Undeniably, the tent has emerged as a prominent symbol of our era, morphing from a tool of outdoor leisure into the primary refuge for an increasing population in urban territories and conflict zones worldwide. A dismal commentary on our times, this situation highlights the distinct failure of local and national political structures to address the escalating need for secure, quality, and enduring housing. Often, those without homes are provisionally afforded emergency shelters, but more frequently, they are left with no more than an inexpensive tent. A disheartening pattern unfolds in cities like Dublin, where one governmental body or charity distributes a tent, only for another to seize it a short time later, along with the individual’s personal effects.
Last month, the right-leaning majority of the US Supreme Court made headline news with a series of revolutionary rulings, such as an extensive extension of presidential immunity from prosecution and a dominant assault on federal agencies’ power to administrate. However, less publicised was the verdict in City of Grants Pass vs Johnson, solidifying the prerogative of local and municipal governments to outlaw homelessness. The case stemmed from an Oregon City mandate which effectively legislated against homelessness, despite not supplying emergency lodging. Justice Sotomayor’s opposing view mourned over laws that were “designed to criminalise the homeless,” essentially penalising individuals for necessary bodily functions like eating and sleeping.
Throughout the past decade, the issue of homelessness in American cities and around the globe has surged alarmingly. Consequently, of the 2008 financial meltdown that led to a rise in forced evictions and repossessions, and successive waves of addiction epidemics. The crux of the issue, however, is the sheer absence of public and affordable accommodation. From the 1970s onwards, local and federal governments have stepped back from constructing public housing, opting to sell off or neglect their existing properties. Underfunding over many years has precipitated the current crisis: urban areas desperately requiring more housing options, yet lacking the governmental capability or political resolve to provide them. Simultaneously, private landlords and property developers have a vested interest in maintaining a high demand for costly rented housing, exacerbating the problem.
Astounding hikes in rental prices, backed by Silicon Valley’s technology, are designed to squeeze out every possible penny from renters while reducing the upkeep and repairs to a bare minimum. Recent activities by the FBI show a crackdown on one of the largest landlord conglomerates in the country, alleged to use software such as RealPage to drive a massive national scheme of artificially inflating rents.
Activists are using social media platforms to spark a revolt among the younger Kenyan populace against the extravagant lifestyles exhibited by their lawmakers. Unrest in Gaza is escalated by the destruction of a school compound at a UN building, adding to an already substantial death toll. Scrutiny of President Joe Biden’s recent press conference reveals a display of defiance amid a series of apparent blunders. Ukraine’s military is proactively seeking to amplify its numbers by targeting recruits from prison populations and Poland.
Homelessness is on the rise at an alarming rate in the face of this crisis, including both those in employment and not, with people resorting to emergency accommodation or crashing with friends. Even more worrying is the sharp increase in the number of people resorting to sleeping rough. This is leading to a large congregation of people dwelling in dangerous and filthy conditions on the streets and forming large encampments. Some of these camps are government-operated, with varying degrees of living standards; others are temporary makeshift settlements that can last anywhere from a few weeks to several months. It is becoming a standard sight to witness clusters of tents huddled together underneath freeway overpasses.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of political will to challenge the root causes of this issue or propose a large-scale initiative to provide housing for those affected. Variations in response to homelessness range from empathetic acceptance of widespread rough sleeping from a liberal-libertarian standpoint to a growing terrifying, aggressive contempt towards the homeless.
Widespread homelessness and continuous urban degradation are amongst the strongest motivators for reactive political movements in America. In noticeable manner, cities like New York, Portland, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles are used by right and centre groups to showcase urban environments as failing, dangerous and filthy due to the evident homelessness crisis. There is some validity to their criticisms, given that the individuals dwelling on the streets have indeed been let down by governing bodies. Nevertheless, their suggested political solutions often involve violent and bleak strategies. The Supreme Court case at hand was initiated due to actions taken by numerous municipalities like Grant’s Pass, which is trying to handle their rising homelessness issue by resorting to policing measures. This includes city sweeps, imprisoning homeless people, or imposing fines on them. One such instance comes from Lancaster, California, where the authorities have driven homeless people into deserted areas at the fringe of the Mojave desert, devoid of water, facilities and services. This has resulted in dozens of fatalities on an annual basis. Even in places like Portland, Oregon which has formerly experimented with less punitive strategies, policies prohibiting public sleeping have been implemented. These so-called ‘clampdowns’ end up distancing the homeless from greatly needed social services, making their existence more perilous and challenging, and making it nearly impossible to secure any long-term housing.
It seems more likely for a potential second term of Trump’s administration to address this escalating issue than the currently struggling Biden government. With this court ruling, those who aim to criminalize homelessness at a local and state level are encouraged. Homeless people rarely participate in voting, hence their needs often take a back seat within the American political hierarchy, which heavily favours homeowners who wield enormous power. Unless the housing system undergoes substantial amendments, the main tangible action appears to be the persistent harassment and incarceration of homeless citizens. They are often relocated from one area to another, pushed out of cities and into peripheral zones, in the hopes that their plight will become a problem for somebody else.
The text is authored by New York-based writer, Jack Sheehan.