When I was in college the good folks at Penn State would annually collect food and money to help feed the homeless. My British roommate at the time was a cynic. His comment during the effort in our senior year was: “What? Again?  We just fed them last year.”

Was he an uncaring bloke or prescient?

Probably both.

Large cities have wrestled with the homeless problem for decades with limited results; moving the problem from the streets to shelters that are decrepit, unsafe and filthy. The homeless purport that living on sidewalks over steam vents, beneath highway bridges, in subway stations and airports is preferable to life in city-run shelters.

New York is, once again, facing the problem from a purely political perspective. Gaining the vote of illogical voters is a higher priority than fixing the problem.

In New York City, Governor Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio are feuding over who offers the best plan. Cuomo, in his State of the State address yesterday, put forth a $20 Billion plan to “add 100,000 permanent housing units over five years plus thousands of additional units of housing that would offer shelter and social services across the state”.

Last week DeBlasio announced that his administration would create 200,000 affordable housing units over the next ten years. (Affordable by whom, the homeless?)  He also announced plans to place cops in existing shelters to prevent criminal acts and painting the interiors to improve morale. (“The beatings will continue until morale improves.”)

Neither plan has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting funded, much less succeeding.

Cuomo doesn’t have the money to pay for the new facilities and there is no hope of building anything in a timely manner given that we are already in mid-winter – the worst period to be homeless. DeBlasio’s cops will refuse to police the facilities  and, if a crime occurs, where do they put the perpetrators?  In jail?   I don’t think so.

There may be a cheaper, better solution.  First, it is important to realize that the majority of these people have deeper problems than just homelessness. Many have mental health and/or drug/alcohol abuse problems.

On the optimistic assumption that money can be found somewhere to build these units, how long will it take until they are destroyed by the occupants?

Responsible folks who own a home or rent an apartment understand the importance of continuing maintenance. Cleanliness and repairs are essential to insuring a decent quality of life in any residence.

Do homeless folks have brooms, vacuums, cleaning supplies, paper towels, bug spray and other accoutrements essential to maintaining the property?  I don’t think so.

Nor do the poor and disadvantaged have the incentive to keep their living space hospitable. Drive through any public housing project and look at the garbage piled on curbs and the detritus thrown from windows (bed, chairs, etc.) onto adjoining lots or parking areas. There is no incentive to keep the place clean.

I offer an alternative ‘simple solution’. Once public housing units are made ready for occupancy, the resident will be charged with cleaning and maintaining his/her space using supplies and equipment provided by the city’s shelter. If the prospective inhabitant refuses to participate in the cleaning process – no admittance. If they do so properly, the space will be reserved for them the following night. If not, they forfeit the space to another.

This approach, in concert with private security guards’ registering all entrants, would offer a safe, clean alternative to the men’s room at LaGuardia or the Port Authority. It has the further benefit of protecting the real estate value of the shelter for years to come.

As my British roommate, who was an immaculate cleaner, would say:

You are welcome, mate.

For more, visit: http://www.jameshpyle.com