Calling It ‘Illegal’ Won’t Solve a Thing

You can argue the details, sure; but let’s pose this question: If something is created out of desperation, because of let’s say a financial crisis, why would we want to destroy it instead of helping to build it into a better form of itself? For example, take panhandling.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty states, “since the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert declaring panhandling as protected free speech, more than 25 laws attempting to ban panhandling have been found unconstitutional.”

All of the communities that tried to ban panhandling were shot down by the courts, stating it would be an unconstitutional law. So, many of these communities have done what appeared to be the logical next step someone would take if they didn’t like the results – change the law from banning panhandling and call it solicitation or begging.

According to the most recent set of data from the Trump Administration, 552,830 people were counted as homeless in the United States in January of 2018. And of those, 194,467 were considered unsheltered.

For clarification, unsheltered homeless people are those who are “in transitional housing or supportive housing for homeless persons who originally came from the streets or emergency shelters,” according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Government statistics show that homelessness has been on a slow decline since the early 2000s, but the unsheltered homeless population has jumped by about 20,000 between 2015 and 2017, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The organization also states that “the rise in unsheltered homelessness is driven largely by people living in just 11 cities” mainly along the West Coast of the United States.

The root of the problem for the rising unsheltered homeless population, according to NAEH and other organizations, is the fact that the cost of living has climbed so high and there is a real lack of affordable housing – just ask credit union executives working in and around San Francisco.

If the problem is the shortage of affordable housing, then why punish the homeless population by creating local laws that ban panhandling?

This is like having mold grow inside the walls of your home due to a natural disaster, and instead of trying to hire a professional to come in, rip out the drywall and do a full mold remediation of your home, you decide to just outlaw mold. Hey, dummy, the mold is still there. You’ve fixed nothing.

According to The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty’s website, there are roughly 200 communities around the country that have passed anti-panhandling ordinances and the local police are actively enforcing those ordinances.

Is this solving the problem? If their success rate is based on making sure that they keep their jails filled, then it’s a complete success. Congratulations!

It’s always harder to fix the root of a problem. Big problems require big thinking and typically a lot of money.

For instance, Los Angeles County passed a relatively progressive set of laws in 2016 and 2017, Measure HHH and Measure H, which has allowed the county to spend literally billions of dollars to create new homeless housing and services for people who need them. According to reports in the Los Angeles Times earlier this year, the county said it “housed 21,631 people – more than in any previous year. It also prevented an estimated 5,600 people from falling into homelessness.”

Alas, new homelessness statistics in the county show that the homeless population rose 12% and 16% in the City of Los Angeles in 2017.

Did they solve the homelessness problem by building more shelters? No, it’s much, much worse. Did they look at the lack of affordable housing as being the problem? Nope.

According to the California Housing Partnership Corporation, the median rent has gone up 32%, while the median renter’s income has fallen 3% since 2000.

While the cause-and-effect of the homelessness and unsheltered homelessness problem appears to be crystal clear, the root of the problem is much larger and more expensive than just building more shelters.

Here in Austin, Texas, the homeless population has become, like nearly every other issue here, a political problem. Austin has a large homeless population and the homeless set up camps underneath the interstate and highways in and around the city. Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently threatened the City of Austin to clean up the problem, or he would. Gov. Abbott is ready to kick out the homeless people living under any state or federal roadway, clean up those areas and put up fences to keep the homeless people out. Will that fix the problem of affordable housing? Of course not.

Until the bigger issues are dealt with (affordable housing, affordable education, drug use, mental health support, alcohol abuse, etc.), it appears that communities are just going to try and outlaw homelessness and panhandling as an easier solution to nothing.

Which brings me to this point – the CFPB. The agency, since its creation out of the Dodd-Frank Act after the financial crisis and collapse of our nation’s economy, has been a favorite punching bag of financial conservatives who love to scream that the organization is unconstitutional.

In its own words, the CFPB aims “to make consumer financial markets work for consumers, responsible providers and the economy as a whole. We protect consumers from unfair, deceptive or abusive practices and take action against companies that break the law.”

But what happens when CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger declares that her position is now unconstitutional? Oh, and let’s now argue that the entire structure of the consumer protection agency is also unconstitutional. And let’s now ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if the agency and appointment provision of the Consumer Financial Protection Act is unconstitutional. Keep in mind, before the Trump Administration, the same attorneys arguing that the CFPB is now unconstitutional, argued in courts across the country that the agency is constitutional.

The CFPB, for all of its criticisms and flaws, is actually a pretty damn good idea to help protect consumers. But it appears, as in the cases of anti-panhandling laws, that no one is interested in fixing the bigger problem; just make it illegal and call it a day.

I will not be surprised if the CFPB doesn’t last through this administration. Apparently consumers and the homeless population are two groups of people who will equally be left out in the cold until someone decides to fix the bigger problems.

Michael Ogden is editor-in-chief for CU Times. He can be reached at mogden@cutimes.com.