When discussing what we currently know about homelessness, many of us expressed our concern of not knowing how many homeless people there actually are. An inaccurate count is universal because: not all homeless people will be found on the streets, some cities do not count cars or those in shelters, we don’t know how many people are couch surfing / temporarily living with friends or family… it’s impossible to fully know.

We discussed what we think could be done to help alleviate homelessness (there is no 100% cure) and making more housing available was the common main concern. “Affordable” housing is actually not affordable at all, so low-income housing is the better route to take. It is unknown if shelters are a big help, because they act as temporary fixes. They may help some people get off the street for one night or a short period of time, but what about in the long-run? The argument could also be posed that shelters further catalyze homelessness because if people think they have somewhere they can go for free, they may be homeless by choice. I do not think this is a popular thought process, because shelters can be terrible places. In the book “Reckoning with Homelessness”, shelters were described as dirty and violent places, where you can get robbed and beat up even though your peers know you have nothing. Employees of the shelters have been accused of physical and emotional violence. Developing homes that people can actually live in on a minimum wage paycheck is a viable solution.