” former International Trade Commission Chair Paula Stern PhD found in a 2000 study presented to Congress. Those numbers could be much higher today.

There would be other benefits as well.

Companies like Roswell Park in Buffalo, who had to jump through hoops to bring a groundbreaking Cuban-developed lung cancer vaccine to people in the United States, and other health care companies would finally be able to economically partner with world-class Cuban scientists on new medical advances.

For Trump, the next steps should be obvious: Avoid bloodshed. Ease the pain. Light the way to a new era in U.S.-Cuba relations.


About the author:
Lissa Weinmann is a board member of Windham World Affairs Council. She helped found and direct Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba, a coalition that helped ease the embargo’s restrictions on food sales to Cuba, and directed the National Summit on Cuba. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.






More Sentinel Stories