In 1984, Mario Cuomo delivered a speech in which he described America as a “Tale of Two Cities.” On the one hand, America appeared to be Reagan’s ‘Shining City on a Hill,’ full of splendor and opportunity for all.  But, there was another part of the city representing America’s landscape, a part of the city that was often overlooked, underrepresented, and forgotten among those who were out of touch with the realities of this country.  It was a part of the city where some people couldn’t pay their mortgages or rent; where there were more poor than ever; where people slept in the streets, and even died in the gutter.

Here we are 25 years later, and we only need to look as far as Central Texas to see that America hasn't changed much. We are facing the worst economic times since the depression, and homelessness, foreclosures and unemployment continue to rise. Over 1.5 million children in our country don’t have a home, and on any given night 200,000 veterans sleep on the streets. This combined population is larger than the cities of Dallas or San Antonio, and over twice as large as our entire Congressional District.  These are staggering numbers, to be sure, but tonight I would like to focus on two basic approaches our local governments have taken to address the problem of homelessness.

The most common approach is to pass legislation and advance policies that only attack the symptoms of the problem.  Laws are created to “clean up the streets” by merely kicking the homeless down the road to the next community or by temporarily removing the homeless from sight by incarcerating them in our already-crowded jail system. Some of these laws prohibit activities such as sleeping, camping, sitting or begging. Some have even created laws against sharing food to restrict the activities of charitable organizations trying to feed the hungry. Of course, this approach, which essentially criminalizes the poor is problematic for several reasons.  First, it assumes that the problem of homelessness is fixed when we don’t see as many people sleeping on our streets, when, in fact, we know that the same people will still be homeless in the next community down the road and we know they will still be homeless when they are released from custody.  And, by the way, conservative estimates suggest that roughly 10% of our prison population is homeless, and at a cost of roughly $25 per day per inmate, the homeless population in prison alone is costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars every year.

Second, this “out of sight, out of mind” approach to homelessness assumes that by only treating the symptoms of homelessness in a reactive fashion, we save taxpayers’ money.  But one need only look at our emergency rooms to see that an inordinate amount of people pouring through the doors are people with untreated mental illnesses and addictions who have nowhere else to go, which then adds to the skyrocketing cost of healthcare in this country and detracts from the level of care each of us receives.

Similarly, even many good-intentioned charitable agencies that provide services to meet the basic needs of homeless people are only addressing the immediate symptoms, rather than working in conjunction with other agencies to capitalize on combined resources and taking a holistic approach to helping the homeless.  As a business owner, I can tell you that this approach is simply too inefficient to be sustainable, and that is part of the reason a person without a home may be able to get reading glasses, but then the appropriate agency or nonprofit organization isn’t told the person can’t read in the first place.  Simply put, this decentralized approach to care for the homeless may be creating more problems than it’s solving, and meanwhile, it’s operating at a much higher cost than is necessary.

Now let’s talk about a more innovative and holistic approach.  Governments taking this approach have made a commitment to addressing the root causes of homelessness, and they created a more streamlined system that could better provide for the needs of people experiencing homelessness.  They saw the numerous benefits in creating a sort of “one-stop shopping” venue in which most, if not all, of the service agencies who deal with issues related to homelessness are able to share information and resources to provide a wellspring of care for each homeless person, and they found that this approach actually saves taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

One might think that this approach can only exist as an ideal, as a pie in the sky kind of place that could never exist in reality.  But the fact of the matter is that we are beginning to see projects like this crop up in places that were once entrenched in the stale ideas and practices of the outdated approach.

For example, just down the road in San Antonio, we are lucky enough to have a model for the country with the Haven for Hope project. Started privately by one man with a vision, and now with a diverse coalition of government officials, businesses, nonprofits, and community volunteers this campus facility treats the root causes of homelessness by providing over 70 social services in a single and central location. A homeless family can more easily transition to self-reliance with available services that address mental health, addiction, job training, shelter, food and healthcare, to only name a few.  Judges can even sentence criminals to rehabilitate in this facility instead of sending them to prison. And Haven for Hope is getting results: as of now, they are reporting a 60% success rate—that is, 6 in 10 of those people who go through their system will have at least a year of totally self-sufficient living.This innovative approach is spreading and the Haven for Hope campus in San Antonio is just one among several spreading across the country.

The contrast between these two approaches couldn’t be clearer, and it will take forward-thinking Representatives in Congress to help support programs like Haven for Hope with legislation at a Federal level. With new laws such as the Bring America Home Act and the Rural Homeless Assistance Act, which establish important goals for addressing this issue, among others already passed and those yet to come, our government agencies, businesses, and concerned communities will get the tools they need to beat back the forces of indifference that prey on the vulnerable, the down and out, and the almost-forgotten.

And so, I would like to conclude by saying that even though every indication suggests America is still a ‘tale of two cities’, we can and we must make progress toward realizing an American future in which we recognize that we are One City, young and old, rich and poor, and that we may truly become a city shining on a hill when everyone is welcome at the table of equality and prosperity.