What is the real problem to be solved?
Something has been nagging at me since the Denver’s Road Home presentation. At the beginning, when he asked who thought we could end homlessness in Denver in ten years, I didn’t raise my hand. He then laid out their plan to build enough housing for the 5000 homeless and to move them in. Problem solved.
Or is it? I guess it depends on how you define solving the problem of homelessness. At the most basic level, if people are in homes and not on the street then they are not homeless. But shouldn’t we be looking at why those people became homeless in the first place? Isn’t there something that we could work on to prevent people from becoming homeless? Because, if we don’t, won’t those 5000 people get replaced by others? Or are we just going to keep building more homes and sweeping the homeless into them, saying “problem solved”?
Don’t get me wrong - I think it’s a good thing to do. I think it’s a great thing to do, and I like the financial justification he provided - showing that these homes could actually cost less than our current system of shelters. It’s just that I have a nagging feeling that we would be treating the symptom more than the illness itself. I think that the plan he laid out is indeed achievable within ten years, but I also think it is more of a beginning than and end to solving the complex problem of homelessness.
