One of the great attributes of "triple bottom line" sustainability is that it, by its very nature, it about addressing the needs of those in poverty. When you ensure that producers and consumers are covering ALL of their expenses--be they financial, environmental, or social--you are building in protections for vulnerable populations. That's when it is done right.
What we're seeing now, though, is a strange development in the housing and community development of our nation. There is still a net gain of movement to the suburbs, despite people's growing desire to live in a "denser, smaller, closer" yet still private setting. This, paired with gentrification of many urban centers (which pushes lower-income urban residents out), is a dangerous cocktail for an even bigger housing crisis. This has implications for vulnerable populations, too, who don't really have the liberty to choose where they live. Costs through the roof, availability of public housing going down while demand goes up, and a series of other economic conundrums make the cycle spin faster.
(While I do think the issue of homelessness is important to address in this conversation as well, I want to refer to this excellent article about how homelessness isn't just a housing issue in the mean time.)
I know about this in my own experience as well, though not entirely. When I moved to Indianapolis, I would have really liked to live somewhere that was relatively safe and within walking/biking distance of my job at the Government Center (naivete, indeed). Instead, I live at about a 25 minute drive if there's no traffic or rain. That's the only way that I can afford to pay my rent and utilities--living way outside of downtown.
Additionally, I already had access to a car, but if I had to take the bus, that would take at the very least, another two hours out of my day (that's morning and evening). However, the fact that I have a car isn't great either (I am required to have one for my job). Gas prices hit harder on the working poor than on any other population, as well as the environmental impact, and the whole situation starts to stink.
It's no wonder that people in poverty--whose commute times can be longer than those of us fortunate enough to have cars if their public transit system is poor--have a tough time getting ahead or advancing themselves. You can't afford to live near where you work!
Affordable housing is a topic I haven't yet begun to explore in great depth, but I hope to learn more about it in graduate school and in my career. When the current measure for the poverty threshold was 'devised', food was 1/3 of income and housing was much lower. Now, for many people in poverty, housing is a ridiculous 40-50% of income (not an ideal sitaution, indeed). That's not workable.
As someone who has only been in 'technical' financial poverty (though not other forms, thankfully) for a year, and will be out of it in a few months, I have begun to really sympathize with the idea that with a systemic obstacle can and does have a systemic solution. We've got to get a control on housing costs--through policy, through building high-quality housing at an affordable price, and restructuring the poverty funding scheme that our government applies(note: I don't consider 'welfare' to be a bad word). If we do, I firmly believe that we will increase the ability of people in poverty to move up the social ladder and off other government services.
No comments:
Post a Comment