Homelessness has been in the news a great deal lately, and become a major focus of public debate. I've written previously about how homelessness is greatly exacerbated by exclusionary zoning rules and other restrictions that make it difficult or impossible to build new housing in response to demand. Much evidence indicates that the expansion of homelessness in recent years is primarily a problem of housing availability, rather than increasing incidence of social problems like mental illness, alcoholism, or drug abuse.
A new draft paper by Mercatus Center housing expert Salim Furth has a helpful discussion of how exclusionary zoning exacerbates homelessness. It does so by making it difficult for marginally homeless people to find housing with friends and relatives, which many could otherwise do even if they could not afford housing on their own:
In the United States, the primary definition of homelessness includes those who sleep outdoors or in a tent, car, or recreational vehicle, or who are in a homeless shelter or transitional housing provided by a homeless services agency. This often differs from the colloquial use of the phrase, which connotes a vivid human portrait: a person who has lived on the street or in shelters for a long time, who spends his days begging or loafing, who likely suffers indignities, abuses, ill health, and toilet insecurity, and likely has mental illness, a drug addiction, or both.
In truth, many of the people who a passerby might call homeless aren't homeless at all – they spend their nights in a home (perhaps an imperfect one) while spending their days in public. And many of the homeless are undetectable as such in daily life.
The American cities with the highest housing prices have the worst homelessness problems. YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) advocates highlight this correlation to argue for policies that increase housing supply. But, when you think about it a bit, it's not clear exactly how high rent contributes to homelessness. It's not like $800 per month apartments are any more affordable to most homeless people than $1,000 per month apartments. And homelessness is frequently associated with mental health or drug abuse problems. This is why non-YIMBY progressives insist that only more generous vouchers or subsidies can help and non-YIMBY conservatives argue that only behavioral change can help by tackling alcoholism, drug abuse, and mental health problems.
The stories and data in this essay show the missing link between homelessness and housing costs: people without money who avoid becoming homeless do so mostly by staying with others, usually their own parents. This happens outside the formal housing market. But parents' and others' ability to offer space is limited by what they can afford in the market. Where housing costs are moderate, friends and family have bigger homes. When they are higher, friends and family don't have space to share, and this is often what puts a vulnerable person onto the streets.
Furth presents extensive evidence that a large proportion of the homeless are in this position. They are generally sane and able-bodied people who could find housing with friends or relatives, if housing were cheaper. Some could potentially live with roommates. "YIMBY" policies that make it easier to build new housing in response to demand could alleviate this problem.
The causal mechanism Furth highlights is highly intuitive. Unless you've been wealthy all your life, you probably have taken advantage of free housing with friends and relatives yourself, or know people who have done so. If, during that period in your life, you instead had to live in the streets, you would likely have been far worse off. Exclusionary zoning closes off this type of lifeline for a substantial population of relatively poor people, pushing them into homelessness.
Getting housing could also make it easier for these people to look for and find jobs, and - where necessary - improve job skills. Job-hunting and education are easier to do if you're not sleeping on the street! That, in turn, can make it easier for marginally homeless people to increase their incomes, thereby benefiting both themselves and the broader society.
In our recent Texas Law Review article, Josh Braver and I explain why exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires government to pay "just compensation" when it takes private property. There, and in an Atlantic article, we explain how litigation should be combined with political action to break down zoning restrictions on housing construction.
As Furth and I both recognize, increasing the availability of housing may not do much for homeless people who have severe physical or mental disabilities, or who engage in serious alcohol or drug abuse. But reducing the overall homeless problem could still help these people indirectly, by freeing up resources such as shelter space for them. And helping the able-bodied homeless is a great good in itself, even if it doesn't fully solve all homelessness issues.
