I just returned from Salt Lake City where I spent about 8 hours talking with non-profits, the State of Utah, and Lloyd Pendleton, who all worked toward reducing chronic homelessness. You might wonder why I did this. Utah has been touted as a state that just about solved chronic homelessness and it seemed important to find out if that was true and if it was, what could we learn. So before I share what I learned in Utah (which I will do in subsequent posts here and at Forbes), and what I think it might mean for Seattle’s struggle with homelessness and with encampments in particular, I think I’ll explain why this is important to our work expanding supply and supporting a housing economy that is both sustainable and affordable for a wide array of people with all levels of incomes.

First, chronic homelessness and encampments are a real problem of human suffering that is more than just a housing problem. One thing confirmed by the people I talked to in Utah is that when we see a person living outside, in a car, or in a tent, the solution isn’t simply handing that person a key to a “unit.” The causes of homeless vary by individual, and if we are truly to make our city a humane and welcoming place, we have to recognize that the solution to housing issues isn’t a fiat issued by the Mayor, whether that fiat is imposing fees on new housing or sweeping away encampments. We need better data, better definitions, collaboration, and empowered patient leadership.

Second, the issues associated with homelessness and encampments are a flashpoint for those who want to impose bad housing policies that will make our housing economy worse for poor people. When middle class homeowners who worry about their investment in a single-family home see increases in homelessness, it adds momentum to their fears and worries about growth, empowering the angry and fearful voices that also shut down microhousing and continue to demand more limits and restrictions on all housing. For different reasons, the more visible homelessness is, the more left leaning progressives push for more controls on the housing economy that will surely make life worse for everyone.

Finally, the City’s approach, and specifically the Mayor’s approach, is a manifest failure in leadership that all of us working on housing issues regardless of our ideology, our views about the solutions to the problems and what the problems are, and who we represent in the discussion, should call out and demand accountability and improvement. What I share with many of the advocates for the homeless community is a desire to find solutions to problems in the housing economy that leverage innovation, reduce rules and restrictions on that innovation, and, ultimately, reduce suffering and expand opportunity for everyone who wants to share our city with those of us already here.

Smart Growth Seattle is an organization premised on the idea that more people moving to Seattle is a good thing, that the demand for housing created by new jobs and economic development is an opportunity for everyone, and that, if we allow innovation, we can solve housing issues in a way that will prevent sprawl, economic trauma, and reduce our impact on the environment. For us to be successful in that endeavor, we must show that building more housing not only doesn’t create homelessness but that it will actually help reduce the problem. While I am not an expert on homelessness, what I learned in Utah, I hope, will add something positive to our local discussion.