I am uniquely qualified to write this blog. In 1978 I created a park in San Francisco at 5th St. and Minna, for 'street people'. Also called 'homeless,' 'winos' and 'bums'. The park had grass, toilets, a basketball hoop, benches to sleep on and large beautiful boulders next to the street to keep the park residents from begging from pedestrians. I saw these fellow humans as needing a safe comfortable place. No one else alive seems to have done this.
My park lasted 3 years. until Puritanism decided these people needed to be 'rehabilitated' (the popular euphemism).
Benevolence has arrived in San Francisco. The city is now, 40 years later, creating spaces for street people to camp; providing toilets, safety, showers and food. About 35 tents. Photo: Old McDonalds's camp.
What are other currently operating solutions? None, for this population.
I was hired, by a consultant to the State of California, in the late 1980's to provide advice on management of the community homes for mentally retarded adults. The correct term for mentally retarded at the time was MR/DD, Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled. The non-technical definition of this community was people who could not dress or feed themselves without help. This group is currently taken care of and is a tiny proportion of the 'homeless'.
A national study of this MR/DD population was done in 1987. At the time the estimated population under care, in six representative states, was roughly 55 per 100,000 of population.
I argue that there are two other larger and more functional groups to consider along with this benevolence needing population. One is the 'homeless', based on national data in 2019 at 170 per 100,000 of population.
Based on San Francisco, I can directly measure myself, it would be 120 per 100,000.
The other less functional population needing special care, not necessarily benevolence and is an order magnitude larger are prisoners and ex-prisoners. Prisoners and those under criminal supervision were 3,000 per 100,000 of population.
The total of the three, MR/DD, 'Homeless' and prisoners-recent prisoners is roughly 3,300 per 100,000 of population, or just over 3%.
My guess, based on recidivism data, is that the percentage of the total population that are ex-prisoners and less than fully functional, is equal to the number of prisoners. These people probably need benevolent consideration. Totaling prisoners and ex-prisoners this comes to roughly 6% of the adult population.
I would argue that the combined population of the U.S. today that can't or won't work is roughly 6%. This does not include a large adult population that is not in the labor force voluntarily, roughly 35%, many of whom are taking care of families and some of whom are rich enough to be in the leisure class.
This still leaves the problem that I want to address. The 6% that can't work or who need income but won't work.This last group includes heavy drug and alcohol users.
The problem here is that this is a growing population because jobs for this low skilled population are declining. Many low skilled jobs have been automated such as farming, trash collection, household work, bridge toll collection, gas station attendants, elevator operators, street cleaners and many more. We've also made most paying jobs for teenagers illegal.
Benevolence suggests we should be accommodating a large part of this growing population.
One popular view is that a minimum income payment is a solution. The problem with a minimum income payment is that it rewards the lazy and reduces the number of available low skilled jobs. Studies show that people earning near the minimum income payment prefer to quit their jobs and not work. Neither outcomes are desirable in a large heterogeneous population like the U.S.
Another approach is the current San Francisco solution. Special purpose camping in urban areas, like the Old McDonald's Camp. This seems much more feasible than we currently envision. The upper limit of this solution is the same as public housing which creates low income and dangerous populations nearby the housing or camping.
I think the solution for the next half century until a better solution is found, is a careful expansion of the San Francisco idea. Small protected urban camping populations with showers. This creates a safe but non-appealing environment when kept on a small scale. Unappealing for the population that is willing to work.
Safe, when the population is small, based on my personal experience.
We already have housing facilities for the sub-class of these people who have families so their children can go to school.
A flat one-time subsidy could be paid to neighbors to compensate their loss of market value.
This may be a benevolent long-term solution; at least for the next half century.
Addendum: About 5 tents within a block of this camp because of the toilets and showers.