30

I just saw this meme on Facebook:

1 in 7 American houses are empty. 1 in 402 Americans are homeless. 24 empty houses are available for each homeless American.

Since this question answered the ratio question, I would like to know if these houses are "available for" those homeless?

Community
  • 1
Cees Timmerman
  • 4,673
  • 3
  • 31
  • 49
  • I split the question into two parts. 1 about the ratio, 1 about the availability –  Jul 13 '14 at 22:58
  • possible duplicate of [Are there enough unused houses in America for each homeless person to have six?](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18344/are-there-enough-unused-houses-in-america-for-each-homeless-person-to-have-six) – jwodder Jul 14 '14 at 00:02
  • It's probably true enough. There have always been and always will be vacant housing units. Look in any classified section under 'Houses -- For Rent (or For Sale)' and you'll see a large inventory. People are always vacating and moving. When someone moves out, a vacancy is created whether a rental or a sale. Many of the "homeless" also contributed to the inventory of vacant homes by leaving them behind. – user2338816 Jul 14 '14 at 00:50
  • 5
    This is not surprising. The homeless problem in the US is a wealth distribution issue, not a real estate or construction issue. – dotancohen Jul 14 '14 at 06:39
  • 5
    @dotancohen: It's not just wealth distribution, but people distribution too. All those people who left Detroit didn't take their houses with them. The reason that Detroit has all those vacant houses isn't that people can't afford them -- it's that people don't want to live in them. – Gabe Jul 14 '14 at 15:01
  • @TechZen, and others: [chat] –  Jul 15 '14 at 00:29
  • I think you are misreading the meme. "Available for" in this context isn't saying "available to" which is a completely different thing. The only question is the ratio one because if the homes were available to the homeless they would likely not be homeless (unless they preferred the nomadic lifestyle by choice). – Elder Geek Jul 14 '14 at 21:10
  • 2
    This version of the question has a problem that "available for" isn't well defined. Does it mean homeless people can register for a house and get one? Does it mean the houses are advertised as on the market (for lease or purchase)? Does it mean the houses *would* be on the market, if someone purchased the houses that currently are on the market, pushing up prices? Does it mean the Government could commandeer the private property and share them out for the social good? Does it matter if the houses are nowhere near good hospitals, schools and/or employment? – Oddthinking Jul 15 '14 at 05:22

1 Answers1

39

According to Census.gov, in the 1st quarter of 2014 there were 18,319,000 vacant housing units.

The number of homeless is debatable, because those in institutions or staying at friends' places are not counted in government reports like the Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress (which estimated 610,042 homeless in January 2013). This site mentions 1,750,000 homeless, presumably on 7.1.2014, but I could not find the AHAR 2014.

18319000 / 610042 = 30 vacant homes per homeless.

18319000 / 1750000 = 10 vacant homes per homeless.

Some of those are summer homes, though, so using Year-Round Vacant Housing Units, we get this:

13785000 / 610042 = 22.6

24 empty houses for each homeless American (assuming only the USA) seems like a reasonable estimate, especially since the meme is older than 3 Feb 2012.

Still, most of those are not up for sale or rent. Totaling the vacancies for rent (3710000) and for sale (1521000) gives us:

5231000 / 610042 = 8.6

Which is similar to the 6 mentioned in the meme in this related/duplicate question.

So the answer is NO; 24 is a rather gross exaggeration of the number of homes available for sale/rent.

Also, "houses" as depicted in the meme is an exaggeration, as according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census:

A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall.

As for being available to the homeless, Utah cut down its homeless population by 74% by giving them free homes (in hopes of saving money on ER). And a month later, it's 78%:

In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by 2015. How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but they keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s.

It sounds like Utah borrowed a page from Homes Not Handcuffs, the 2009 report by The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless. Using a 2004 survey and anecdotal evidence from activists, the report concluded that permanent housing for the homeless is cheaper than criminalization. Housing is not only more human, it’s economical.

San Francisco's mayor's chief of homelessness policy, Bevan Dufty, had this to say:

Look, we're going to spend the money one way or another - either through expensive jail, shelter, emergency calls and so forth, or by investing in housing. It's so clear what the best way to spend it is. With housing you not only give people better lives, you save money in the long run.

That might not be the case in areas with high real estate costs and for-profit prisons, but it would be a better use of homes than demolishing them due to lack of buyers. Also, some homeless pay property taxes.

Community
  • 1
Cees Timmerman
  • 4,673
  • 3
  • 31
  • 49
  • 1
    I imagine among those listed as "vacant" are also those which are temporary unoccupied (like rental unit from which last tenant moved out but new one not moved in yet)? Also, I wonder if units that are in disrepair and otherwise unfit for occupation also are listed as vacant. – StasM Jul 13 '14 at 22:53
  • 1
    Are they available for them though? –  Jul 13 '14 at 22:58
  • 1
    @StasM I think "estimates of housing loss, and administrative records data" includes condemned buildings, and vacant housing units can be broken up into "for Rent" and "for Sale" in step 4 of the first link. – Cees Timmerman Jul 13 '14 at 23:01
  • @Articuno [Republican State Gives Free Houses to Moochers, Cuts Homelessness by 74 Percent](http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/12/20/republican_state_gives_free_houses_to_moochers_cuts_homelessness_by_74_percent.html) – Cees Timmerman Jul 13 '14 at 23:03
  • Is that a yes, they are available for the homeless? –  Jul 13 '14 at 23:04
  • @CeesTimmerman thanks, the same link shows 1.521M are for sale and 3.71M are for rent, 1M sold or rented, but not occupied, leaving about 12M of those who are vacant without being either sold or rented out. I imagine some of them also fall into "occasional use" and "seasonal use" categories. Also, the question of location is important - most homeless concentrate in urban areas, and a vacant cabin on a lake somewhere in rural region would do little good to them. – StasM Jul 13 '14 at 23:30
  • Because the ratio question was already answered here (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/18344/are-there-enough-unused-houses-in-america-for-each-homeless-person-to-have-six) please reconsider revising your answer. – Larian LeQuella Jul 14 '14 at 02:09
  • @Articuno: What do you mean "available"? Nobody lives in them? Then yes they're available. They're not owned by anyone? Then no, they're owned by someone who wouldn't let people move in without paying them something - this is the basic problem of homelessness, money, not homes. – slebetman Jul 14 '14 at 04:16
  • 1
    @slebetman I'm not the one making the claim that they're available for the homeless, so I don't need to come up with a definition, but a standard one is "able to be used or obtained". Vacancy does not mean available for the homeless. Available for the homeless means able to be used or obtained by the homeless, which depends on the conditions attached to such use by the owner. This answer doesn't get into that. –  Jul 14 '14 at 04:27
  • @Articuno: Then I'd say it depends. Some state/local/federal governments (and even some homeowners associations) can simply take the homes and give them to the homeless and the owners have zero legal recourse. So in some cases yes, they're available to the homeless if the right people have the right motivations. – slebetman Jul 14 '14 at 04:50
  • I've mentioned right people with right motivations. – Cees Timmerman Jul 14 '14 at 05:24
  • @Articuno It appears by your definition of available, that if the houses were available, then there would be no homeless. Unless people literally wanted to be homeless. Or phrased differently: At all times there are either no homeless, or no homes available for the homeless. – Cruncher Jul 14 '14 at 14:57
  • @Articuno If the house is able to be obtained. And they want to obtain it(which is why I added "Unless people literally wanted to be homeless") then they *will* obtain it. If someone is homeless it can only be because they want to be, or they have to be. – Cruncher Jul 14 '14 at 15:55
  • @Cruncher There are many reasons why somebody would not act to obtain an available home other than a desire to be homeless. You are presenting a false dichotomy. –  Jul 14 '14 at 15:59
  • It's quite simple: if you're homeless and vulnerable (thus likely to need emergency services at the state's expense), the state will pay for your housing and help you gain independence. Take it or leave it. – Cees Timmerman Jul 14 '14 at 16:08
  • @Articuno As you've already said, some cabins would most likely be unattractive if only for travel expenses, and personal freedom should allow for demanding certain standards for occupancy (say a seniors-only flat), so not all 13.7 million homes would be available to every single homeless person, even if they tried to squat them (which tends to take 5 years of owner's negligence to succeed). And the ratio is moot now, though i believe i've adequately answered that. – Cees Timmerman Jul 14 '14 at 16:32
  • @CeesTimmerman I didn't say that. But in any case, if that is true, please add that to the answer. In it's current form, it doesn't answer the question. –  Jul 14 '14 at 16:33
  • I still can't tell from your answer how many homes are available for the homeless. I understand that it's not 13.7 million. Is it 5.2 million? Or is it only the portion of those 5.2 million that are in Utah? –  Jul 15 '14 at 16:17
  • @Articuno An exact number is impossible to give and it's a yes/no question. If the US government would spend some of its ludicrous war budget on buying/renting all rent/sale homes in the USA, and all the estimated homeless would accept them, then that's the number of available homes to the homeless, bar any last-minute changes. – Cees Timmerman Jul 15 '14 at 21:17
  • @CeesTimmerman So the gist of your answer is: no, it's not 24:1. It's at most 8:1, and of those, some (at least some in Utah) are available for the homeless. Is that correct? –  Jul 15 '14 at 21:20
  • @Articuno Yes, the gist of my answer is: no, it's not 24:1 because it's currently at most 8:1, and of those, some (at least some in Utah) are available for the homeless. – Cees Timmerman Jul 15 '14 at 21:23