The city of New York is facing a significant challenge when it comes to addressing homelessness. The city’s main supportive-housing program, NYC 15/15, has fallen far short of its production targets. While the initiative promised 15,000 units, less than 4,000 have been completed so far.
This raises an important question: can New York house its way out of homelessness? It seems unlikely, which is why it’s crucial for progressives to reconsider their opposition to other solutions, such as psychiatric hospitalization and law enforcement.
Supportive housing, which combines low rents with behavioral-health services, was developed in New York in the 1980s. Over the years, it has received substantial political support and generous funding. In fact, New York currently has about 60% more supportive-housing units than its closest competitor, Los Angeles City and County.
Various administrations, including those of Dinkins, Giuliani, and Bloomberg, have been involved in the construction of 14,115 supportive-housing units. However, the NYC 15/15 initiative, started by the de Blasio administration and continued by the Adams administration, is projected to be larger than all previous mayors’ efforts combined.
Supportive housing has been hailed by progressives as the only legitimate way to address homelessness. It has received overwhelming enthusiasm from the advocacy community. However, it’s important to consider whether supportive housing alone is enough.
Recent criticism of Mayor Adams’ involuntary-treatment plan and street-homeless cleanup suggests that supportive housing is often seen as the go-to solution. But is it truly effective? The evidence suggests otherwise.
In 2019, Los Angeles’ city controller published oversight reports criticizing a similar supportive-housing effort for its soaring costs and slow rate of development. This led to diminished support among Californians for investment in homeless housing.
Academic research also shows that even when supportive housing is successfully developed, multiple units are required to reduce the homeless population by just one person. This indicates that supportive housing alone is not a comprehensive solution.
Developing supportive housing in New York is expected to become increasingly challenging in the coming years. Scattered-site units require landlords with vacant units, which puts them in competition with other rental-assistance programs. Custom-built congregate projects require scarce land resources.
Furthermore, accusations of NIMBYism have distracted proponents of supportive housing from confronting the program’s limitations. It’s important to recognize that housing alone cannot solve all the complex issues related to homelessness. Housing is not healthcare, and for individuals with untreated mental illness or addiction who have lived on the streets for years, simply providing them with their own apartment will not magically transform them into exemplary neighbors.
As funding becomes more competitive, it is crucial to have a realistic understanding of the limitations of supportive housing. While it remains an important solution for many individuals experiencing homelessness in New York, it should not be viewed as a cure-all.
In conclusion, New York must continue to invest in supportive housing while also exploring other solutions such as psychiatric hospitalization and law enforcement. It is essential to have a more honest and nuanced discussion about homelessness and to recognize that supportive housing complements the work of jails and mental hospitals but will never replace them.
