Like most metropolitan areas, skyscrapers towered over downtown and rows upon rows of suburban stucco neighborhoods surrounded the city center. Gridlocked traffic, tired schools, and a handful of nonviolent crimes were the only issues this community faced.

Until the day the earth shook.

Who would have thought a shift deep below the ground would cause 20,000 people to lose their homes? City building officials spent days red-tagging houses and apartment buildings that were so devastated that they had become uninhabitable.

The response to this disaster was similar to the response to every major emergency in the country. Makeshift shelters were set up in local schools, churches, and community centers. Volunteers flocked from across the country to serve food and help rescue workers. For months, heroic compassion was trumpeted and camaraderie was the norm.

Then the volunteers returned to their normal lives and the country’s fickle attention turned to the next national emergency.

But thousands of people were still unable to move back into their homes, and the schools and community centers needed their spaces back. Gradually, people trickled out of their temporary shelters and ended up on the streets, in parks, under highways, and beside rivers.

So community leaders hosted a town meeting to figure out what to do. The city was broke, so they couldn’t afford to build their way out of the problem. The federal government provided loans to homeowners, but the thousands of renters still had nowhere to go.

Specialists hosted conferences. National experts flew in to present best-practice solutions. The Mayor and County Supervisors even chaired a blue ribbon panel of leaders to design a plan to end homelessness.

But that plan would take a decade to complete, and the Mayor would not say, “Just wait ten years, then we can help you.”

With no quick solutions in sight, some groups set up shelters in converted warehouses and large, empty homes. But the struggle to place these facilities in the community turned neighbor against neighbor.

“Not in my backyard!” people shouted. “You’ll ruin our neighborhood!”

When those living on the fringe of mainstream life ventured to the shopping centers and highway off-ramps to beg for food and change, faith groups set up public feeding programs to serve dinner to people in need.

Sometimes the lines stretched around the entire block.

Portable toilets were set up to help those living on the streets. Public storage units were provided to give people living outside a place to store their belongings.

Panhandling was not good for local businesses, so business owners installed “parking meters” that allowed tourists to donate money without encouraging begging. Then public officials banned people from sleeping on the streets of the business district.

The community struggled to create a system to manage homelessness. People could sleep outside, but not near businesses. They could eat, but had to wait in line outside. They could use portable restrooms if they needed them. They could beg, but not near tourist locations.

Addressing homelessness became a never-ending cycle, and only a few people were successful in actually getting of the streets.

Then, one day, a little boy living in car with his mom and sister was approached by a television reporter.

She asked, “What is your dream?”

Most boys his age dreamed of being professional athletes or pop stars. But this boy just shrugged his shoulders.

“I wish I had a home. That’s it.”

He became an overnight YouTube sensation. A million hits in just a few days.

That video began a movement to get people into permanent homes. The town had become HomeLess, but was now once again able to proudly reflect its name:

HomeTown.

I’ve written numerous times about how, often, people and groups point fingers at each other instead of working together. Those blaming fingers shoot rapid-fire accusations like social assault weapons.

“Those homeless agencies in my neighborhood are attracting more homeless people!”

“I am going to go out of business because all of the panhandlers scaring away my customers!”

“Those lazy homeless people just need to get jobs.”

“My councilmember cares more about helping that homeless program than helping the people who live in the neighborhood.”

“My property values are going down because the tent city near my house is messing up our neighborhood.”

It sometimes sounds like a group of teenagers who refuse to admit their own faults.

What is wrong with society when, confronted with a significant moral issue, we spend our energy blaming others instead of resolving the problem?

Is our struggling economy the culprit? There just isn’t enough money to spend on helping people who live on our streets. We can barely fund our police officers and firefighters. Teachers are being laid off and city workers are being furloughed. Maybe it’s easier to blame others than to figure out how to fund more housing….

Of course, our blame game could be a result of entrenched political bias. Some people think that people are homeless because of something they’ve done. They’re all lazy or addicted to drugs. Other people think that homeless people are the victims. The economy has put them in a tight spot, they don’t have enough family support, and they lack a society that will help them.

Should homeless individuals pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Or should we carry them until they can stand on their own? Depending on our perspectives, we certainly know where to point our fingers.

Maybe our society keeps arguing about homelessness, and blaming others, because we are frustrated.

Helping a broken, hurting, or sick person is not simple. I wish we could press a button and their problems would just go away. I wish we could just call 911 and have an emergency service worker take each homeless individual to a new apartment.

Resolving homelessness is not that simple, and it is frustrating.

But imagine being on the other side. Living on the streets while dreaming of being in your own home. Watching passersby shoot indignant glares in your direction because they think you’re lazy.

Maybe people who are homeless should be pointing their fingers at us.

I wish this scenario was a work of fiction. Unfortunately, it’s not.

Since 2007, the 50-square-block neighborhood in downtown Los Angeles known as “Skid Row” has been struggling with a TB outbreak that has infected nearly 80 people and killed 11, most whom are homeless. 

Last week, public health officials were searching for more than 4,500 people who were probably exposed to the deadly disease, in hopes of providing testing and treatment.

Housing programs in the Los Angeles region, such as the ones I run, have been on high alert. New individuals entering programs are screened for TB, staff maintain “cough lists” of residents who have even a slight chance of being infected, and those deemed to be at risk are immediately sent to local clinics, especially during flu season.

It’s a scary time to be homeless in Los Angeles.

As if struggling to survive on the streets wasn’t scary enough, now a deadly epidemic is attacking the health of people who are homeless. Living on the street is more dangerous than ever.

You would think the United States would rally support for these suffering people. They are not only victims of a devastating economy that has caused many to lose their homes, they are victims of a disease that is running rampant through the homeless population.

But fighting an epidemic among people experiencing homelessness is not viewed the same way as supporting victims of a hurricane or an earthquake. No Red Cross campaigns will raise money to help. No groups of compassionate people will volunteer to help locate the 4,500 people who have been exposed.

Instead, Angelenos’ attention is focused on local political races or the city’s lackluster basketball team. The region just counted the local homeless population in January, but few residents even bothered to take notice.

What will it take to get their attention?

The baseball bat beatings of people who are homeless didn’t do it. Neither did the heat waves that left people dying on the streets. Apparently, a health epidemic that lasts for years, kills nearly a dozen people, and exposes thousands more won’t do it either.

Some people think the best way to invoke the nation’s concern is to make ending homelessness about economics. There is certainly a sound argument to be made. By housing our homeless neighbors, society could save significant public funds that are currently going toward hospitalization costs, emergency room visits, and other services for people experiencing homelessness. Moving people off the streets makes economic sense.

Would a story about housing the homeless population and connecting them with healthcare make for as good a novel as a deadly epidemic sweeping the streets? Maybe not.

But it would certainly make a better reality.

Photo by: Franck Blais

I wonder if we’d notice that there were no more people camped out under freeway overpasses. No more tents propped up against the chain-link fences surrounding empty lots.

I wonder if we would miss the people who stand beside freeway off-ramps holding tattered cardboard signs that ask for money, food, or work. Or if we’d wonder what happened to all those run-down RVs with the windows blocked by newspaper.

I wonder what it would be like if I had to live on the streets. If I lost my home because I received a pink slip at work and couldn’t pay my rent.

I wonder where I could find a safe place to sleep at night in a scary, violent city. In the dumpster behind a Walmart? No wonder so many people on the streets head to safer places like the beach, parks, and suburban neighborhoods.

I wonder what it would be like if I had two young children with me while I searched for shelter. No wonder many homeless families huddle in their cars, often their last material possessions. It seems much safer than staying in a shelter with 200 strange adults or, God forbid, letting their kids sleep unsheltered on the city’s streets.

I wonder what it would be like if homelessness was ended.

I wonder what it would be like if every homeless shelter and program had to shut down, not because of lack of funding, but because there was no one left in need of help. If all the shelter beds were empty because no one needed them any longer.

I wonder what the homelessness advocates and service workers would do. Perhaps they would become teachers, or County social workers, or firefighters, or international aid workers.

I wonder if this country could ever imagine, I mean clearly picture, a nation without homelessness. Maybe if we closed our eyes, and saw empty streets and empty shelters, it could actually become a reality.

I wonder.

Do these lists really have an impact on our personal lives?

With homelessness still rampant throughout our country, a top ten list about how this country is working its way toward ending homelessness certainly affects most Americans.

Here are the Top Ten Steps this country made toward ending homelessness in 2012:

10. Social Impact Bonds (SIB) are changing the business of ending homelessness. It used to be that charities would beg for money through direct mail pieces. With SIBs, private investors put their resources into social programs. If the programs succeed, the investors get their money back with interest. It’s a new way of funding charitable programs, and a new way of defining “return on investment.”

9. Changing the definition of homelessness. This year, the federal government changed the meaning of “homelessness,” expanding the definition and consequently providing more homeless Americans with access to federal resources — like families living in motels or individuals staying on friends’ couches.

8. Preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place is cheaper than waiting to help until after they end up on the street. Although the government’s Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) ended this year, it prevented one million Americans from becoming homeless.

7. Obamacare = Homelesscare. The Supreme Court upheld most of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which means homeless Americans will have access to Medicaid (healthcare programs) in 2014.

6. Homeless youth became a national priority when the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness created a strategic plan specifically for this population.

5. Veteran homelessness is decreasing. With the U.S. government seeking to end veteran homelessness by 2015, the numbers are going in the right direction whether the goal is met in time or not.

4. America’s “ground zero” of homelessness, also known as Los Angeles, is getting its act together. Most experts have acknowledged that America’s homelessness problem cannot seriously be addressed without housing L.A.’s more than 50,000 homeless residents. The local United Way and Chamber of Commerce joined forces to create “Home For Good,” a heroic plan to realign the area’s resources to better help people experiencing homelessness. And it’s working.

3. The most expensive Presidential election in history ($2 billion!)  just ended. Some experts link the reduction in charity giving to election cycles, because people would rather give to their favorite candidate than to charities. With the election over, Americans can refocus their monetary contributions on social good.

2. Prioritizing America’s most vulnerable has become the standard. A few years ago, the term “vulnerable” was not in a homelessness agency’s lexicon. This year, the 100K Homes Campaign has nearly reached 25% of its goal to house 100,000 of the most vulnerable homeless people in America. The effort has radically changed the way homelessness agencies decide who needs to be housed first. Of course, it should be those who are the most vulnerable.

1. Compassion is back. When a NYPD cop was photographed buying shoes for a lone, shoeless man on the sidewalk, his act of compassion went viral. The NYPD Facebook page received 320,000 new likes, 77,000 shares, and 20,000 comments. After three decades of homelessness in America, are we ready to turn our compassion into ending homelessness for good?

In 2012, we made many small steps. Let’s hope that 2013 becomes one giant leap toward ending homelessness in our country.

That day of giving thanks is the day there is no hunger, at least for those who can make it to a rescue mission, homeless shelter, or public feeding program. Mashed potatoes and gravy for all, complete with oven-roasted turkey and canned cranberry sauce. The smell of the melted butter on the corn and the taste of sweet pumpkin pie with ice cream lingers long after the meal itself is complete.

Everyone is smiling and happy, like the set of some 1960′s family television show. Volunteers, with their wonderful smiles, scoop food onto paper plates. They pour as much soda and bottled water as their guests can drink. It’s so great for them to spend a part of their Thanksgiving providing food to those who are homeless.

Some in the line are lucky enough to be served by famous faces, while public relations agents steer news crews toward the celebrities scooping mashed potatoes. Without the magic of lighting and professional make-up artists, they look just like everyone else.

And, yes, there are even political leaders wielding serving spoons. This is often the one day out of the year that political officials spend a few hours serving and talking with their most vulnerable constituents.

Of the 365 days a year spent sleeping on the streets, Thanksgiving must be one of the best—a full stomach, real conversation with other people, and celebrities and politicians providing the royal treatment.

But after the trays of turkey and bowls of mashed potatoes are empty, after all the volunteers return to their families to celebrate a “real” Thanksgiving meal, the magic of Thanksgiving comes to an end.

Tomorrow has come.

Some of the volunteers join Black Friday shopping lines. Some even set up tents along the sidewalk so they can comfortably wait through the night for the mall doors to open. They’ve got to nab that flat-screen television, with its 50% discount.

Those who were served meals also head to tents on the sidewalk, but under very different circumstances. They hole up for warmth until government officials tire of their unsightly camps and send in the cavalry, also known as law enforcement, to clean up the streets.

Real life takes place “tomorrow,” in the 364 days after Thanksgiving.

Throughout the year, many savor that one meal at which they were treated like royalty and talked to like true citizens of this fine city. For one day, celebrities acted like their groupies and politicians spoke with them like they were millionaire donors.

It reminds me of the way I felt when, as a small child on the day after Christmas, I told my mother, “I wish every day was Christmas Day!” I’m sure many of our neighbors living on the streets right now are wishing every day was like Thanksgiving Day.

Of course, it could be.

There might not be any celebrities or millionaire donor treatment, but every day could potentially bring the joy of living a respected and dignified life.

The truth is, that feeling is not the result of a feast once a year. Every day becomes Thanksgiving Day once that person served in the food line receives the keys to his own apartment.

Then he (or she!) can honestly and enthusiastically say, “I can’t wait until tomorrow!”

If you need to reduce credit card debt, design a personal budget where you spend less than you earn. If you want to lose weight, create a diet where you burn more calories than you consume.

On a national level, the same concept holds true.

Take one of this country’s most deplorable current social issues: homelessness. The federal government distributes about $1.5 billion per year in financial assistance in order to address homelessness around the country through Continuum of Care grants.

Common sense suggests that the government should invest these funds in the communities where homelessness is most acute. But are they doing that? Sadly, no.

Just look at Los Angeles County. This region has more than 50,000 people experiencing homelessness, which is just over 8 percent of the total homeless population in the country. Common sense would dictate that this community should receive 8 percent of federal homelessness resources.

But, in this case, common sense does not prevail. In 2011, Los Angeles received $75 million to help its homeless population. That’s 5 percent of the total federal allocation.

Why? Are these federal officials who live in freezing winters just jealous of Angelenos and their temperate weather? Perhaps their justification is that homeless individuals are better off sleeping on the white sands of Southern California’s beaches than the frozen, concrete sidewalks of New York City?

Actually, the distribution formula is not based on bias against homeless Southern Californians. The

allocation is based on a formula created by pencil-sharpening bureaucrats 25 years ago.

That’s correct, the federal government is determining where homelessness is most prevalent based on a 1987 mathematical equation. Back then, a gallon of gasoline was 89 cents, a postage stamp cost 24 cents, and the average monthly rent was $395 (without rent control)!

I can just imagine some white collar government accountants with thick glasses and plastic pencil holders in their shirt pockets creating Soviet-like ten- and twenty-year projections for where federal dollars should be allocated in order to help the poorest of the poor.

They used variables like population size, poverty rates, population growth lag, and

number of housing units built before 1940. These numbers were probably great poverty indicators in a time when the price of a house was the same as the price as one of today’s luxury cars.

But, since homelessness is so much more complicated today, those old formulas just don’t work.

Today, we need a new way of allocating federal resources toward ending homelessness. Instead of a slide rule (if you even know what that is) approach, we need an iPad approach to distribution.

We need to look at communities that are filled with poverty, overwhelmed by overcrowded housing units, and have a shortage of affordable housing. Advocates around the country are promoting this simpler, more transparent formula.

It will work for today’s world, though in 25 years yet another new approach will likely need to be developed, or the advocates of 2037 may well look at us as old, out-of-touch iPad-toting bureaucrats.

Photo by dudegalea.

Take Justin Timberlake’s wedding with Jessica Biel, for example. The nuptials of these A-list celebrities should have resulted in tweets, blog articles, and tabloid rag photos filled with what dress was Jessica wearing and who was lucky to be part of the select group of guests.

Instead, a longtime friend of Justin’s paid individuals living on the streets of Hollywood to make fun of homelessness and pretend to be sending well wishes to the couple on video. (If you are homeless, $40 is a lot of money to simply read a short, seconds-long script into a video camera.)

The video ended up on YouTube, Gawker, and TMZ. That’s like getting every gossip-hungry family member and neighbor together to broadcast their own tweets, blogs, and Facebook announcements of your most embarrassing secret. It went global.

Sure, some people may think a simple fraternity club-type prank should not be taken so seriously. It is not like someone put a gun to the head of the video’s so-called actors. And the actors really did need the $40.

It is sort of like China and Japan arguing over the fact that one country bought from current landowners the Diaoyu Islands, small tiny islands just north of Taiwan. If you looked on Google maps for these rocks they would be the size of a tiny darkened pixel on your computer screen. The argument over the right to purchase land, however, has deeper, more historical territorial ownership issues. That’s why thousands of Chinese have boycotted Japanese products and overturned popular Japanese vehicles. (In other words, don’t rent a Toyota Camry if you plan to drive in China.)

So also, the idea of creating a funny, purely innocent videotape of people who are homeless is, in itself not globally significant. But on the other hand, derogatory homeless videos have deeper, more historical civil rights issues. Just remember the bum fights videos ten years ago, where video producers paid people who were homeless to fight on tape. A sad example of exploitation.

Justin Timberlake was correct to post a formal, very compassionate apology on his website and on video. Even though he did not actually create the video, the fact that he was associated with it and the sensitive understanding of the significance of creating pranks with hurting people, justified a world-wide apology. Timberlake just became Hollywood’s Chief of Diplomacy. (We are still waiting for some sort of apology in the Asian dispute.)

The moral of this story? If you are lucky enough to have more money than you could ever spend, and have a name and face that nearly everyone can recognize, then be careful how you interact with people who are living in poverty or are homeless.

At the bare minimum, use George Clooney as an example, who recently stepped out of a New York City restaurant after eating dinner with his partner, talked with a man who was homeless and gave him some money.

Woody Harrelson performed a similar compassionate act this past summer when he gave a woman who was homeless $600 in New York’s Hell’s Kitchen district.

Or, to make a more significant impact in helping those who are less fortunate, copy Jon Bon Jovi, who created a foundation to help house veterans who are homeless on America’s streets.

Now, that is what I call a positive collision between a celebrity and people who are homeless.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

I need you.

Sometimes my stomach growls with hunger because I need food. It’s ironic that this country struggles with weight when so many other people go hungry.

I need you.

I need a roof and walls to shelter me. A place where I can hang my hat (if I had one), kick off my shoes, and watch the evening news. Sure, it’s a pain in the neck to have to vacuum and clean on a regularly basis…but it sure beats life on the streets.

Yes, I need you.

I need encouragement and support when it comes to employment. It used to be that finding a job was as easy as putting together a resume and dressing up for an interview. But, in the current economy, being fully employed is not something to take for granted

I really need you.

I’m not a hermit or a loner, I need to feel connected to my community. I need people who will discuss today’s issues—local politics, the environment, or even who will is going to win the big game this weekend.

I need you.

I need healthcare when I get sick. The winter months are coming, and that means flu season is just around the corner. Access to services that can keep me healthy are incredibly important.

I need you.

I need to be able to hold my head high and feel proud that I’m contributing to society. I know that promoting dignity can sometimes seem like a cliché, but I do want to feel worthy. I need to feel like I am somebody.

I am in need.

But I am not a person who is homeless, hungry, and unsheltered. I am lucky to be housed, employed, and able to eat each day.

My basic needs are the same as that person living on the streets. We are not so different after all.

So when I see people standing at the freeway off-ramp holding a ragged piece of cardboard asking for spare change, I cringe. Not because I feel that person is imposing on my personal values, but because I empathize with people who are so desperate for help they must resort to begging on the streets.

Standing on a street corner with a plea for help scrawled on a scrap of cardboard announces to the world that you are so poor you need a handout. Who wants to broadcast their desperation and open themselves up to the scorn of their neighbors? Who wants to advertise the fact that they can’t afford rent, or even their next meal?

It’s embarrassing. Other people driving by with their late-model German sedans glare like the people on the corner are asking to move into their spare bedroom for free.  All they really want is some change to purchase their next meal.

So they stand on the corner, ashamed and vulnerable. Holding onto a sign that broadcasts the hard times onto which they have fallen, knowing that passersby think they’re alcoholics, criminals, or just lazy.

But, when you think about it, the organizations working to help those people who are forced to beg on our streets really aren’t that different.

We, the benevolent caretakers of people hurting on the streets, do our own form of panhandling. We send out letters asking for money. We tweet and post our stories on Facebook, hoping they will inspire people to give a few dollars. We talk about the people we serve with generous philanthropists, with the goal of receiving a big check.

We, the service providers, do an awful lot of begging ourselves. The only difference is that we don’t do it on the streets, or from a place of vulnerability or weakness.

But perhaps we should. Perhaps those of us who are working to end homelessness should walk in the shoes of the people we want to empower. Maybe we should hold ragged cardboard signs on street corners, so those who are truly hurting don’t have to.

Maybe those of us who are housed should hold a sign that states: “I feel safe; I feel loved; I’m collecting for someone who doesn’t.”

Those who are living a life of homelessness have enough to worry about, like finding their next meal, or figuring out where they will sleep tonight.

If we, who are housed, really want to protect those who are un-housed, perhaps we should walk in their shoes and protect their dignity by standing on the street corner for them.

Of course, panhandling is not the ultimate solution. The best way to protect a person who is homeless is to house them.

Photo by Dean Terry.