BLANK CHECK
By Keith Howard
The INC Delegates are being asked to endorse a “Statement” concerning homelessness in Denver. These three sentences grew out of a discussion of the undeniably serious, tragic and systemic problem of homelessness. Given such a wrenching picture, the impulse to DO SOMETHING is strong. I believe, however, that this emotional appeal may obscure the strategic flaws and self-defeating tactics the Statement contains. The question here is one of institutional policy. Here is the first sentence:
INC neighborhoods do not stand by and let neighbors endure the downward spiral, the rigors, the disruption, the dislocation, and the danger of homelessness.
I believe this sentence is intended as an affirmation of the shared responsibility of all citizens to recognize the need and humanity of those whose conditions and circumstances have left them on the street. I accept this affirmation, but the question is, How should we (all together) meet the shared obligation this recognition imposes?
INC supports immediate and permanent accommodation of homeless neighbors in professionally managed and professionally supported housing, with equitable and appropriate metro-wide distribution
To the question implied by the first, this second sentence endorses “Housing First” – a promising conceptual approach to homeless relief. (We should note in passing, however, that Housing First is not a remedy for the underlying systemic causes of our national homelessness problem.) Public/affordable/low-income housing of whatever kind entails finance, administration and location. The Statement offers only that locations should be “equitable” and “appropriate.” Although politically infeasible, equity could be an objective criterion, but appropriateness is meaningless as a measurable standard. Selecting locations for Housing First installations and their associated services is certain to be contentious. Such installations — if experience is any guide — will be far more likely to be expanded later than to be replicated elsewhere.
Although INC members are sometimes heard to lament the degree to which “developers are running the City,” the Statement omits any recognition that the builders/developers of non-market housing are at least as comfortably in bed with the City as any other group of developers. Indeed, the City’s long-entrenched means and methods of locating/building/administering non-market housing are notorious for cronyism and opacity. Think: Is a “non-profit” builder any less likely to receive the zoning change he wants, despite vehement local Council or neighborhood opposition? INC might at least decline to be a voluntary accomplice. It is also not completely obvious that developing more purpose-built housing is the only possible course of action.
INC calls on the City to partner with neighborhoods to create funding to develop, staff and maintain needed housing using all sources of funding — city, metro-wide, state, federal, charitable, private, and additional dedicated tax revenue
This third sentence is the most puzzling of the three. The notion of the City “partner[ing] with neighborhoods to create funding” is nonsensical. And why on earth would INC abandon its responsibility to evaluate City tax and bonding proposals with a gimlet eye? The answer I’ve heard suggested is, that by signing this blank check neighborhoods will earn “a seat at the table.”
In my view, neighborhoods have a right to be at the table, and the time to demand transparency and fairness is before handing over the keys to the kingdom. How best to pay for a shared responsibility such as homelessness is a matter for serious debate. I do not favor agreeing in advance to whatever the City admin and Council may decide with regard to housing homeless people. It appears to me that INC adoption of the proposed Statement – very far from increasing the influence of citizens and neighborhoods – will in fact relieve the City admin and Council of any further accountability in this matter.
Keith Howard
7 February 2016
.
