Politics 88 : Plight of Homeless Fails to Catch Fire as Campaign Issue

Nora Geter and her four children, who are among the thousands of America’s homeless families, can sleep easier now. Thanks to an innovative use of federal funds, they recently moved out of a crime-ridden welfare hotel and into a clean, five-story apartment building opened for families like them in Spanish Harlem.

“Life is better for us, even though there’s lots of pressure on me these days,” Geter said. Then, reflecting on the narrow focus of her daily life, she added: “I can’t worry about problems somewhere else, you know, like who’s going to be President and all that political stuff. I worry about where my kids are after dark.”

Yet politics--particularly the 1988 presidential campaign--affect Geter more than she may know. The Reagan Administration plans to cut off the funds aiding her and thousands of other families, saying the money can be used only for short-term emergencies. If the next President does not reverse that decision, she and her children may once again be in a temporary shelter or on the street.

Larger Paradox

The uncertainty about the program aiding Geter mirrors a larger paradox: Although the problem of homelessness has received enormous public attention and touched the conscience of more fortunate Americans, it has yet to become the kind of burning campaign issue that could lead to significant progress.

While all the presidential candidates have decried homelessness as a national disgrace, neither GOP nominee-apparent George Bush nor any of the three surviving Democrats has committed himself to the kind of concrete programs with specific timetables--and price tags--that advocates of the homeless say are needed.

“Everybody says they’re against homelessness in this campaign, but that’s easy,” said Karen Dauksis of the Campaign to End Hunger and Homelessness, an advocacy group created specifically to focus attention on the issue during the 1988 elections. “We have a lot of compassion, but very little on the bottom line.”

Nationwide, there are an estimated 3 million homeless people, including a growing number of mothers and children without permanent homes and nearly 250,000 homeless mentally ill persons. Their problems are aggravated by a severe shortage of emergency shelters and a dwindling supply of low-cost rental housing.

Because New York City has the largest homeless population of any U.S. metropolitan area, with more than 5,200 families living in squalid welfare hotels here and an estimated 10,000 homeless mentally ill persons needing medical attention, Dauksis and other activists had hoped the debate would pick up when Democrats began campaigning for Tuesday’s New York primary.

Endorsed Plan

And in fact the Democrats--Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.--have pledged in recent days to continue the program aiding Nora Geter and other families. Last week, all three endorsed a New York City plan to move all homeless families from welfare hotels into permanent housing. And all three mention the homeless problem in their stump speeches and promise to make it a top priority of their administrations.

But they have offered few comprehensive solutions to the overall problem and rarely discuss the costs of such programs. Mostly, they have attacked the Reagan Administration’s record.

Vice President Bush, meanwhile, has said little about the issue, except that he deplores the sight of people sleeping on the streets. Bush appeared uninformed during an Atlanta debate when he remarked that the “primary” cause of the problem involves mentally ill people, who compose less than 30% of the nation’s homeless population.

Earlier, Bush said it was unlikely that the federal government could spend more money on the problem, but pledged his administration would support existing programs for the homeless, including enforcement of a little-known law permitting emergency shelters to be opened on some military bases.

Why the lack of stronger commitments from the presidential hopefuls? One reason is that the homeless are not a politically powerful force: “These people are not the most effective constituent group,” said Maria Foscarinas, chief counsel for the National Coalition for the Homeless.

Another reason is the high cost of fighting homelessness, and the political risks of being viewed as a “big spender” by voters worried about taxes and the federal deficit.

Last year, Congress appropriated $355.2 million to attack the problem and approved another $363.5 million for this year. It was the first time the federal government had approved major legislation for the homeless, but the funds were mainly for short-term needs, such as shelters.

It is questionable whether more will be spent on the homeless this year. The budget summit agreement between President Reagan and Congress greatly limits new spending, making it unlikely that costly new initiatives can be launched anytime soon. As a result, most Democratic candidates have been “running scared . . . they don’t want to talk about anything costing more than $1.50,” said Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), an advocate for expanded homeless programs.

Sent Questionnaires

Seeking to pin down the presidential candidates on the issue, a coalition of homeless organizers sent questionnaires to 13 candidates in both parties earlier this year, seeking their support for a three-point program to attack the problem in the next administration.

First, candidates were asked if they would support legislation guaranteeing a “right to shelter” for every homeless person, a program that Foscarinas said could cost $1.8 billion annually. They were also asked if they would guarantee enforcement of all federal programs aiding the homeless.

Finally, candidates were asked if they would agree to restore federal budget authority for low-income housing subsidies to the 1981 level of $27 billion. These subsidies, which are not spent in one year but typically allocated over a 15- to 20-year period, pay for construction or rehabilitation of low-income units, and also offer cash supplements to eligible renters.

Since Reagan took office, budget authority for low-income housing programs has been slashed to about $11 billion. Administration officials have said the government should not be in the housing business, leaving it instead to the private sector.

As a result of these cutbacks, the number of new low-income housing units financed by the federal government fell from 250,000 in 1981 to less than half that amount last year.

Candidates gave mixed responses to the three-point questionnaires. While Bush did not answer the individual questions, he sent a letter pledging to address the issue as President. The three remaining Democratic candidates, however, agreed to support the program.

“We were happy to get them on record,” said Robert Hayes, who directs the National Coalition for the Homeless. “But we need more specifics from all of them on this issue.”

During his campaign, Dukakis has frequently called attention to homelessness, once calling it the “single most important” domestic problem facing the nation. He used a striking television campaign commercial in Iowa focusing on the issue, and he has pointed to his record in Massachusetts as a blueprint of what he would do if elected.

In the past four years in Massachusetts, Dukakis’ Administration has authorized $1 billion in three state bond sales for low-income housing, which will build 6,500 units and renovate 30,000 existing apartments, according to aides. He has also sponsored a $350-million program for mental health services, including 3,500 new beds for the homeless mentally ill, among other initiatives.

Identifiable Costs

As a presidential candidate, however, Dukakis has veered away from programs with identifiable costs, calling for a “national partnership” of federal, state and local governments and the private sector to build more affordable housing. Although he has outlined broad goals, such as federal “incentive grants” to spur local housing construction, he has not addressed the specific costs of this program or the number of units it might produce.

Foscarinas and other advocates give Dukakis high marks for his past record, noting that he has greatly increased the number of shelters in Massachusetts. But they question how his “partnership” would work and say it may not be so easy to duplicate programs from a progressive New England state on a federal scale.

Jackson, by contrast, has called for a massive federal investment in affordable housing, to be funded by a $60-billion “secured loan” from public pension funds. But he has not explained how the government would acquire the money, or the amount of housing it would produce. Jackson brushes aside questions about the feasibility of the plan, saying these funds “were earned by workers . . . and they should be used to build homes for working people.”

He also believes government should help expand the pool of not-for-profit developers and operators of affordable housing, saying neighborhood groups and tenant cooperatives hold the key to new housing programs. But, again, he does not say how this would be done.

Gore points to his record as the principal Senate author of the 1986 “Homeless Persons Survival Act,” which advocates say is the most comprehensive homeless legislation to come before Congress. A key section of that bill, providing funds for shelters, food banks and other programs, was passed by Congress last year and signed into law.

But the bill’s longer-range proposals, such as increased housing subsidies and programs to build housing for the homeless mentally ill, are still pending before several committees. Despite their differing approaches, the three Democrats have hammered away at one common theme: The federal government must restore its commitment to low-income housing subsidies.

Several housing experts suggest, however, that the federal retrenchment did not cause the homeless problem. In fact, while the Reagan cutbacks exacerbated the problem, a shortage of low-cost housing had already reached crisis proportions, said Cushing N. Dolbeare, a consultant who founded the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, a Washington-based advocacy group.

“Democrats want us to think that if we just went back to the good old days before Reagan and restored funds, the problem would go away,” she said. “But it’s not that simple.”

As the number of poor households increases, the nation has been losing more than 500,000 low-income units every year due to rent increases, gentrification, demolition of single-room-occupancy hotels in urban downtown areas and redevelopment projects, said Phillip Clay, an economics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

“Given these tremendous housing shortages, I don’t think the 1988 campaign has been addressing the true cause of our homeless problems, said Dolbeare.

“If candidates were truthful, they’d tell people it just may be impossible for the next President to have a dramatic impact on homelessness, at least in his first term.”