BrianGarst.com

A Chicago group is claiming that area homelessness is higher than previously recorded, because “invisible” groups of homeless, living with friends and relatives, were not counted by City Hall.

Chicago’s nightly homeless population stands at 21,078 – nearly four times higher than the count compiled by City Hall – because of an “invisible” group that includes those “doubled up” with relatives and friends, homeless advocates said today.

The city’s last homeless census – on Jan. 27, 2005 – counted 6,715 people.

. . .The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless conducted its more exhaustive count in conjunction with the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Using Chicago Board of Education figures of the 8,461 students living “doubled up” in the homes of family and friends, they counted 21,078 homeless on any given night with just 22 percent of them served in shelters.

Students living with friends and family while attending school are not homeless. Nobody wants to have to rely on friends and family for shelter, but sometimes it has to be done. Living in such a state is a far cry from homelessness. Thankfully, the city has rejected this redefinition of homelessness.

I think this issue reflects a larger philosophical disagreement. Small government advocates tend to believe that government should be used as a last ditch solution to problems. If someone is homeless, they should look to friends and family for help first, and only if none can be provided should they be assisted.

Statists, on the other hand, discount altogether that there can even be a solution that does not involve government. Thus, someone who has a place to live thanks to the generosity of friends or relatives is illogically considered “homeless.” Not to do so would be an acknowledgment that problems can be solved without government, an idea which could spell doom to their candidates if it ever caught on, and therefore must be resisted.

The group even went so far as to argue that living “doubled-up” must be counted because it is “unstable” and “insecure”. To these people a person who has legitimate concerns about their future must immediately succor at the big government teat, as the very worry itself – regardless of whether or not the cause of concern ever comes to fruition – is itself a reflection of society’s failure and the need for government intervention. This view is as dangerous as it is naive.