Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Western SIEV. In today's Bonus Author Interview,
Speaker 1: I sit down with advocate, author and leader Maria Foscarinas,
Speaker 1: and we're going to talk about an issue that you
Speaker 1: hear in the news constantly, and it's the subject of
Speaker 1: her most recent book, and Housing for All, the Fight
Speaker 1: to End Homelessness in America. It's available right now, and
Speaker 1: if you're interested in the book at the end of
Speaker 1: this interview or right now, go ahead and click on
Speaker 1: that link and you can get a copy immediately. It
Speaker 1: is an exhaustive coverage on the history and policy aspects
Speaker 1: of this super complicated issue that I know faces us
Speaker 1: all on a day to day basis. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: we're all aware of the problems whether you live in Texas, Illinois,
Speaker 1: New York, California, Alabama, that homelessness faces in the United
Speaker 1: States of America. This is a salient issue and something
Speaker 1: that touches all of us in one way, shape or form,
Speaker 1: and so it's worth understanding it and understanding the complex
Speaker 1: issues that regard it. I would love to tell you
Speaker 1: that we come out of this conversation with a solution.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have my own solution. It's just you know,
Speaker 1: build housing. I've always said, you know, hey, if I'm
Speaker 1: going to run for president, I'm going to have I'm
Speaker 1: going to be the one issue president, you know, in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight, and it's going to be We're just
Speaker 1: going to build houses. We're going to build lots of
Speaker 1: houses like we did in the late nineteen forties, early
Speaker 1: nineteen fifties, and you know, hopefully everything else takes care
Speaker 1: of itself. But I'm going to build a ton of houses.
Speaker 1: President House, you guys can call me whatever it takes,
Speaker 1: you know. But you know, assuming that I don't win
Speaker 1: the next presidential election, which is extremely unlikely, let's take
Speaker 1: another tact and try today to learn a little bit
Speaker 1: more about this issue and about what we all can
Speaker 1: do about it in order to make it so much
Speaker 1: less powerful in society today. So with that being said,
Speaker 1: after these short words, here's the interview. All right, welcome
Speaker 1: back to the show. As I mentioned moments ago, I'm
Speaker 1: sitting down with author and advocates Maria Foscarinas, and we're
Speaker 1: going to be talking about her most recent book today
Speaker 1: and Housing for All, the fight to end homelessness in America. Well,
Speaker 1: no matter where you live, if you live in the
Speaker 1: United States. You are aware of the homeless crisis and
Speaker 1: problems that face the United States, and so I think
Speaker 1: this is a really poignant book that everyone should read
Speaker 1: right now to get a deeper understanding of what is
Speaker 1: really a complicated topic. But I wanted to start by
Speaker 1: asking you, as the author of this book, why did
Speaker 1: you write this book, but also not just why did
Speaker 1: you write the book, why did you get involved intimately
Speaker 1: in this particular issue.
Speaker 2: So that's a great question, Adam. Thanks. I got involved
Speaker 2: in this issue because I feel that it's enraging and
Speaker 2: always has been enraging to me that there we can
Speaker 2: live in a country with so much wealth and yet
Speaker 2: there are people who have virtually nothing. Some people have way,
Speaker 2: way more than they need, and then there are others
Speaker 2: who don't have enough to survive. I think that is
Speaker 2: horribly unfair and it makes me angry, and I got
Speaker 2: involved because I wanted to do something about it. I
Speaker 2: wrote the book after having spent over thirty five years
Speaker 2: as an advocate working on homelessness at the national level,
Speaker 2: and I really got involved at the moment where homelessness,
Speaker 2: or close to the moment where homelessness became a national
Speaker 2: crisis that was in the early nineteen eighties. Homelessness has
Speaker 2: not always been a crisis at this scale, certainly in
Speaker 2: our country, and I got involved just as it was
Speaker 2: exploding and turning into a national crisis. And so I
Speaker 2: feel like I've really seen the evolution of homelessness over
Speaker 2: a long period of time. I've been involved in many
Speaker 2: of the major battles to address it, and I have
Speaker 2: a perspective that I've gained as a result of this work.
Speaker 2: I wanted to share that. I also wanted to share
Speaker 2: stories of the many, many people I've met on house,
Speaker 2: people that I've met and worked with over the years,
Speaker 2: and I shared just a few of them in the book.
Speaker 2: But I wanted to do that because these are voices
Speaker 2: and stories that need to be heard, and I try
Speaker 2: to do them at least a little bit of justice
Speaker 2: through the book.
Speaker 1: Well, you brought up something there that I wanted to
Speaker 1: maybe ask a little bit a follow up question on,
Speaker 1: and that is this idea of this incredible, incredible wealth
Speaker 1: disparity that we have, you know, both in the world
Speaker 1: and in particular are in the United States right now.
Speaker 1: I think most listeners of the show today will be
Speaker 1: intimately aware that the name of the wealthiest man in
Speaker 1: the world right now is Elon Mosque, as he happens
Speaker 1: to be right now pretty heavily and consistently in the news.
Speaker 1: And you know, sometimes I think about, you know, historical
Speaker 1: parallels and times that come before, and oftentimes I see
Speaker 1: a lot of the guilded Age in where we are
Speaker 1: right now, and the ideas of the Gospel of wealth
Speaker 1: and the accumulation of all these things. But of course
Speaker 1: the guilded Age is followed by the Progressive era for
Speaker 1: those who don't know the American history, which is an
Speaker 1: effort to sort of curb some of the abuses on there.
Speaker 1: Since you study this issue so much, in this question
Speaker 1: of wealth disparity, I thought i'd ask you, do you
Speaker 1: have any opinions as to where we are in a
Speaker 1: society right now when it comes to this issue of
Speaker 1: wealth disparity. I wonder if we're sort of getting to
Speaker 1: the point where people are fed up off that we
Speaker 1: might start to actually do something about this issue. I
Speaker 1: see rhymes of that right now happening in society. But
Speaker 1: what do you think, Because it occurs to me that
Speaker 1: it's really hard to address firmly this issue of homelessness
Speaker 1: and houselessness without addressing the underlying cause of wealth disparity.
Speaker 2: Right. I think that's exactly right. And right now we're
Speaker 2: at a point of extreme inequality in this country and
Speaker 2: maybe globally, but certainly in this country, we're at that point.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think people are seeing that and
Speaker 2: experiencing that, and that's a source of anger for many people.
Speaker 2: There's a large number, a huge percentage of people who
Speaker 2: are literally living paycheck to paycheck, and that's you know,
Speaker 2: that's a real point of connection if people pause to
Speaker 2: think about it, to people who are at this extreme
Speaker 2: end of that equality. I see homelessness as the extreme
Speaker 2: end of income and wealth inequality in this country. It's
Speaker 2: a continuum. It's not like homelessness is something special or unique.
Speaker 2: It's the extreme end of what is affecting very many people.
Speaker 2: And you know, I think that does create a potential
Speaker 2: for change. And we see the anger in a lot
Speaker 2: of people who feel like they're cut out, out, left
Speaker 2: out of American society. And you know, that anger maybe
Speaker 2: driving the phenomena of our current political climate of Trump
Speaker 2: and you know, you mentioned musk that can be directed
Speaker 2: in a different way, if people have a greater understanding
Speaker 2: of why people are poor, why people are homeless, what
Speaker 2: is actually driving inequality? There are people who are making
Speaker 2: a lot of money and have a lot of wealth,
Speaker 2: and of course that's the definition of inequality, but why
Speaker 2: is that? So? Why do we allow this? What kind
Speaker 2: of society do we really want to live in? Do
Speaker 2: we really want to be part of a society where
Speaker 2: it's okay for some people to have extreme wealth and
Speaker 2: others not to have enough to survive, and many many
Speaker 2: others to be struggling and wondering if they're going to
Speaker 2: be without a roof over their heads soon, if they
Speaker 2: have one emergency that they can afford. So I think
Speaker 2: it does raise these larger questions, and I hope that
Speaker 2: your historical analogy proves to be correct, that this will
Speaker 2: drive people to a more progressive error different It's certainly
Speaker 2: not going to happen by itself. So it takes activism,
Speaker 2: and it takes understanding, and it takes building coalitions and
Speaker 2: having also a vision of a different way to be well.
Speaker 1: It's very true. I think we sometimes we see historical
Speaker 1: eras as sort of inevitabilities, which they look like in hindsight,
Speaker 1: but in reality that's not true. It takes a lot
Speaker 1: of internal pushing in a lot of times. It's you know,
Speaker 1: it's the analogy I like to use is, you know
Speaker 1: that the stone cutter who has been working on a
Speaker 1: particular stone for days and days and days on and
Speaker 1: in a passerby happens to come at the moment that
Speaker 1: he breaks it in half and commised himself, well but
Speaker 1: a mighty but a mighty stone cutter. That is, with
Speaker 1: one blow he felled that stone. And that's not true.
Speaker 1: They just didn't see all of the things that came
Speaker 1: before that. But one of the things that I thought
Speaker 1: was really powerful about the book, and I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you about at least one or two of them,
Speaker 1: are the real life examples. And in particular, I wonder
Speaker 1: if you could tell us one or two real life
Speaker 1: examples of homelessness and not only the people that involves,
Speaker 1: but the trade offs that they have to make, because
Speaker 1: that's really what struck me was this was that these
Speaker 1: were people who were having to make what were unfortunately
Speaker 1: rational decisions that were the lesser of two evils that
Speaker 1: resulted in them perhaps not having a place to stay
Speaker 1: for that night. But if you back up and you
Speaker 1: look at it, you would say, well, that's actually the
Speaker 1: logical decision that they made in that circumstance. That's not everyone,
Speaker 1: but I think that that's some people. So if you could,
Speaker 1: if you could tell us some one of those stories,
Speaker 1: I think it would illuminate this issue a lot.
Speaker 2: Sure, So I can so once particular story comes to mind,
Speaker 2: it really stayed with me. There are many, but I'll
Speaker 2: tell one and maybe add another. So the one story
Speaker 2: is that of Danny, who is a man who's a
Speaker 2: native Denver, right, living in Denver, Colorado, and he became
Speaker 2: homeless when he his parents died. He'd been living with
Speaker 2: his parents after his divorce, and he needed a place
Speaker 2: to stay. He moved. He had had his own home,
Speaker 2: but then he divorced and and lost that, moved in
Speaker 2: with his parents. His parents died, his name wasn't on
Speaker 2: the lease, and so suddenly he was without any place
Speaker 2: to stay. He was working. His work was an overnight
Speaker 2: shift stocking shelves in a convenience store. He couldn't go
Speaker 2: to a shelter. First of all, there were off and
Speaker 2: the shelters were full. But even when they weren't full
Speaker 2: they had curfeused. He had to be in by a
Speaker 2: certain time and that would have and he couldn't keep
Speaker 2: his job, so he had he made a choice to
Speaker 2: keep a job and live under a tarp outside. And
Speaker 2: of course Denver gets very cold during the winter, and
Speaker 2: he was under his tarp and times when it was
Speaker 2: freezing and snowing, and he was there and he started
Speaker 2: experiencing pain in his limbs. He knew the dangers of frostbite,
Speaker 2: and he went to try to get medical help, but
Speaker 2: each time was sent away with painkillers. Eventually he had
Speaker 2: to have his one of his legs, his right leg
Speaker 2: amputated below the knee, and lost all five toes on
Speaker 2: his other foot remaining foot. So this is horrible story.
Speaker 2: I know about this story thanks to advocates who were
Speaker 2: were working with him and who actually went with him
Speaker 2: to the hospital when he had the amputation and had
Speaker 2: him and were able to film him. He wanted to
Speaker 2: tell the story. He wanted to have this publicized, and
Speaker 2: it was on local TV. He was very very clear
Speaker 2: about what he needed and about how to solve homelessness,
Speaker 2: and his answer was housing. There just wasn't housing, you know.
Speaker 2: I talked about shelter, but we know shelter is not
Speaker 2: the solution. Shelter is also not available. It wasn't available
Speaker 2: to Danny in a either just as a matter of
Speaker 2: numbers or and certainly not a number as a matter
Speaker 2: of actual availability to him. Shelter is not available around
Speaker 2: the country and the numbers needed. So this is clear.
Speaker 2: This is an unders muted fact that there are not
Speaker 2: enough shelter beds even to meet the need. And also,
Speaker 2: no one working on this issue thinks shelter is a solution.
Speaker 2: Housing is. But that story really stuck with me because
Speaker 2: it just it was so dramatic, and yet it's not
Speaker 2: at all unusual this, I mean, amputations happened regularly. Death
Speaker 2: people die because they're living outside. So that's one of
Speaker 2: the stories of the cost of allowing people to be
Speaker 2: homeless in this country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think we can get more into the
Speaker 1: policy in a moment. But I think what's why I
Speaker 1: thought that story was so interesting and why listeners should
Speaker 1: hear it is because he was working. This was someone
Speaker 1: who had a position. It just so happens that his
Speaker 1: position it didn't allow him to earn enough money to
Speaker 1: get into a housing situation, and he would have to
Speaker 1: choose either to keep his position, which was an overnight position,
Speaker 1: or give up or get a space in the shelter.
Speaker 1: It's not both, and so he made a choice, and
Speaker 1: that choice to keep his job is perfectly rational from
Speaker 1: every perspective. It's just because of how we set up
Speaker 1: the rules of this game that he wound up losing
Speaker 1: his limbs. And hopefully that's not what anybody intended. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the things that I wanted to ask you about,
Speaker 1: and you kind of started to hint about it in
Speaker 1: the introduction. You're right, and I'm quoting the book now.
Speaker 1: It's a quote housing was increasingly treated as a commodity
Speaker 1: for investment, not a place to live. And I think
Speaker 1: that's probably not how many of us think about housing,
Speaker 1: but it's very accurate. And so I wonder if you
Speaker 1: could explain it exactly what you mean by that, and
Speaker 1: then also walk us through a little bit how did
Speaker 1: that happen, because I have to imagine historically that hasn't
Speaker 1: always been the case.
Speaker 2: Right, So historically it has not always been the case,
Speaker 2: but it how it happened was over a period of time,
Speaker 2: housing was increasingly and mortgage lending were increasingly deregulated, and
Speaker 2: they were increasingly invested in so their financial vehicles that
Speaker 2: people trade in now that are based on housing mortgages
Speaker 2: get sold, they get sliced into pieces, they get bought
Speaker 2: by investors, they get traded, converted into instruments that get
Speaker 2: traded on the stock market. So that's a sort of
Speaker 2: a first step. But then later, especially in the wake
Speaker 2: of the foreclosure crisis in two thousand and eight. Around
Speaker 2: that time, when a lot of people lost their homes
Speaker 2: and a lot of properties went into foreclosure, that's when
Speaker 2: investors really swooped in and bought them up and converted
Speaker 2: them into properties for profit essentially. So this is very
Speaker 2: different than you know, a person or a kind of
Speaker 2: mom and pop landlord who owns a property and rents
Speaker 2: it out, or somebody who buys a property and holds
Speaker 2: onto it as a kind of equity. These are investors
Speaker 2: whose purpose is to make a profit. We've heard about
Speaker 2: private equity. Well, private equity entered the residential housing market
Speaker 2: in a big way starting around then with the foreclosure crisis,
Speaker 2: and so now and they're also building properties precisely for
Speaker 2: the purpose of renting them for profit. And when you
Speaker 2: think start thinking of housing that way and treating it
Speaker 2: that way, then it's you know, someone is a day
Speaker 2: late on rent and they're out, and you know, if
Speaker 2: you can raise the rent, you do. You squeeze it
Speaker 2: as much as you can. And so when housing is
Speaker 2: treated that way, they are going to be people who
Speaker 2: are left out. If the sole criterion about for housing
Speaker 2: is profit, you're not going to be concerned about ensuring
Speaker 2: that everybody has an affordable place to live. So that's
Speaker 2: what you know. The term commodification of housing means that
Speaker 2: housing is treated like an investment vehicle and as a
Speaker 2: vehicle for profit, not as something that meets a basic
Speaker 2: human need. The counter the contrast to this is thinking
Speaker 2: of housing as a social good, something that everybody needs.
Speaker 2: Everybody needs a safe, decent place to live, and just
Speaker 2: like everybody needs water or air, you know, these are
Speaker 2: put these could be treated as public goods, and the
Speaker 2: way to do that is invest in them. There used
Speaker 2: to be there there's a concept called social housing where
Speaker 2: housing is treated as a social good, but it's invested
Speaker 2: in by government. Government funding helps to make it affordable
Speaker 2: for everybody so that everybody can actually have access to it,
Speaker 2: so it doesn't become this game of musical chairs where
Speaker 2: you know, some people get it and other people are
Speaker 2: left without. So that's that's the contrast between treating housing
Speaker 2: as a commodity and as a social good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I want to ask a follow up question on
Speaker 1: that really quickly, because it seems to me sometimes that
Speaker 1: where we get hung up on this issue and other
Speaker 1: issues in American politics, and I suppose probably worldwide, is
Speaker 1: this question of and I'm going to put this in
Speaker 1: air quotes right now, which is morality?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: I always talk about morality versus efficacy, you know, like
Speaker 1: and by morality, I mean you could make you could
Speaker 1: use the following sentence, such and such person needs to
Speaker 1: earn housing, right, they don't deserve it yet they haven't
Speaker 1: shown that they get it. That to me seems incredibly
Speaker 1: problematic in this specific context. Whereas if we approach it
Speaker 1: from a simple efficacy standpoint, which is, well, what makes
Speaker 1: society better and the answer seems to me to be
Speaker 1: fairly obvious housing. If people are in housing, then society
Speaker 1: will get stronger because we're helping those individuals. Did they
Speaker 1: need help to get there? Yes? Did they quote unquote
Speaker 1: deserve that? Did they do something to earn it. I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe, but to me it seems like we
Speaker 1: should be focusing more on the efficacy of solving the
Speaker 1: problem versus the morality of whether or not someone deserves something.
Speaker 1: I don't know, what do you think about that?
Speaker 2: Well, that's a very interesting distinction, and I think it's
Speaker 2: a good one. But I think the morality issue is
Speaker 2: really points to another important issue, which is that how
Speaker 2: did how about how we got to this place? There
Speaker 2: has been a narrative that some people deserve help and
Speaker 2: others don't. There's been a narrative that started at this
Speaker 2: at the same time that homelessness exploded. There was this
Speaker 2: public narrative put forth at the time by President Reagan
Speaker 2: that homelessness is a choice. People choose to be homeless,
Speaker 2: and that's really I think related to this point that
Speaker 2: you're making about morality. So if people are choosing to
Speaker 2: be homeless, it's somehow their fault, and if they lose
Speaker 2: their limbs or if they can't have to sleep outside,
Speaker 2: that's their problem, it's not our collective problem. And that
Speaker 2: is a narrative that has started then but has really
Speaker 2: seeped in in to a lot of public policy discussion.
Speaker 2: About homelessness, and it's not It's been adopted by Democrats
Speaker 2: and Republicans alike. Think about you know, President Clinton and
Speaker 2: his eliminating welfare as we know it and the welfare
Speaker 2: queens stereotype that went along with that. I mean, these
Speaker 2: narratives drive policy, and they sustain it, they support it,
Speaker 2: they make you know, they make it easier to enact
Speaker 2: these kinds of policies. So I think that that's you know,
Speaker 2: the idea that housing and when people need government investment
Speaker 2: to make housing affordable, that somehow there's something wrong with them.
Speaker 2: That's a very dangerous way to think about this issue,
Speaker 2: and it's we don't have to think of it if
Speaker 2: that way we could be thinking about it in a
Speaker 2: way it says, well, this is something we all need.
Speaker 2: We all need housing, and why is it that somebody
Speaker 2: could be working and not be able to afford it? Well, why,
Speaker 2: you know, the minimum wage hasn't been raised for over
Speaker 2: a decade, you know, I mean these I think we
Speaker 2: can look more deeply into this and ask why, And
Speaker 2: that's a question of basic fairness. So, yes, efficacy, we
Speaker 2: can solve a problem, but we can also think about
Speaker 2: what kind of society we want to live in a home?
Speaker 2: Is something essential. Without housing, you really can't do other
Speaker 2: basic things in life that everybody should and wants to
Speaker 2: be able to do. You know, it's hard to go
Speaker 2: to school, it's hard to keep a job, it's hard
Speaker 2: to raise a family if you don't have a stable
Speaker 2: place to live. Isn't this something that we as a
Speaker 2: society can get behind, that everybody should have a stable,
Speaker 2: decent place to live. I think we can. But we
Speaker 2: have to think about this a little bit more deeply
Speaker 2: and ask these questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and maybe it's something that we used to think
Speaker 1: more about. I'm thinking about, you know, President Johnson and
Speaker 1: his great society efforts, you know, in the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: and that might be something that we go back to.
Speaker 1: But I'm glad you brought up the nineteen eighties because
Speaker 1: I wanted to read a section from the book. And
Speaker 1: this is in chapter one, by the way, so and
Speaker 1: this is it can be a little bit longer of
Speaker 1: a quote with the dove's tales into a question here,
Speaker 1: so just picking it up here, it says quote, by
Speaker 1: the early nineteen eighties, homelessness was dramatically growing, while the
Speaker 1: estimated number of homeless people was and still is a
Speaker 1: matter of heated debate. Most everyone agreed that whatever the
Speaker 1: number was, it was rapidly going up. Many experts believed
Speaker 1: that more people were homeless in the nineteen eighties than
Speaker 1: at any time since the Great Depression. Annual surveys initiated
Speaker 1: in nineteen eighty four by the US Conference of Mayors,
Speaker 1: a group representing big city mayors, documented a soaring demand
Speaker 1: for emergency shelter in major metropolitan areas around the country,
Speaker 1: coupled with an inability of local authorities and private charities
Speaker 1: to meet it. The populations affected by homelessness were also
Speaker 1: quickly changing. Families with children became the fastest growing group.
Speaker 1: Homelessness among racial and ethnic minorities also grew, forming a
Speaker 1: disproportionate percentage relative to their representation in both the population
Speaker 1: at large and stable were housed. Low income individuals, in particular,
Speaker 1: younger working men and women were affected as well. End quote.
Speaker 1: I really have to ask why was it in the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties that homelessness exploded so much? What was the
Speaker 1: factor here where we're dealing with economic downturn, or was
Speaker 1: this a deliberate public policy change that affected the situation.
Speaker 2: So some of both, but the driving point is the
Speaker 2: public policy changes. So remember Reagan came into office in
Speaker 2: in nineteen eighty one on a promise to shrink the
Speaker 2: footprint of the federal government, and he promoted cuts to
Speaker 2: many social welfare programs, and housing was one of those
Speaker 2: programs that took a huge cut. So in the at
Speaker 2: the end of the previous decade in nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 2: federal funding paid for over three hundred thousand new units
Speaker 2: of affordable housing that year, and then two three years
Speaker 2: later in nineteen eighty two, that number was down to
Speaker 2: just over three thousand, So that's a huge, huge cut.
Speaker 2: When you cut housing like that, you really changed the landscape.
Speaker 2: And this was coming on the heels of developments that
Speaker 2: had already happened in the nineteen seventies in the private market,
Speaker 2: where developers were tearing down inexpensive housing. At the time,
Speaker 2: there were a lot of SROs, single room occupancy hotels,
Speaker 2: which were a source of cheap housing for many people.
Speaker 2: Those had been developed during that previous decade and about
Speaker 2: a million such units had been lost, and there had
Speaker 2: been an economic downturn. So on top of these developments
Speaker 2: came the Reagan cuts, and that just triggered this huge
Speaker 2: explosion of homelessness which had been waiting to happen, but
Speaker 2: it erupted at that time. So that's when it really
Speaker 2: became a crisis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And I want to ask a follow up question.
Speaker 1: This is jumping around a little bit now, but this
Speaker 1: is something that's always kind of on my mind as
Speaker 1: I see all these different pundits talking about different possible
Speaker 1: solutions to the homeless crisis and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1: In your opinion, is there a solution to this crisis
Speaker 1: that does not, in some way, shape or form revolve
Speaker 1: around the idea that the government is going to have
Speaker 1: to build more housing, which is, by the way, not
Speaker 1: historically insane. We did it after World War Two, so
Speaker 1: it's something that we can certainly do, Okay, But from
Speaker 1: my perspective, I don't see a solution to this problem
Speaker 1: that's long term until the government simply says, all right,
Speaker 1: we're going to build more houses. Am I crazy?
Speaker 2: You're not crazy. I think there has to be so
Speaker 2: I don't think you're crazy at all. And I do
Speaker 2: agree that that is the solution. There has to be
Speaker 2: public subsidized, publicly subsidized affordable housing. And you're right, it
Speaker 2: has happened and it could can happen again. And that's
Speaker 2: the most straightforward solution. Other countries do it, We can
Speaker 2: do it. This country did it, and so it's not
Speaker 2: at all crazy. It's just that the narrative has gotten
Speaker 2: so distorted that, you know, somebody saying that feels like
Speaker 2: they have to say, am I crazy? That just shows
Speaker 2: us how it shows how far the narrative has gone
Speaker 2: away from this site. You know there is there are
Speaker 2: solutions other than that, and that could be Those could
Speaker 2: be housing vouchers. So housing, you know, it used to
Speaker 2: be the government provided affordable housing by directly subsidizing it.
Speaker 2: In the mid seventies, this change to more of a
Speaker 2: focus on providing money for people to rent on the
Speaker 2: private market through something called housing vouchers. Those could right now,
Speaker 2: those are so underfunded that only one in four people
Speaker 2: who are poor enough to get a voucher actually gets it.
Speaker 2: So a big increase in housing vouchers is the other
Speaker 2: option that's less desirable, I think for a number of reasons.
Speaker 2: One is that that would have to be accompanied by
Speaker 2: strong enforcement of laws, will enactment at the federal level
Speaker 2: of a law preventing discrimination against voucher holders, which is
Speaker 2: a huge problem now people get these vouchers, it's they're
Speaker 2: very hard to get, and then they get turned away
Speaker 2: when they try to use them to actually rent housing,
Speaker 2: So that would be a caveat on that. And then
Speaker 2: it's also can be very expensive because what you're doing
Speaker 2: there is subsidizing private market housing where rents are really skyrocketing.
Speaker 2: We have all seen this how high rents have gotten.
Speaker 2: So then you'd be subsidizing those high rents. It's much
Speaker 2: more direct and effective for government to directly subsidize affordable housing,
Speaker 2: and it has to be really it's not just a
Speaker 2: question of building housing or any housing. It's a matter
Speaker 2: of building affordable housing, housing that can be affordable even
Speaker 2: to extremely poor people. And you know other countries do this. Finland,
Speaker 2: for example, has virtually ended homelessness because it invests in housing.
Speaker 2: Vienna has a program of social housing that is a
Speaker 2: listiting interest from policymakers now here in the US as
Speaker 2: well as other countries, and people are visiting it, trying
Speaker 2: to learn about it, trying to create similar models here.
Speaker 2: So these are things that are possible. They're not at
Speaker 2: all crazy.
Speaker 1: Well, good, I'm not crazy. Okay, Yeah, let the record
Speaker 1: show for those keeping track at home, at least one
Speaker 1: person today has told me that I'm not crazy. So
Speaker 1: the score now sits at one to seven. I've got
Speaker 1: a waste. But you know what we're you know, we'll
Speaker 1: make positive steps as we can. I wanted to ask
Speaker 1: about the Homeless Person's Survival APP. I had never heard
Speaker 1: of this. I feel like I'm relatively well versed in
Speaker 1: policy discussions, so it surprised me. Could you tell the
Speaker 1: listeners what is that and a little bit about its
Speaker 1: story because I thought it was really interestingly documented in
Speaker 1: the book.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it.
Speaker 2: A few people have. This is something I thought was
Speaker 2: important though to describe this was a very early proposal,
Speaker 2: crafted by a number of different advocates and kind of
Speaker 2: taken shopped around on Capitol Hill by me when I
Speaker 2: was first starting out in my advocacy in Washington. So
Speaker 2: the Homeless Person Survival Act was a model, a piece
Speaker 2: of model legislation in three parts, and Part one was
Speaker 2: a emergency shelter, emergency relief. Part two was prevention, how
Speaker 2: to prevent homelessness. Part three was how to end homelessness
Speaker 2: This and that was housing, low income housing. So this
Speaker 2: was basically the a proposal put together by people who
Speaker 2: were knowledgeable, who were seeing a lot of them were
Speaker 2: legal services groups who were seeing homeless clients in their
Speaker 2: day to day work, and what they and we all
Speaker 2: thought was needed to address the then exploding crisis. And
Speaker 2: it was actually it was something I took up to
Speaker 2: Capitol Hill and tried to get support for and eventually
Speaker 2: was able to get it introduced by Mickey Leland, a
Speaker 2: Congressman from Texas in fact, who sponsored it. It was
Speaker 2: hard to get support for it. I mean this was
Speaker 2: the time when Reagan was in office, when he was
Speaker 2: saying homelessness is a lifestyle choice and it's certainly not
Speaker 2: an issue for the federal government. So this was very
Speaker 2: hard to get. Eventually, we did get an introduced, and
Speaker 2: you know, getting any part of it enacted was extremely challenging.
Speaker 2: The part that eventually made its way through Congress and
Speaker 2: got enacted in nineteen eighty seven was Part one. That
Speaker 2: was emergency relief. That was our emergency relief part of
Speaker 2: the proposal, excuse me, and it primarily was focused on
Speaker 2: emergency shelter, and that got enacted as what is now
Speaker 2: called the McKinney Vent, a Homeless Assistance Act. That was
Speaker 2: the first federal, major federal legislation addressing homelessness. And getting
Speaker 2: it passed took a big campaign by a variety of
Speaker 2: actors I call them strange bedfellows, kind of very out
Speaker 2: there activist at the time, a pro bono lawyer who
Speaker 2: was actually a Republican who worked with me specifically and myself,
Speaker 2: and of course advocates around the country who organize in
Speaker 2: their communities to get support to back our efforts to
Speaker 2: get this legislation. So we got this. It was supposed
Speaker 2: to be just part one, the first step, and the
Speaker 2: additional steps were to follow, but of course the additional
Speaker 2: steps didn't come, certainly, not as part of this proposal.
Speaker 2: So that was the Homeless Person's Survival Act. And that's
Speaker 2: to say that even in those early days, we knew
Speaker 2: that emergency shelter was not the solution. We had a
Speaker 2: bigger plan in mind, but getting the political backing to
Speaker 2: make it happen at that time was a bridge too
Speaker 2: far for us.
Speaker 1: Well, I want to ask you a little bit about
Speaker 1: the changing landscapes. But I'll also want to vent for
Speaker 1: a second as an American that it is it strikes
Speaker 1: me as so obscene at times that you have people
Speaker 1: with I mean, the phrase I always use is you
Speaker 1: know how many how many private jets do you have
Speaker 1: to have? You know how many? How many yachts? Is
Speaker 1: it necessary? For those? And for those listening, like, if
Speaker 1: you have multiple jets, good for you? Maybe you can
Speaker 1: email me the answer. If it's four or five, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure, you tell me. But if you don't have
Speaker 1: a private jet, maybe you could think about why does
Speaker 1: that person have to have twelve of them? You know,
Speaker 1: maybe we could have that are in a better condition,
Speaker 1: Maybe we could approach the homelessness situation easier. The point
Speaker 1: I'm trying to make is this is solvable for the
Speaker 1: United States. This isn't a problem. This isn't an attack
Speaker 1: from an alien species in my opinion, that we have
Speaker 1: no control over. This is something that we could fix
Speaker 1: if we wanted to. The question is do we want to?
Speaker 1: All right? And with that venting done, though, I want
Speaker 1: to ask a little bit for my last question because
Speaker 1: I know where we're coming up on time here, but
Speaker 1: I want to ask about something past the nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: because you write about how in the twenty tens and beyond,
Speaker 1: and here I'm going to quote, so it's quotation, a
Speaker 1: new coalition, including many who had personally experienced homelessness, was growing.
Speaker 1: I'm interested about that new coalition, Where did it come from,
Speaker 1: what made it different, and what might it herald about
Speaker 1: changes in policy going forward.
Speaker 2: I have noticed that people, so you know, we're now
Speaker 2: four decades into this crisis. Kids have grown up, Kids
Speaker 2: have gone to school while homeless, gone to college while homeless.
Speaker 2: There's I mean, homelessness has been a crisis for a
Speaker 2: long time. People are living in encampments, forming communities in
Speaker 2: encampments because there's not even emergency shelter, and people have
Speaker 2: become people experiencing homelessness have become activists. And it's not
Speaker 2: to say that this is brand new. I mean there
Speaker 2: were activists homeless people even in the early days. But
Speaker 2: I think my sense is that this is more prevalent now.
Speaker 2: And you know, we're seeing also people who have experienced
Speaker 2: homelessness become running for office and winning, becoming members of Congress.
Speaker 2: Corey Bush, who unfortunately lost her primer but was probably
Speaker 2: the most visible member of Congress who had experienced homelessness herself.
Speaker 2: But on city councils there are people who have experienced
Speaker 2: homelessness who are now council members. So I think there's
Speaker 2: now a new opportunity here with people who have to
Speaker 2: firsthand experience becoming either activists or politically involved or otherwise
Speaker 2: entering positions of some greater power than we've had. And
Speaker 2: that's creating an opportunity. The more that there are people
Speaker 2: who have that direct experience who are in side government
Speaker 2: and in positions where they can really make, really support
Speaker 2: efforts to make change, I think that's reason for optimism,
Speaker 2: and I think that helps bring this effort to a next.
Speaker 1: Level well being optimistic. Let me ask you one final
Speaker 1: question then, if you are a listen if you're listening
Speaker 1: to this podcast and you're thinking to yourself, other than
Speaker 1: picking up the book, which you should, what is something
Speaker 1: that I can do to either a better educate myself
Speaker 1: about this issue or be take a proactive step to
Speaker 1: try to support people who are trying to do something
Speaker 1: this issue. What can someone who's listening to this episode
Speaker 1: do right now?
Speaker 2: So the most important thing I think someone can do
Speaker 2: is use your voice, be an advocate. Being involved on
Speaker 2: any level is good and important, and a lot of
Speaker 2: people volunteer in shelters or soup kitcheons, and that's all good.
Speaker 2: No one should stop doing that. It's needed work. But
Speaker 2: don't stop there. Also, become an advocate. Find out who
Speaker 2: is advocating in your community, and can you support them.
Speaker 2: People need groups, need volunteers to help with political advocacy,
Speaker 2: and that can happen at any level. Can happen at
Speaker 2: the local level, It can have at the state level
Speaker 2: and the federal level. I think the state and local
Speaker 2: levels are right now the place to focus because you know,
Speaker 2: things are rather much more difficult at the federal level
Speaker 2: at the moment. But there's quite a lot of activism
Speaker 2: happening at the state and local level, and some of
Speaker 2: it is seeing successes. So find out who's active in
Speaker 2: your community and get involved.
Speaker 1: Well, those are perfect words of wisdom, and that's exactly
Speaker 1: what I would echo as well. Well. For those of
Speaker 1: you who have been listening, we made it through maybe
Speaker 1: about page fifty of page two hundred and fifty eight,
Speaker 1: so there is a lot left in the this book,
Speaker 1: and I highly recommend picking it up. You can get
Speaker 1: it today. If you're listening to this as I mentioned before,
Speaker 1: links are in the show notes, check it out. It's
Speaker 1: a great book and we'll get you'll come away with
Speaker 1: it with more. I would wager to say, if you
Speaker 1: read this book, you will have a better understanding of
Speaker 1: the issue of homelessness than just about anyone who you
Speaker 1: walk past on the street. And it's hard for me
Speaker 1: to say that every day, but this is one of
Speaker 1: those books that really does cover it all. And I
Speaker 1: want to thank you so much for coming on the show, Maria.
Speaker 1: It's been great. I think we learned a lot. I
Speaker 1: love the book and I know my listeners will as well.
Speaker 2: That's wonderful. Thank you so much. It was really great
Speaker 2: to be with you, and thanks for having me on
Speaker 2: the show.