Our homeless problem is getting out of control — what can we do? 

The ongoing debate over fining individuals for sleeping in public spaces is currently being deliberated by the Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

The case underscores a critical juncture in how we address homelessness. While the court’s decision will undoubtedly carry weight, it risks overshadowing the more pressing issue at hand: the urgent need for a more effective and humane approach to homelessness. 

Homelessness is not just a statistic — it is a human tragedy. According to the Housing and Urban Development’s annual count, the number of homeless individuals surged to 650,000 in January 2023, marking a 12 percent increase from the previous year. Behind these numbers lies a stark reality: Homelessness accelerates mortality rates, amplifies disability risks and burdens communities as public spaces become unusable. 

Regrettably, our response to homelessness has often been mired in two flawed approaches that rarely benefit the person experiencing homelessness over the long term: the construction of low- or no-barrier housing to attract individuals off the streets, and the establishment of shelters and encampment sites to compel them. Both pathways perpetuate a doom loop, spending progressively more money without delivering results.  

Nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in California, where some groups are calling for an additional $8.1 billion per year in state spending to “solve homelessness.” This comes on top of the current $4.8 billion expenditure, which coincided with an almost 30 percent increase in homelessness over the last five years. 

This unsustainable trajectory demands a paradigm shift to the “Good Neighbor” approach — a three-part remedy designed to address homelessness at its core.  

First and foremost, policymakers must reshape the narrative surrounding homelessness. It’s imperative to recognize it as a consequence of prolonged poverty rather than a moral failing. Communities that prioritize the inherent dignity of all residents, especially those who have fought to stay housed, are better positioned to effect meaningful change. 

Second, policymakers must confront the housing affordability crisis head-on. Across the nation, rising housing costs outpace income growth, leaving countless families, particularly renters at the bottom of the income spectrum, precariously close to homelessness. Grants Pass, Oregon — the town at the center of the Supreme Court case — offers a telling example. Between 2014 and 2024, the median home value doubled to $400,000, while the median household income increased at only half that rate, to $54,000. 

Since home prices are determined by supply and demand, building more housing units would help tamp down house prices and rents. By unleashing the potential of the private sector through deregulation, we can alleviate housing pressures and stem the tide of homelessness. 

Third, policymakers must prioritize rapid rehousing as a cornerstone of our strategy. By providing short-term rental assistance coupled with comprehensive support services, we can expedite the transition of homeless individuals into stable housing. This approach relies on an individualized housing plan with an understanding that faith, family and community connections are foundational to long-term housing stability. Rehousing is the most effective way to nip chronic homelessness in the bud, and it costs only 40 percent of all the services related to unsheltered living.

The city of Houston exemplifies the effectiveness of this approach. Confronted with what it deemed unacceptably high homelessness levels in 2011, but constrained by limited financial resources, the city got creative. It created the “The Way Home” program, placing housing front and center. The program created a community coalition of over 100 different service providers, thereby aligning precious resources and prioritizing rapid rehousing. In 2013, Houston also extended to the entire city its 1998 policy of rolling back burdensome land-use rules. This freed the private sector to build 34,000 moderately priced townhomes.

Through these combined efforts, Houston did not eradicate homelessness. But it did achieve its ambitious goal of reducing it by 60 percent, improving countless lives in the process. 

As the Supreme Court deliberates, it is imperative that the nation shift its focus from futile measures to proactive solutions. Regardless of the court case’s outcome, the underlying challenge of homelessness will persist. It is time that policymakers rise above divisive rhetoric and commit themselves to a unified effort to make a lasting difference in the lives of our most vulnerable neighbors. 

Tobias Peter is the co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s Housing Center. Ethan Frizzell serves with The Salvation Army in Southwest Florida and consults with the AEI Housing Center.