Context: California.
There are so many unhoused people in California, that their total numbers are bigger than small cities and counties.
Politically, a lot of unhoused people can't vote because they don't have an address. They face segregation and don't have representation.
A potential way to solve this are with Unhoused cities. The cities would form a state-wide Unhoused county with a board of supervisors.
These would serve people who are nomadic, homeless, have been homeless multiple times, are in precarious housing (such as dv) former fostercare, formerly incarcerated, sex workers, undocumented people, etc. People who have been housed for a while or recently gained financial stability could opt-out.
But what would city boundaries look like?
Unhoused territory would be all public space and public federal land. If certain cities have too much private property and federal land is not accessible, the city would have to provide sufficient space for it's intended purpose, for example space for one tiny home per unhoused person in the area. There would be limitations- they could remove hostile architecture and public art, but they wouldn't be able to dismantle something like a playground or build a large off-grid city in a vulnerable habitat.
This would prevent NIMBY's from shutting down affordable housing and other neccessary services. Either through public space, land, or local government-provided space,
every single city and unincorporated area would be required to have enough, designated space for housing. They can’t shut it down if it’s required everywhere.
Here's what cities and counties could potentially do:
Decriminalizing homelessness and bushcraft
Decriminalizing van life and RV living
Decriminalizing tiny homes and off-grid living
Decriminalizing sex work
Legalizing and regulating drug use
Legalizing third spaces
Criminalizing profit of public space
Legalizing communes, intentional communities, and mutual aid (these things are not illegal, but can have difficultly fitting into current legal structures)
Build cities
Develop, fund, and provide social services
Remove harmful policies that are discriminatory or cause moral injury
In California, people face less consequences for homelessness than they do in other states. This approach is helpful for reducing trauma (although people do often get arrested and there is still a very long way to go, especially since encampment bans have been coming back.) and not punishing people for circumstances for things outside their control, however it is not as meaningful if those circumstances have not been prevented and systemic change has not happened.
Legalizing affordable housing methods and building cities would drastically reduce homelessness. If homeless people were in charge of services, they would be distributed efficiently and actually assist rather than gate keep. It would be important to collaborate with existing providers that people are supported by.
How would this get funded? Funding the state usually gives to cities could be re-directed. Taxes could also be paid by Medicare and Medicaid- full coverage, the client pays nothing. Some nomads and sex workers have a very high income, and they could pay city taxes just like anyone else would.
Each city would have it's own police department. It would be a community policing model, distributed into the following departments:
Mental Health Crisis Response
Crime Prevention, with a focus on food insecurity, emergency resource connection, and direct assistance for executing escape plans
Investigation, with a focus on domestic violence, sexual violence and trafficking, discrimination and hate crimes
Comments