Because I enjoy approaching people in public and asking them questions, I decided to “quiz” fellow students around campus with questions pertaining to homelessness. Said questions are listed below (the correct answers to questions 1-6 are shown in bold):
1. Out of all the cities in San Bernardino County, Redlands had the ______ amount of homeless people in 2017.
Highest
Second highest
Third highest
Second least
Least
2. The two factors that are mostly responsible for the rise of homelessness are:
Drug addiction and decreasing levels of motivation
Mental illness and increases in poverty
A shortage of affordable housing and increases in poverty
The erosion of family ties and a shortage of affordable housing
Lack of health insurance and student debt
3. The average life expectancy among homeless people compared to that of non-homeless people is….
about the same
about 5 years longer
about 10 years shorter
about 30 years shorter
about 45 years shorter
4. About ________ youth are homeless on any given night, and about _______ of them are LGBTQ.
100,000; 20%
750,000,000; 30%
1 million; 35%
D. 1.3 million; 40%
E. 1.8 million; 50%
5. African-Americans make up about 12.5% of the general population. They comprise about ______ of the national homeless population.
12.5%
10%
18%
30%
40%
6. There are about 9,800,000 people living in LA County. How many of them are homeless? Give your best guess. (around 57,000 is the answer, that is, according to counts)
7. What do you think is the definition of “homeless?”
8. If you had $100,000,000 to help address homelessness, what would you do with it? (Questions 7 and 8 are obviously subjective and have no “correct” answers, however I would say that there are “more correct” responses to them.)
Upon approaching people, I would ask them politely, albeit confidently, if they wanted to participate in a quiz about homelessness, and that they would be placed in a raffle to win either some candy, a book about homelessness, or an exclusive discussion about homelessness facilitated by me should they choose to participate. If an individual agreed to participate, I would ask them one question at a time, wait for them to answer, and then tell them whether or not they were right or wrong immediately after their response.
I conducted the raffle process by assigning every participant a number, which was very easy because I wrote down every participant’s name and number after they took my quiz. I then used a random number generating app to select six “winning” participants: one to be awarded with candy, another with a book, and four others with a discussion.
I have so far contacted every “winner,” and have already facilitated the discussion. Thinking that people wouldn’t want to stay for long since we are in the heat of pre-finals week, I told those that “won” the discussion that they were only expected to stay for about 20 minutes or so. Boy, did I underestimate their generosity with time! We talked about the theories posed by Willse in The Value of Homelessness, the notion of attributing homelessness to situations vs. dispositions, structural changes in the job market, and the debate concerning whether change should come from the federal vs. the local level for about and hour and a half.
My teaching project has yet to conclude since I still need to give the candy and the book on homelessness to their respective recipients. But does the process of teaching and learning ever conclude?

Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Given the definition above, do you all think it is safe to say that the current phenomenon of homelessness in America is more or less an example of genocide? I discussed this notion with my friend yesterday and am unsure about my opinion of it. According to the National Health Care for the Homeless Council, homeless people are three times more likely than their non-homeless counterparts to die at any moment, and typically have life spans that are 30 years shorter than “average.” 831 Los Angeles County homeless people died during 2017, an 81.5% increase since 2013. There is obviously a strong correlation between homelessness and death, but I will provide a caveat: debilitating mental illness among homeless people may be a confounding variable in this correlative relationship. “…Individuals with co-occurring mental illness and homelessness, arguably the County’s most vulnerable populations, may account disportionately for the increased death rates,” said Dr. Jonathan Sherin of the LA County Department of Mental Health, quoted from the Los Angeles Daily News (Abram).
Now, are the deaths of homeless people due to deliberate action? From what we’ve learned in class, homeless people and people living in poverty experience very slow, extended deaths, largely caused by difficult labor and long work hours, malnutrition, stress, etc. These problems are arguably byproducts of capitalism and inequality. One could say that everyone is dying a very slow, extended death, but I think we could make the case that homeless people’s’ life spans are directly affected by such problems. (That is in contrast to most of us in this class, who are dying slow, long deaths simply because we are mortal.)
Even if it is not technically an example of a genocide, using the word “genocide” to describe homelessness as a national issue is justified if doing so expresses the severity of homelessness and its widespread harm, in my opinion. What do you all think? Do you agree? Disagree?

                                                                              Sources
Abram, Susan. “More of LA County’s Homeless Are Dying. Here’s Why.” Los Angeles Daily
News, 17 Jan. 2018,
www.dailynews.com/2018/01/17/more-of-la-countys-homeless-are-dying-heres-why/
“The Hard, Cold Facts About the Deaths of Homeless People.” Nhchc.org, www.nhchc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/HardColdFacts.pdf.

Introduced by Senator Wiener, SB 827 is a new bill that would allow for “upzoning,” that is, building heights above the limit that local governments have approved and densities currently restricted by city zoning codes near public transit stops by limiting local control of high density housing developments near transit-oriented developments (TODs for short). For those of you who don’t know, TODs are pretty popular these days and are part of the New Urbanism movement, which stresses walkability, variety when it comes to housing types, and mixed-use development. Proponents of SB 827 say that it would be one way to start satiating housing demands that are only going to continue growing, but many groups and organizations (some of seemingly separate causes) came out the woodwork in opposition to the bill. Opposition is based in concerns that said “upzoning” would not necessarily entail more affordable housing but perhaps just more luxury condos, the idea that it would “strip local governments from the decision-making process” (Kash), and the fact that 96% of San Francisco would be eligible for the new drastic change in height allowances.
I have not thought of how debates concerning local vs. state control could pertain to housing other than when they relate to NIMBYism, and I’m not sure what I think of this bill. I am definitely all for streamlining the affordable housing development process, but I also don’t think San Francisco should have to lose its character by turning into one monolith of 8-story apartment complexes. Have any of you heard about this bill? It seems complicated and I’d like to hear y’all opinions.

Oh, my in-text citation is from a Sierra Club statement on SB 827. The link to the statement is here: https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/02/sierra-club-policy-transit-oriented-development

During one class period last week, I remember bringing up the possibility of affordable or low-income housing being implemented in the soon-to-come University Village train development, a facet of our University’s greater “North Star 2020” plan. In response, Jim essentially chuckled, and understandably so. The university administration have expressed no intention of implementing affordable or low-income housing in the area; their main intention is to spice up the campus and make it more attractive, a way to increase enrollment levels. In a sense, such spicing could entail creating another bourgeois downtown Redlands.

To provide some context, the University’s Institutional Plan reads:
“Let’s imagine just one student on this pathway with us who arrives at the University in 2020. She is a new graduate student who steps off an ultramodern, streamlined train onto the new “University Village” platform. She will cross through an inviting plaza to the north campus for her courses, encountering undergraduate students from the historic residential quad bicycling or walking through campus and on the new Orange Blossom and Zanja trails. When courses are over for the day, our new arrival will return south to townhouse-style apartments at the Village. Residences and apartments for young professionals, alumni, senior retirees and the general public encompass a lively plaza and green space dotted with amenities for our University and its town: a hotel-conference center, a coffee shop, a pub and restaurants, a significant college bookstore, a meditation-yoga studio, and a hub for neighborhood shopping, recreation, and services..”
How about that! Young professionals and yoga studios!
In my view, shaping the University Village into a bourgeois paradise would be a huge wasted opportunity to foster equitable housing solutions. Because the city of Redlands does not have much affordable housing in the first place, the future character of this development could be interpreted as a statement on the trajectory of this city. Will Redlands simply become more of an oasis for old white people and Esri employees in the sea of madness that we call the I.E. or will it become a space for inter-class mingling, where those living in South Redlands will no longer dominate city functions?
What have you all heard about the University Village development? Is its future character as significant as I describe?

Our discussions about the structural causes of homelessness have begun to make me question the degree to which one is able to attribute misfortune and strife to external sources. Can you take the structural explanation too far? For example, I feel as if you could state that discipline in terms of reform of the individual is an obsolete idea. Could it be that values such as self-sufficiency and hard work are really just byproducts of the toxic and life-draining Protestant work ethic and the scourge of neoliberalism? Is the implicitly-stated importance of moving out of the house and not depending on my mother’s vacant basement that my godmother impressed upon me really a fallacy?
I discussed the structural explanations of homelessness with my friend this weekend on a quick jaunt to L.A. He, not having taken a class on homelessness, was quick to blame homeless people of laziness and personal vice, while I repeatedly stressed common external factors that lead to homelessness. Despite my macro-level sociological explanations, he essentially suggested that there is still somewhat of an impetus on the individual to get out of homelessness, and that there is still something to be said for not giving up in a society that is against you.
What do you all think are the limits of attributing suffering/strife/misfortune to structural elements? Where do y’all draw the “line?” Also, what do you all think is the “place” of values such as discipline and hard work in sociological outlooks like the ones we are adopting?
Also, what are your opinions on this course blog? Do you feel as if it is serving an important function for you?

In light of how we have seen the way in which sheltering services for the homeless are oftentimes unresponsive to or ignorant of the structural violence causing homelessness and instead focus on ameliorating pathologies within individuals (i.e. in The Value of Homelessness and Inequality, Poverty, and Neoliberal Governance), I am curious about whether or not a shelter can have political agency in the fight to “end homelessness.” Can a shelter simultaneously save drowning people who were thrown in “the river” and beat up the person or phenomenon that threw such individuals in the river in the first place? Or, is addressing structural violence antithetical to the mere existence of shelters, meaning a shelter addressing structural violence can no longer be what is commonly known as a shelter because shelters are inherently geared toward ameliorating individuals?
I guess that this is essentially a question of whether or not there is a place for social work in the fight to “end homelessness.” One could argue that efforts to “empower” poor people are really fallacies that end up perpetuating a cycle of individual blame and failure and that the only place for psychology in battles against homelessness is in the process of medicalization, which, as we see in the chapter about Ariel in Inequality, Poverty, and Neoliberal Governance, does nothing for homeless people.
What do you all think about this? I briefly researched “homeless shelters and political activism” on the web and came across an organization called the National Coalition for the Homeless, which doesn’t seem like a homeless shelter at all. Check out their website at: http://nationalhomeless.org

While viewing an online lecture for another class, the following quote by American economist Dora Costa came up: “In France, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, one-fifth of the population only had sufficient energy to beg.” As of 2012, there were 141,500 homeless people in France comprising .214% of the total population that year (66 million). Now, in comparing the 25% of people before the Industrial Revolution to the slim fraction of the population in France that is homeless these days, we run into some problems concerning definitions of homelessness. Should we assume that people who have to beg for their food are homeless? I would guess that, generally speaking, the answer is yes, but there are undoubtedly exceptions to such a generalization.
Regardless of definitional issues, .214% of a population is much smaller than that of .25%. What do you all make of this statistic? In the aforementioned lecture, the professor went on to talk about how industrialization has mostly alleviated poverty worldwide. He referenced another quotation that read “The rich became richer, true. But millions more have gas heating, cars, smallpox vaccinations, indoor plumbing, cheap travel, rights for women, lower child mortality…” from Deirdre McCloskey, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois. Our study of homelessness has caused us to, understandably, adopt a rather grim outlook on the condition of the poor and homeless in contemporary life. However, are we really justified in possessing such a perspective, considering how the suffering experienced by poor and homeless people is nothing new, and that modern amenities have perhaps improved such conditions? I mean, peasants in medieval times lived in disease-ridden mud pits! Am I on to something or is the lecture I’ve referenced laced with neoclassical economic brainwashing fluid?
P.S. USC professor of urban economics and public policy Peter Gordon made the online lecture I referenced. The lecture is accessible from Planetizen Courses on planetizen.com, but you need an account to access them… If any of you are interested in watching it, I can provide you with my account info.

In the words of Craig Willse, the author of The Value of Homelessness, “Today, rather than serve the economy by keeping labor happy, healthy, and alive, social programs serve the economy directly as part of the economy, as a social welfare industry” (Willse 46). In this way, he reasons, “surplus populations are not simply left to die, but in their slow deaths are managed by social service and social science industries” (48). In a sense, Willse is arguing that resources which supposedly ensure the wellbeing of people really have a stake in maintaining people’s vulnerability because they profit off of disorder in the economy. (For some reference, I would say that Willse’s argument is very reminiscent of Herbert Gans’ The Positive Functions of Poverty article.)
What do you all think of this? Is this too cynical of a perspective? Are there agencies that are free of this criticism that help the homeless out of pure altruism?
I see obvious parallels between this critique of homeless service agencies and entities that provide mental health support. Our university’s counseling center and Residence Life and Housing branch are both able to exist and profit from the existence of mental health disorders on our campus. Along with about 40 other CA’s and CD’s, I am paid about $ 5,000 as a CA to provide oversight in a dorm and refer students to resources if they need help. In no way am I denying the ways in which both entities help many people every year, I am just questioning if our counseling center and Residence Life and Housing maintain the mental instability of students at all for their own benefit. For example, is our university’s willingness to keep chronically depressed students at school when they are not being productive in class but still ensuring a regular presence in the counseling center best for the student?

Alright, tell me let me if I have this straight: the process of deinstitutionalization can be attributed to a) new advancements in pharmacology, b) fiscal pressures on states, c) human rights concerns, and d) the government’s willingness to provide SSI and Medicaid checks to people. Homelessness was then, in turn, a function of deinstitutionalization because federal aid was not strong enough to ensure the stability of people who were straight out of “institutions.”
If I have all of that right, I find pointing to what should have happened difficult because there are so many factors at play here. Given the role of deinstitutionalization in the homeless crisis, one could argue that people should still be in institutions and that governing the treatment of mentally-ill people is invalid if it denotes leaving “crazy people” on the street. One could also argue that the federal government should’ve been held more responsible for providing a safety net for the newly-deinstitutionalized, or that, alternatively, mental hospitals should’ve never been subsidized by states in the first place, in that perhaps the federal government would’ve been better equipped to deal with them. I find the latter argument interesting because (I think) it would entail more of a socialized healthcare system and less emotional and financial burdens upon families with mentally-ill people within them. However, because I imagine that a system of mental hospitals subsidized by the federal government would last longer than such a system subsidized by individual states due to greater levels of financial stability, deinstitutionalization in this country might’ve occurred later, or not at all. My problem with arguing for federally-subsidized mental hospitals lies in that fact that I still don’t know what I think about the morality of putting people in mental hospitals. Am I arguing for keeping people in mental hospitals for a few decades longer if I’m arguing for federally-subsidized mental hospitals?
I guess I have three questions for y’all. Would you argue for the replacement of state mental hospitals with federally-subsidized ones way back when they were a thing? If so, do you think that means arguing for prolonging the process of deinstitutionalization, and would that be “moral?” Also, do you think this all maybe doesn’t matter because human-rights activists would’ve still pushed for deinstitutionalization anyway?

I’ve recently been wondering about how both the U of R in particular and other universities in general address the problem of homelessness whenever it spills into their domains for the following reasons: a) questions about increasing “security” because of the threat of “transients” have emerged in my GeoDesign Studio class, a course in which my peers and I are helping design the proposed North Star 2020 train development on the south side of campus, b) the way in which campus security responded to the man that wandered into the Armacost Library a couple weeks ago (which seemed like a reaction to the same vein of fear), and c) the fact that I saw a Public Safety officer yesterday who appeared to scold a homeless man that was collecting cans from the dumpster behind Bekins Hall.

Is our campus security especially concerned about the problem of homelessness in comparison to those of other universities/colleges? If so, does the U of R have a reason to have a heightened concern, given the way in which homelessness in perhaps more pervasive here? (That is not to say that I actually think homelessness is more pervasive here than any other place in the US—this is a nationwide/worldwide problem—I just think that the University could employ such an argument to justify their treatment of the unhoused when they come on campus.

In a way, one could argue that the condition of the unhoused in Redlands is quite serious in comparison to those of similar populations nationwide, given the closures of both the Blessing Center and the Salvation Army shelter…but to what end? Of course, rather than addressing the root of the problem (the need for shelter among the unhoused), entities that provide “security” in town seem to use said argument to justify keeping the U of R campus a sanctuary with a force field around its perimeter that zaps the unhoused whenever they penetrate its border.

To provide some context, my GeoDesign professor said that the UC Berkeley campus was full of unhoused people when he taught there…