Last year, Brenda Konkel, the former district 2 alder, proposed a city ordinance that would have allowed homeless residents to sleep and urinate on city property without the fear of fines or arrest. The response was predictable. Even those of us who were expected to think deeply about the issue and comment on its effectiveness relied on the same brand of comedy you’d expect to get at a Carlos Mencia show to dismiss the proposal and ridicule its sponsor.
I remember sitting at a Badger Herald Editorial Board meeting during the discussion of the policy. Although what we wrote reflected the common-sense idea that building more facilities is a better alternative than letting people piss in the street, it was easy to tell during the conversation the rejection of Konkel’s idea was largely built on the premise the homeless in Madison have other options for bathroom breaks.
The numbers say otherwise.
In 2008, 3,849 homeless individuals were provided with some form of shelter by the city. Almost an equal number — 3,636 — were turned away, according to Sue Wallinger, head of homeless assistance in the Community Development Block Grant office.
To many of us, the word “homeless” is synonymous with the panhandlers at Peace Park. It’s a small group of men, many of whom are visibly drunk or severely mentally impaired, who ask us for change at the most inconvenient times. Some politely accept the refusal with a “God bless” or “Have a nice day,” while others react with anger and accuse you of being greedy.
While relegating those suffering from addiction or mental illness to street corners is not humane or effective in any sense of the word, it is important to highlight many of the people getting turned out to the streets do not match popular conceptions of the homeless in any way, except that they are poor, desperate and ignored.
They are men, women and, most ominously, children. The vast majority of those denied shelter last year were families, most likely because it’s easier to find a bed for a single person than a mother with three children. More than a third of these families who are granted shelter cite a threat of violence as the primary reason for their fleeing home. More than a fifth of the women who show up say the same thing.
The numbers show crime has declined in Madison, despite hard times. And the mayor is probably correct to refuse layoffs in the police and fire departments in the midst of a tight city budget. But how can we pretend to be interested in the safety of Madison’s population when so many residents are forced to spend nights sleeping on the streets? My Herald colleague Beth Mueller recently wrote a convincing article encouraging women to be safe and walk home with a friend. Yet in Madison, there are very likely hundreds of women each year who leave their own homes to escape a threat of violence and have no place to go.
It doesn’t have to be this way. If there’s something the Great Depression taught us, it’s that hard economic times can provide an opportunity to invest in safety nets (think Social Security, Medicare).
Congress has apparently taken some notice, but not nearly enough. Dane County has received roughly $1 million in the form of “homelessness prevention grants,” which provide short-term financial assistance to those who are in danger of being evicted due to rent or utility bills. According Wallinger, this is the right approach. “Public shelters are not generally positive experiences,” she said. People seek stability and privacy, not just a bed and a meal.
In addition, Wallinger emphasized the need for a regional approach to the issue. Many of the homeless in Madison are recent arrivals, often coming from economically blemished areas south of the city. The federal and state government have to increase aid to those who cannot afford homes.
It’s not going to be easy. Until the city protested, the feds had actually cut Section 8 funds, which subsidizes landlords who provide low-income housing. While developers all over are petitioning to build plush hotels, others are demolishing low-income housing. Just today a developer is proposing the demolition of a low-income house to the Plan Commission. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it will be if there is not more housing to replace it.
In addition, the city should invest in short-term public housing. A family that flees a house in the middle of night because of a violent threat should have a place to stay a few nights. If we as a city can’t provide them that, then the least we can do is let them piss in the streets.
Jack Craver ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and the editor of The Sconz, a local politics and culture blog.
