In early January, the City of Minneapolis decided to clear out a homeless encampment named Camp Nenookaasi in Ventura Village for the sake of “public health and safety” according to CBS news. Encampments around the metro were closed in early December, due to reports of unsafe environments. Though the city posits shutting down Nenookaasi was the best solution for stability, it’s little more than pandering to public opinion.

Decades of research and debate over how to handle homelessness in the U.S. have concluded that cities’ attempts to place homeless people into shelters and place them out of sight have been wildly ineffective. Although tent camps aren’t safe, especially in the Minnesota winter, closing them and forcing inhabitants out isn’t the answer. A 2019 paper found that solutions that fund affordable housing, give homeless people choices about where to live, and provide resources to get jobs, clothes, and food, are the most effective. Minneapolis’s solution involves relocating everyone into shelters, which ticks exactly none of those boxes. To make matters worse, shelters limit who can get in—though the U.N. sanctioned right to shelter isn’t limited based on sobriety, most homeless shelters are. They also limit how many belongings one can bring in, and shelters are impermanent solutions because the availability of beds varies on a night-to-night basis. 

So why, exactly, do municipalities ignore this? 

It comes down to optics. Radical acceptance of homeless people, which is required to make a difference, doesn’t make for marketable politics—but taking a tough-on-crime stance to “preserve public safety” does. Minneapolis’s Chief of Police Brian O’Hara has previously stated that his strategy when engaging with tent camps is based on making the city “feel safer.” Camp Nenoosaaki is a prime example of this ideology; the closing was specifically based on reports from the public about alleged shootings and unsanitariness around the encampment. How the public talks about camps like Nenoosaaki frames politicians’ responses; when we, as citizens, complain that homeless people have the audacity to be in our line of sight, that informs elected officials. 

For years, activists and researchers have been crying out, telling politicians that their tactics are ineffective methods that don’t get to the root of the problem. It’s easy to pretend as though the issue is helpless, or that there’s no way to change these tactics. Even so, the public should remember why politicians make these decisions. Because the narrative surrounding homelessness often paints homeless people as lazy, pitiful, and unworthy of the government’s support, most of the public is unwilling to hear proactive solutions. Instead, policies that support homeless people are now seen as socialist handouts. This means that while the politicians have vested interests in sweeping homelessness under the rug—making the city look “cleaner” and “safer” is the usual reasoning—more compassionate policies aren’t accepted. Changing our perceptions of homeless people is the only way to change the incentives for how politicians address homelessness in local communities. Until we all change our narratives about homelessness, we can’t expect politicians to do any better.

This piece was originally published in Zephyrus’ print edition on February 21, 2024.