O P I N I O N

THE SOAPBOX

Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.

I’ve heard elected officials in Manchester responding to criticisms about their mishandlings of the homelessness crisis by saying “homelessness is a complicated problem”. For those of us who face the horrific consequences of these mishandlings out on the streets it certainly can be complicated. However the solution is quite simple. We have people who are suffering, and causing suffering for others, because they don’t have housing. So the obvious solution is to put them into housing. And that solution is actually less expensive than continuing to put band-aids on bullet wounds with shelters and other temporary services.

Last month our Board of Mayor and Aldermen voted to extend the city’s shelter and engagement center at 39 Beech Street until the end of August. Though they were seemingly able to procure funds that don’t come directly from local taxes, the cost of this five-month extension was well over $500,000. That’s well over $100,000 per month for a shelter that has 40 beds. Any expert can tell you that it costs much more to put people into shelters than to put them into housing. So let’s see how it might work if we used those same funds to house people instead…

The median cost of residential rentals in Manchester is $2000/month. That is regardless of the property type and also regardless of the amount of bedrooms. Which means we could house those same 40 people in places like rooming houses, studios, one or even two bedroom apartments, all for considerably less than $80,000/month. Especially in cases of people who are willing to move into towns or cities which have a much healthier rental market and a considerably lower median cost for rentals. That would leave us with way more than $20,000/month of savings ($240,000+ per year).

What if we took those savings and used them to hire a housing team? We could get a great team for that price. Including a team lead, two or three team members, and someone to handle the administrative tasks. The purposes of this team would include finding the available rental units and helping people to get placed into those units. Their next task would be to help those people sustain their own rental costs without city assistance.

That might involve job placements, or assistance programs like disability or social security or section-8 or veterans benefits, or some combination of those types of options. Whatever it takes. Then, once the housing team has ensured that the city no longer has to pay for each rental unit, they can then use those funds to put someone else into a rental unit. Part of the job of the housing team would be to create and maintain a waiting list for people who need this kind of assistance. Ideally while making sure to prioritize the people who are most vulnerable to the dangers of living in shelters or out on the streets.

There will be challenges to overcome. Our city still has a startlingly unhealthy vacancy rate on rental units of about 0.5%. Problems like that would have to be addressed by our city leaders, through better zoning and better incentives for building housing that is actually affordable. Rather than continuing to give huge tax breaks to profitable developers, even in cases where their developments include no affordable housing units at all. Some people might struggle to maintain their housing even with the help of the housing team. So the team would need to develop strategies for minimizing those problems, and for dealing with the potential consequences.

Challenges or not this is still completely doable. It is still significantly cheaper than investing in shelters which don’t fix the real problem. As some of our current city leaders are making promises to “effectively end homelessness for veterans” we need to realize that we can actually end homelessness for everyone. As they argue about whether or not to extend funding for the city shelter, and often try to excuse that with nothing more than “I don’t think the city should be in the shelter business”, we need to realize that they’re not entirely wrong about that.

Instead we need to be in the business of housing the people who need housing, and solving the real problem. Rather than just treating the symptoms with an endless series of temporary “Band-Aids.” Like emergency shelters, warming stations, or ordinances which only reduce the visibility of homelessness, while the real problem only gets worse. If our city leaders really want to make things better for everyone in this city then they could certainly implement a viable housing program and hire a team before the end of August. Which is also right before we get into our next round of local elections. And if they can’t do that? Then we should all throw our support behind any potential candidates who can make that happen.

Because we really do need this to happen, as soon as possible. Not just for the good of the people who are stuck on the streets or in shelters, but for the good of us all!

Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Thoughtful prose on topics of general interest are welcome. Send submissions to publisher@inklink.news, subject line: The Soapbox.