Problem Statement
Seattle is one of America’s cities with an enormous wealth reserve and economic engine. Ironically, it is one of the regions facing a homelessness crisis, with at least 22,500 households experiencing homelessness in King County and more than 4,300 students in public schools without homes (Maritz & Wagle, 2020). The COVID-19 crisis compounded the issue as stringent measures such as lockdowns, loss of jobs, and movement restrictions exacerbated the problem.
For instance, thousands of people who lived in their cars and tents were forced to fend for themselves or endure hunger. Noteworthy, in the summers of 2019 and 2020, there was a 50% increase in the number of people living in tents (Moore, 2022). The implication is that many families live in dire situations despite the favorable economic outlook.
Homelessness has led to other social problems in the city, including high crime rates and drug addiction. In a Netflix original documentary film, Wild Wild Country, part three, one woman describes that at a young age, she already knew how to use a gun and was prepared to use it when the need arose (Way & Way, 2016). In 2022, the incidences of violent crimes increased by 20%, which is a 14-year high (Moore, 2022). The high crime rate may scare away tourists, visitors, and investors because Seattle has significant tourist attraction sites such as the Space Needle. Although Seattle has substantial wealth and opportunities for different avenues of generating income, the homelessness crisis is creating more complex problems that require a strategic solution.
Alternatives
There are several ways to tackle the homelessness problem in Seattle and restore the city’s glory. One of the solutions is to build more affordable houses that will ensure that people with minimum salaries can comfortably rent a decent apartment. Notably, economic growth in Seattle is one of the significant causes of homelessness as people come for new jobs and growth opportunities, yet the housing supply remains low (Maritz & Wagle, 2020). The new houses should be affordable for a family of four earning $23,000 annually (Maritz & Wagle, 2020). The advantage of constructing a living apartment is that it has the potential to offer long-term solutions.
The other alternative is an encampment, where the government, philanthropists, or organizations erect temporary structures where people can live. Encampments are a short-term solution that is much needed for people who do not own cars and have families (Dubas-Blankers, 2020). The relevant authorities can set aside land to erect encampments where the people can receive shelter from weather extremes such as rain. The solution is cost-effective and promises to help manage the problem even as a better strategy is implemented for a permanent solution.
Analysis
Option 1: Build Permanent Apartments
The first recommendation is building permanent and affordable housing solutions for the people, especially those in low-income communities. A good example is the significant investment that philanthropists in King County and the City of Seattle made to build more than 5000 new units (Maritz & Wagle, 2020). The rationale for establishing the new buildings is to dignify the people there.
From a consequentialist perspective, the right action is the one that has the best consequence (Wood, 2019). The implication is that based on the consequentialism theory, building permanent housing is the best solution. The concern is that such constructions demand a lot of money and may take many years to complete. However, the morality of such a solution needs to be revised as homeless people will continue suffering in the cold, sometimes with their young children.
Option 2: Encampments
Establishing temporary encampments that may shield homeless families from weather extremities is a cautionary measure before finding a permanent solution. However, encampments can be perceived as resulting from exclusionary spatial policies that are anti-homeless and criminalize homeless people (Finkes, 2019). Deontological reasoning posits that the means justifies the end; in this case, solving the problem at hand is the moral approach.
The problem is that there are worries that encampment leads to the exclusion of some people and widens the wealth gap. Moreover, those temporary structures can portray an ugly outlook in Seattle and lead to a rise in slums. Thus, encampments may temporarily solve the problem of homelessness, but the results are short-term and may worsen the situation.
Decision
Deciding on a matter of ethical and moral concern, such as homelessness, is difficult. Either side has some good aspects and other unwanted results that are unavoidable. The best decision serves the best interest of the homeless, the community, and the economic progress of Seattle. Particularly, it is prudent to create a permanent solution to the problem instead of settling for the encampments.
Building many affordable apartments will gradually reduce the problem of homelessness while at the same time ensuring that it protects the beauty of Seattle. It will also improve the city’s image so that the media does not find a basis for their narrative on homelessness, criminalization, and poor and publicly supervised areas (Fries, 2020).
Homeless people can find alternative places to stay as the new buildings are under construction. Some of the options that they have include sleeping relatives or friends, camping grounds, cars, abandoned buildings, train stations, and the airport ((Fries, 2020). With time, when the apartments are built, the problem will end.
Action Plans
The first action is to plan on raising the necessary resources and finances to facilitate building the permanent structure. The State and Federal governments can establish a structure allowing investors to lend money to the government in the form of investment, which is then channeled to the building of the apartments. The government should have a reasonable repayment plan after the houses are done and people start renting at an affordable rate. Moreover, money can be raised through other avenues like crowdfunding, donations, and philanthropists. People with expertise in construction can volunteer their skills and labor to give back to the community.
The permanent houses should be designed to utilize scarce resources while still protecting the dignity of the people. For example, buildings should be constructed to encourage social cohesion and shared facilities (Alexander, 2020). People living in the same apartment can share parking and recreational places to save space and encourage communal interactions. The people awarded tenders and contracts to do the construction should possess high competencies and design houses that are tiny but presentable for homeless people.
It is vital to ensure that the project management team has a good plan with specific goals that are achievable and time-bound. For example, the committee can plan to construct an apartment with five thousand units every year. The homeless can register their names so that they are given priority to enter the apartment once they are complete. The rent paid after completing one phase of the project will help contribute money for financing the consecutive apartments. After about five years, the problem will permanently end as all the homeless people will be settled in permanent houses within the community.
References
Alexander, L. T. (2020). Tiny Homes: A Big Solution to American Housing Insecurity. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 15, 476-507. Web.
Dubas-Blankers, J. (2020). From sweeping to stability: sustainable practices for Seattle homeless encampments. Web.
Finkes, R. (2019). City sanctioned homeless encampments: A case study analysis of seattle’s city permitted villages (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Web.
Fries, M. W. (2020). Framing the homeless: media framing effects on homelessness in San Francisco (Doctoral dissertation, Sacramento State). Web.
Maritz, B., & Wagle, P. (2020). Why does prosperous King County have a homelessness crisis?McKinsey & Company. Web.
Moore, J. (2022). Seattle faces dire challenges, including homelessness and rise in violent crime – in pictures. The Guardian. Web.
Way, M., & Way, C. (2016). Wild wild country part three [Video]. Documentary Mania. Web.
Wood, N. (2019). Virtue rediscovered: Deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics in the contemporary moral landscape. Lexington Books. Web.