Homelessness

The Barbarians are the Gatekeepers

Zoning boards need to let reforms pass. It’s barbaric the way we treat people who are unhoused but are willing and able to work full-time.

Every day in America, there are almost 700,000 unhoused people, and only 200,000 are chronically homeless.

The latter is not the topic of this week’s articles because that’s a different problem to solve. The former is relatively easily solved.

Quick SET (Shelter, Employment, Transit) Housing for the Involuntary Unhoused to get back into the mainstream would make zoning changes to allow transitional housing in, next to, or near light industrial and office parks for easy walk to work. 

This transitional housing can also help new immigrants, those fleeing domestic abuse, and prison-to-work programs. With stagnant population growth, businesses in these parks are desperate for skilled workers.

Imagine a central job bank to match the person to Quick SET opportunities.

All it would take to house all these folks is one or two 72-room apartment buildings per county. The first step is to change the zoning, and then the private and/or public sector can step in to do the construction.

This Week’s
Flight of Articles

Our Monday puzzle drop article has an introduction to Quick SET Transitional Housing for the Homeless, including a deep dive into the key YES and NO reasons. You can see the Tuesday BOX SCORE for this week’s puzzle here. Be prepared to be shocked by Wednesday’s Politically Strange Bedfellows. On Thursdays, we listen for the signal in the Noisy Guest article to understand difficult-to-call roles better. On Fridays, see how our Political Digital Twin can help you make up your own mind instead of marching to the beat of political parrots.

Nonpartisan
Score

Initially, POLI the AI, gave this solution a NEAR CONSENSUS rating of 86% ±2. However, when the editors factored in NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) sentiment, we felt compelled to lower the score to 70% ±4, still a STRONG SUPERMAJORITY in favor of Quick SET Transitional Housing, and with a majority of each of the four sides of the table, a US Public Policy Leaderboard-worthy solution. (US-PPL)

90% and up Near Unanimous
80% – 89% NEAR CONSENSUS
75% -79% Vast Supermajority
67% – 74% STRONG SUPERMAJORITY
60% – 66% Supermajority
50% – 59% Majority

By Contrast

SCOTUS’s approval rating is 41%,
the media is 32%, and
Congress is 15%.

Do we expect you to agree with the supermajority on all the rankings? 

Of course not; you’re human, not a hyper-partisan parrot.

We think you’ll agree with the leaderboard about 3 out of 4 items on average. Why?

The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) Sweet Sixteen is 76%, with many above 80%Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 5x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.

Politics 4.0

This week, POLI the AI was more human than humans, at least when it comes to empathy. You can read more about this in the methodology link at the bottom of the article.

There are four primary political conditions: Abundance v Thrift and Commerce v Governance. Poetically, their abbreviation is ACGT, just like human DNA; this shared political DNA helps us understand complex public policy solutions more clearly than just having hyper-partisan parrots endlessly squawking their party’s scripts at us.

What does our shared Political DNA have to say about Quick SET Transitional Housing for the Homeless?

Abundance

A1. Proximity: Living next to potential employment opportunities provided by industrial parks can offer a stepping stone out of homelessness, creating a sense of self-sufficiency and providing access to abundant resources through steady employment. Furthermore, these transitional homes would utilize underused spaces, enhancing the efficient use of land, a precious resource.

A2. Upskilling: Expanding zoning to include residential properties in industrial areas presents intellectual growth and skills training opportunities. These diverse industries offer job training and educational programs, enriching the intellectual capital of the residents.

A3. Support Systems: The introduction of housing within industrial zones can promote the abundance of holistic support systems, providing residents with access to services like counseling and healthcare through potential partnerships with local industries. This cultivates a network of resources that goes beyond material wealth.

A4. Community: Incorporating residential spaces into industrial zones invites a generosity of spirit, fostering a sense of community between employers, employees, and residents. This integration can break down societal barriers and reduce the stigma associated with homelessness.

Thrift

T1. Lower Transportation Expense: Co-locating housing with industry promotes thrift by reducing transportation-related expenses and environmental impact for workers in these apartments. It optimizes time usage, is a valuable resource, and decreases commuting stress.

T2. Better Land Use: Developing housing within these industrial zones can reduce urban sprawl and help preserve natural habitats and agricultural land, representing a thriftier and more sustainable use of the environment.

T3. Leveraging Resources: The principle of doing more with less is embodied in this approach. Integrating housing within industrial zones leverages existing resources to meet multiple societal needs, minimizing waste and promoting efficiency.

T4. Lower Social Services Costs: From a risk management perspective, these developments can help reduce societal risks associated with homelessness, such as health risks and public safety concerns. This initiative can also mitigate future social service costs related to homelessness.

Commerce

C1. Economic Growth: Altering zoning laws can stimulate the local economy by creating new construction jobs and increasing demand for local businesses. The increase in nearby workers, residents, and consumers will foster local economic growth.

C2. Innovation: This change can encourage innovation in housing solutions and industrial park designs. It allows architects and urban planners to think creatively about mixed-use developments without NIMBY red tape.

C3. Solves Labor Shortages: Altering zoning laws to allow residential units in industrial areas can foster a diverse workforce close to workplaces, thus helping local businesses attract and retain talent. This could increase productivity and enhance the vibrancy of the local economy.

C4:  Encourages Onshoring: The creation of housing in these areas might incentivize industries to invest more heavily in their surrounding communities instead of overseas, leading to an increase in local commerce and improved amenities for the residents. 

Governance

G1: Justice for All: Enabling housing in industrial zones can help achieve the governance goal of justice for all. It promotes equal opportunities for secure housing, irrespective of socio-economic status.

G2: Public/Private Partnerships: This zoning change represents synchronous decision-making, requiring collaboration between public entities, private businesses, and community members. This collaborative effort can strengthen community ties and lead to more equitable outcomes.

G3: Self-Sufficiency: From a liberty perspective, altering zoning laws can provide more housing options and employment opportunities, enhancing personal freedom for those transitioning from homelessness. Ultimately, it supports the broader societal goal of strengthening individual liberty, self-determination, and economic mobility.

G4: Responsive Government: Changing zoning laws to allow for residential units within industrial zones can illustrate the effectiveness of responsive governance, demonstrating that our institutions can adapt regulations to meet evolving societal needs. This could build public trust and encourage civic participation.

Conclusion

As simple as it seems, the housing solution for the employable homeless through implementing Quick SET (Shelter, Employment, and Transportation) housing in, next to, or near industrial zones faces a formidable obstacle: NIMBYism, or “Not In My Back Yard” sentiment.

NIMBYism is a reaction by residents in a community against a proposed development or project, especially ones viewed as unfavorable or potentially disruptive.

However, Quick SET is only in the backyards of light industrial and office parks. Not changing the zoning is barbaric, well, at least not ethical nor moral.

POL-ICYMI
Last Week’s Puzzle

You can read an introductory article about ‘Upsizing SCOTUS to a Grand Supreme Court’ and a more detailed explanation of the key YES and NO reasons here. Here’s Tuesday’s BOX SCORE article. You might be shocked by the Politically Strange Bedfellows for and against Upsizing to a Grand Supreme Court. Every Thursday, our Noisy Guest article details the hardest to call Roles. Fridays, see how a random Political Digital Twin can use our Personal Public Policy Advisor report. Saturday, we wrap up the week with our shared Political DNA. We’ve gamified our method, and you can find this week’s political role-playing puzzle at PolicyKeys.com. You can see the whole game board for last week’s puzzle here.

We predict a 71% ±4strong super-majority of roles in this country, including a majority on each of the four sides of the political table, in favor of Upsizing SCOTUS to a Grand Supreme Court, which makes it a National Idea Leaderboard-worthy solution.

Fly
Higher

Chronic Homelessness
National Alliance to End Homelessness

Rapid Rehousing
National Alliance to End Homelessness

Industrial Zoning Standards
American Planning Association

Does Rapid Rehousing Work? Well, it Depends
Org Code

Rapid Rehousing
Center for Evidence-Based Solutions to Homelessness

Manufacturing Worker Pay
Zippia

The High Cost of Transportation in America
ITDP

Job Openings & Labor Turnover Rates
BLS

How many homeless people in America
USA Facts

Learning about Homelessness
Becker Freidman Institute University of Chicago

California Democrats were in a NIMBY Mood
Time Magazine

Thinking about Right NIMBYism
Planetizen

Making Apartments More Affordable
Brookings

Housing and Homelessness
CATO

Effects of Housing Vouchers
Taylor & Francis Online

Four Kinds of Homelessness
HUD Exchange

METHODOLOGY

Where can we Agree?
Finding out takes guts from all four sides of the political table.
[::]

 


Posted

in

by