Photo Credit: Ross D. Franklin
Much has been made about homelessness in Scottsdale; it was a central platform piece of several people running for City Council and became a talking point of several state legislators. And while the extent of the issue within the city was overstated, the fear that it could spread was an effective one, as shown by the success of the candidates who talked most about it.
Now we have additional information as to the extent of the problem, and while there is some concerning news it should also be placed in the proper context.
Scottsdale’s latest Point-in-Time count shows a worrying uptick in unsheltered individuals, marking the third consecutive year of increases. This most recent count puts the number at 105 homeless people within the city limits. The trend mirrors a countywide surge of 28%, with Maricopa County now home to over 5,200 people without shelter.
Stakeholders say it’s time to go beyond counting: we should be comprehending root causes and expanding capacity. While pointing out that a 400% jump in nearby Fountain Hills had a low base, the increase there still highlights regional distress. But how does this compare to other places? How bad is the problem really?
The current count comes out to one homeless person for every 2,323 residents. While we are loathe to compare the city to larger cities, considering our relative wealth and high standard of living, it does help put it into greater context.
On a per capita basis, Phoenix has over five times more homeless people than Scottsdale. With one homeless person for every 269 residents, the Denver metro area is dealing with a homeless problem that is about 9 times worse than Scottsdale. And to a more extreme example, Los Angeles County has one homeless person for every 128 residents, which calculates to a rate that is over 18 times worse than Scottsdale.
Should we be comparing those cities to Scottsdale? It’s certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison, but perhaps you will find it illuminating as well as a bit comforting.
Scottsdale now faces a pivotal question: will it match the worry with action? It should certainly do something, but it should also keep a level head as to the degree (or relative lack thereof) of the extent of the problem.