Housing Patterns of Homeless People: The Ecology of the Street in the Era of Urban Renewal

Abstract

In this article, the authors examine the political and economic community dynamics of the street homeless as well as other groups involved in conflicts regarding the process of urban renewal. Since postwar suburban flight, homeless people have lived largely in the shadows of vacated city centers. But “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) battles over the homeless have become increasingly common, especially as the influx of comfortably housed residents bring suburban expectations to urban centers, generating conflicts that affect homeless urban camp communities. Drawing on four years of ethnographic data, the authors describe social conflicts revolving around homelessness and urban renewal. Moreover, through examining the patterns of economy and polity among sectors with different economic positions in the city, the authors illustrate how “problematic” groups of people, such as the homeless, are not antithetical to community. Instead, they are key stakeholders in urban communities with goals, concerns, and desired boundaries similar to those who “legitimately” live downtown.

The “Homeless Problem” and the Double Consciousness*

“…In the 1980s federal funding cuts for low‐income housing caused a decline in single‐room occupancies and other forms of affordable housing, although gentrification and “urban renewal” drove up real estate prices, all exacerbating the growing problem of homelessness (Moore, Sink, and Hoban‐Moore 1988; Wasserman and Clair 2011a). Although homelessness in earlier periods was connected to migratory employment, economic shifts, particularly beginning in the 1970s, signaled the rise of homelessness connected to static unemployment, under‐employment, and wages that no longer kept working people off the streets.…”

“…Similarly, much discourse surrounding homelessness implies that those who are homeless themselves are the problem through a focus on dysfunction (Lyon‐Callo 2000, 2004). From local business interests and political institutions, particularly under the auspices of “urban renewal,” vagrancy laws parallel emigration proposals of the past, that is, to get those who are homeless out of the city (Wasserman and Clair 2010, 2011a; see also Bickford 2000; Waldron 2000; Wright 1997). But even where service agencies appear to be a kinder alternative, most often they address themselves to treating addiction and mental illness thus problematizing those who are homeless through a focus on individual pathologies and dysfunctions (Lyon‐Callo 2000, 2004; Wasserman and Clair 2010, 2011b; see also Lubove 1965 concerning historical shifts in charity from “cause to function”).…”

“…Wider considerations of ethical treatment and social justice often were subverted to immediate financial concerns. For example, the reputation of an activist minister in the area was nearly exclusively positive, but the single complaint was that when he “stirred up” trouble with the city, usually advocating for the rights of those who are homeless, harassment increased and they often were banned from the work corner (see Wasserman and Clair [2010, 2011a] for a full description of how city policies and gentrification resulted in assaults on homeless encampments). Prioritizing economic concerns naturally attends economic deprivation.…”

“…Put one way, strong “bonding” social capital was at the heart of grassroots organizing in black churches at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and as it gained steam, it was able to develop higher degrees of “bridging” social capital, especially to key politicians (Putnam 2000; see also Bourdieu 1984; Lin 2001). Even though those on the street develop community (see Wasserman and Clair 2010, 2011a), their social networks are tenuous and therefore lack not only the material resources, but also the social capital needed to organize against their condition. In the absence of needed “organizational attributes,” religious beliefs manifest as a resignation to fate (Cress and Snow 2000; Hinote and Wilson 2006).…”

“…Oppositions were signaled by processes of self‐stigma, where participants, who were homeless held negative views toward “the homeless.” Moreover, there was common support for ideologies at the heart of political and economic disfranchisement by which those who are homeless experience the most disadvantages. However, in the book, these remained largely unexplored and unexplained in favor of the idea that social life is full of complexity and contradiction and social science ought not impose its linear metaphor on all phenomena (Wasserman and Clair 2010, 2011a, 2011b). DuBois' theory, however, offers a complex framing equal to the complexity of the empirical data itself, allowing us to make more sense of it here.…”