The Ames City Council recently tabled a discussion that would implement a ban on sleeping and camping on public property, opting to allow further debate and analysis of potential solutions instead of implementing a sweeping ban.

This is for the better. Criminalizing homelessness not only fails to fix the core problems that create the conditions for homelessness in the first place, but it also contravenes basic morality. 

Ward 2 Rep. Tim Gartin brought the homeless camping ban before the council after “he noticed an increase in activity in front of the Ames Public Library, noting that he’s seen 12 to 15 individuals sleeping there at night.” Gartin said that he’s been “downtown for almost 20 years” and that “he’s never seen anything like this… Frankly, we were all caught by surprise. We didn’t know if it was a fluke or if it would go away, but it didn’t.”

To hope “it” would go away is the fundamental problem with the current framing of the issue of homelessness. Gartin claims “We always want to operate out of a posture of kindness and compassion” but that “we have other interests to balance as well.”

What other interests are more important than moral considerations? Gartin’s complaint is fundamentally about aesthetics. Too many people simply want the homeless populations to disappear without any consideration of where they could possibly go, solely because the reality of living on the streets is not attractive. This moral framework is obviously not a sufficient basis on which to create effective policy. 

Some Ames residents, like Jessie Knapp, have stressed this point, emphasizing that a homelessness ban is “not leadership, and it is inhumane.” Knapp asks: “Why do we live in a society where people have to live outside, and people who sleep in warm beds every night get to decide to make their lives worse?” 

Knapp illuminates how competing interests like the kind Gartin outlines are fundamentally incompatible with basic morality and how such interests misinform policy and can actually make the problem worse. He argues that homelessness in Ames only experienced an uptick after Des Moines passed similar legislation in September and that the subsequent uptick in homelessness in Ames “wasn’t a coincidence.”

In fact, lawmakers in Des Moines are also concerned about the anti-homeless measures proposed by a Texas-based conservative think tank named the Cicero Institute. Though it is “unlikely to pass this session,” according to Rep. Steve Holt, advocates of the policy are clearly sending a message in regards to how they plan to “fix” homelessness. Holt continues to say about the bill:

“I suppose you could argue it’s criminalizing homelessness, but the whole point is not to criminalize homelessness, but again, to move people into sheltered services or into the encampment if there’s no shelters available, where there’s actually hygiene and there’s actually running water and there’s actually services of those kind, which seemed way better to me than living on the side of the street.”

Unfortunately for Holt and company, details of how these shelters would come to fruition matter – and the opaque assertions of what the bill’s goals are not enough to ease the concerns of its critics. Even Dennis Tibben – who represents the Cicero Institute – could only muster a vague outline of what the bill would look like in action. According to the Des Moines Register:

“Tibben said the bill is intended to help communities support Iowans struggling with homelessness by ensuring consistent statewide policies, including basic minimum services, and offer more transparency in how public homelessness dollars are used.” He further emphasized that the bill “is not intended to criminalize homelessness” but to “move folks off the street and connect them with shelters” but doesn’t outline how that will actually be done. 

However, if we analyze why homelessness is a problem in the first place, these unclear goals seem to provide no guidance toward reasonable solutions. In theory, moving people into shelters is a sound idea, but this may conflict with local ordinances already in place and result in shelters being quickly overwhelmed. The bill, according to Des Moines City Manager Scott Sanders, “is penalty-driven to enforce compliance, and there’s really a lack of the preventative side and the measures and service levels that could be helpful.”

Ames, for example, already “has ordinances prohibiting camping on public property, primarily aimed at addressing construction and obstruction” but also ordinances that “apply more broadly.”

Additionally, a report by the Iowa Finance Authority finds that “another $77.3 million to $91.1 million is needed to fill gaps in homeless services statewide.” A different study done by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University determines that, nationally, housing “is unaffordable for a record half of all U.S. renters.” Even Republican Senator Dave Sires said he was “shocked” by what was in the bill, which included fines up to $855 for “people who really don’t have any money.” The problem isn’t the existence of homeless people but the reality that homelessness is the only option some people have – and banning homelessness in certain places doesn’t correct it in others.  

If other cities in Iowa are rejecting this legislation, so should Ames. Even though the proposals would not be the exact same as they are in Des Moines, more data and research are needed to generate substantive solutions. Compassion and empathy should be the foremost factors driving our decision-making – not simple factors like aesthetics. No one wishes to be homeless and the argument that banning homeless fixes the issue is a complete non-sequitur. It’s time we do the right thing and treat our homeless population as human beings, not simple pests that we have to get rid of.