When Trump dog-whistles, the hounds of hate come bounding. That’s why Street Roots convened a group of partners on Sept. 25 to draw the line clearly: Donald Trump’s carceral language toward homelessness is a no-go, and we must cast a vigilant eye.
Most attention, understandably, is on the impeachment inquiry, but the Trump administration can wield damage on numerous fronts. I’d rather not blink.
There are four dangerous themes that have emerged this month from Trump’s own comments on homelessness, anonymous comments from his aides, and the White House Council of Economic Advisers report — “The State of Homelessness in America.” They conclusions fall in four categories:
1. Police the poor.
2. Devalue the poor.
3. Warehouse the poor.
4. Blame the poor.
The Council of Economic Advisors strangely suggested that the high levels of unhoused people in West Coast and Northeast cities are because unhoused people are not policed enough. What?
This is thoroughly wrong-headed. Fortunately, in Portland, we are building clarity on this. Unhoused people are arrested too much, which drives them further into poverty with fines and fees and pushes them away from healing through new traumas. The 911 system is bogged down with non-emergency matters, and police resources are absorbed by non-criminal matters. Too many unhoused people can’t trust the police, and they are too often victims of violent crimes themselves. This is why we are working on the Portland Street Response. We need the right response, and we need to free up police.
We have good momentum, building toward the Portland Street Response, which takes police out of calls to 911 that aren’t about criminal or emergency matters. Our recent survey report, “Believe Our Stories & Listen,” made clear that unhoused people want other first responders for those matters. We can free up police resources for real crimes, and treat people better. So, please hear me loud and clear: the Council of Economic Advisers is wrong to recommend a police response to homelessness.
FURTHER READING: Trump wants to intercede on homeless crisis – but on whose behalf? (Director's Desk)
The Trump administration, meanwhile, met with the police union in San Francisco. Here in Portland, the Portland Police Association sponsored a video re-introducing Wapato as an idea. The video was produced by an out-of-state marketing entity, the “Silent Partner Organization,” Molly Harbarger reported in The Oregonian.
Policing the poor, in this vein, is about removal. Trump’s own rhetoric – not surprisingly – degrades the worth of homeless people, valuing profit and prestige over a human’s need to, well, live: “We have people living in our ... best highways, our best streets, our best entrances to buildings and pay tremendous taxes, where people in those buildings pay tremendous taxes, where they went to those locations because of the prestige.”
And this leads to the next dangerous idea: warehousing unhoused people. Trump administration officials visited a Federal Aviation Administration facility in Los Angeles without releasing details of their plans. Any gestures toward warehousing – not housing – the poor are going in the wrong direction.
FURTHER READING: Don’t let Wapato overtake the larger dialogue (Director's Desk)
People join forces around the idea of a mass institution with very different intentions. People might argue for a mass institution – a shelter, a treatment facility – as a humane approach. But I recommend being watchful, first of all, for any language around removing poor people. This is about disappearing homelessness, not solving homelessness.
And secondly, is this a dramatic diversion of public funds under the guise of wealthy business people stepping up? While, for example, private-sector people might put up the initial capital costs – the buildings, etc. – are they putting up the massively higher operational costs for sustainability? Are they describing this as a “private-public” partnership? If so, is their solution worth defunding other solutions? Is it worth, for example, rounding people up into a institution rather than continuing or even investing real money into the work already done?
Finally, bizarrely, Trump announced last week that the EPA will fine San Francisco for environmental damages at the very time they are revoking California’s right to set stricter automobile emission standards, with claims that syringes are sweeping into the bay. Again, bizarre. But this, too, is worth pausing on, because while Trump is taking it to the extreme, these impulses of blaming unhoused people for infrastructural and public health problems do occur locally and are often described as “livability” issues. I’m proud of groups taking constructive approaches, from the city of Portland’s hygiene trailers to the Harbor of Hope shower trucks.
The Trump administration just worsens homelessness, whether proposing to slash the HUD budget, pushing more immigrant families into homelessness or undercutting health care.
It’s worth setting Trump’s report side-by-side with U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer’s new report, “Unlocked: Reversing Federal Housing Failures and Unlocking Opportunity,” which argues for increased federal funding and policy around housing and health care. That’s a constructive federal strategy.
Kaia Sand is the executive director of Street Roots. You can reach her at kaia@streetroots.org. Follow her on Twitter @mkaiasand.