Extreme weather and displacing climate-related events are becoming more and more common, introducing unparalleled stress on an already strained housing market.
Soaring rental and property prices, bloated interest rates, exorbitant mortgages—it’s plain that the housing crisis has reached new levels of severity. Half of U.S. renters spend 30% or more of their income on rent, while nearly 20% of all homeowners are cost-burdened. Recent data shows the country coping with a shocking shortage of 4 to 7 million homes.
Meanwhile, the rate of natural disasters and extreme weather events has drastically increased, bringing unprecedented destruction of property and homes as well as widespread human displacement. In the past five years, the U.S. has experienced an average of 18 billion-dollar climate disasters per year. In 2023 alone, an estimated 2.5 million Americans were forced out of their homes due to weather-related disasters.
Although these two crises may seem distinct from one another, the record number of destructive climate-related emergencies has a direct impact on the housing shortage. If these trends continue on both fronts without significant improvements in housing and insurance policy, affordable housing will become increasingly scarce and displaced populations will be unequipped to recover from disaster—particularly disadvantaged and low-income communities.
Natural Disaster: A “Housing Crisis Multiplier”
Those in lower income brackets who need affordable housing the most are at the highest risk of prolonged displacement in the wake of disaster. A massive shortage of 7.3 million affordable, available rental homes lies at the root of the problem. To make matters worse, affordable housing developments are more likely to be built in disaster-prone areas and are far less likely to be rebuilt after a damaging event.
In a report examining the circumstances surrounding these harsh realities, the Center for American Progress views extreme weather as an “affordable housing crisis multiplier.” Communities most directly affected by structurally racist and classist practices and policies are also the most vulnerable to destructive natural disasters: these neighborhoods are often developed in or near flood-prone areas and heat islands. In the case of an extreme weather event razing low-income housing or rental buildings, emergency relief funds and insurance payouts are typically distributed to wealthier homeowners, in effect displacing those low-income groups with little to no housing support or adequate long-term solutions.
Even properties that were initially developed specifically to meet the needs of lower-income communities have over time become unattainable. One analysis shows approximately 60% of 15 million low-cost rental units that existed in 1985 were no longer affordable by 2013.
These patterns not only perpetuate displacement and housing poverty among vulnerable communities. Increasingly common natural disasters also exacerbate the unsheltered homelessness crisis by both depleting housing supply and compounding physical and mental health challenges for those living unhoused.
Ultimately, the amplifying effects that disasters have on our inadequate housing supply only further illustrate the socioeconomic disparities and unstable foundation of the current real estate market—one that is entirely inaccessible to many lower income residents.
Climate-Related Disasters Stress an Already Strained Market
The coupling of low affordable housing inventory and high demand and prices is intensified by climate-related events. If a disaster depletes available housing in a desirable locale, prices are likely to skyrocket. Experts have even estimated that rents can double overnight due to displaced residents.
These extremes are best demonstrated in at-risk areas of the country such as Florida, California, and Southern Texas, which are vulnerable to destructive disasters and climate impacts as well as subject to inflated property values. This renders these areas attainable only for wealthy populations who can afford heightened prices and costly disaster insurance.
Insurance agencies and lenders stand at the core of an impending shift in the market, placing attainable housing even further out of reach for low-income renters and potential homeowners. The risks of flooding and wildfires have led experts to predict a “climate bubble” for real estate, with the possibility of a massive crash in home values based on a property’s likelihood of being struck by disaster. One 2023 study found that national property prices are overvalued by between $121 billion and $237 billion when compared to their actual flood risk.
In regions like Louisiana, Florida, and California, the high frequency of wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding has already made homeowner’s insurance prohibitively expensive or simply impossible to obtain. If insurers and lenders pull out of these areas and subsequently reassess property and home values based on disaster vulnerability, people are likely to face enormous losses in their assets. This, in turn, has the potential to activate mass panic selling and a market crash comparable to the 2008 recession.
In this volatile and imbalanced market, alternative options that can accommodate vulnerable and displaced populations are urgently needed—regardless of socioeconomic status or quality of insurance.
Interim Models as Paths to Recovery
A number of steps can be made to improve outcomes for all residents and mitigate a deteriorating market in the wake of natural disasters. Developing robust preparedness strategies that prioritize the well-being of vulnerable communities, including those experiencing homelessness and housing instability, is one such measure.
By creating more equitable options for those displaced by extreme weather and climate-related disaster, communities can build true resilience. Instead of housing survivors and responders in cost-prohibitive hotel rooms and rental properties, which is expensive for taxpayers and disrupts local economic recovery, interim shelter and housing models enable residents to stay within their community. This rapid, cost-effective, and dignified option allows displaced individuals and families a private living space while attainable permanent housing is rebuilt.
Natural disasters, extreme weather, and a shortage of adequate and attainable housing are issues that are sure to persist or even worsen. The only path forward is to embrace innovative strategies that meet the immediate needs of vulnerable populations and those displaced by climate-related events, providing relief and stability while enough permanent housing is built for everyone.
Treating homelessness as a crime is costly, ineffective, and does nothing to solve the root causes of this crisis. Now, more than ever, is the time to invest in real solutions.
Communities have long understood the implications of criminalizing homelessness. Even so, recent state- and federal-level policies—which permit incarceration as a response to people living outdoors in public spaces—ignore the fact that this approach is not a solution. Rather, it perpetuates cycles of poverty, addiction, incarceration, and, ultimately, homelessness.
Reenforcing this broken system is as costly as it is ineffective. Not only will parks, recreation trails, and city streets continue to be misused, taxpayer costs will spike due to increased encampment sweeps and putting unhoused individuals in jail and prison.
It’s long overdue to focus efforts and funding on real solutions: provision of stable shelter, housing, and supportive services that enable vulnerable populations to contribute to the economy and community at large.
Perpetuating Ineffective and Unjust Systems
Current policies seeking to justify the criminalization of homelessness willfully ignore the failure of past efforts. Punitive measures including incarceration, encampment sweeps, and implementing cruel initiatives like hostile architecture simply propagate a broken system that pushes unhoused individuals further from stable housing and employment.
A significant part of this inefficacy is the fact that incarceration is, in many cases, a direct path to becoming unhoused. This “revolving door” effect has long been observed. Findings indicate that while a person who has been incarcerated a single time is nearly seven times more likely to experience homelessness compared to the general public, if that same person is jailed a second time, the rate spikes to 13 times higher. This means that if people are incarcerated on the grounds of living unsheltered multiple times, they are virtually guaranteed to return to the streets upon exiting the prison system.
Encampment sweeps, or the municipal practice of clearing public spaces of tents and other temporary or improvised structures, share the same level of ineffectiveness. When people living in these unsanctioned camps are forcibly moved, they often will relocate to another site. This of course accomplishes nothing but moving unsheltered groups from one location to another. A recent example in Washington D.C. illustrates this reality: after clearing out roughly 74 people living in McPherson Square, an estimated two-thirds of the group were still believed to be sleeping on the street.
It is fair that community members want to preserve their parks and recreation areas, especially considering they are not designed as living spaces and often lack adequate hygiene facilities, running water, and waste disposal services for unsheltered communities. However, when no alternative options are offered in conjunction with sweeps, the same displaced populations are likely to return to previous encampment sites.
As evidenced, the only true actionable solutions are building more affordable housing to mitigate the shortage of over 7 million rental units and creating broader, more equitable service programming for vulnerable and low-income populations. Offering transitional models such as emergency interim shelter with integrated service provision is another underutilized approach that creates pathways to more permanent housing. Incarceration, sweeps, and all other punitive approaches unequivocally fail to address these root causes or any of the conditions that exacerbate chronic homelessness such as substance use disorder, institutional racism, and generational poverty.
Futile Allocation of Public Funds
In addition to being ineffective and inhumane, incarceration (and the municipal, administrative, and reverberating economic costs associated with it) is far more expensive than simply building more housing. Many cities across the U.S. have reported dramatic cost savings to taxpayers when a focus was placed on providing more housing rather than cycling unhoused populations through jails, prisons, and the healthcare system.
One report released by the NYC Comptroller’s Office that shows the daily costs per-person of different approaches displays the cost-effectiveness of housing provision: compared to the $68 and $136 daily operating costs of permanent supportive housing and emergency shelter, respectively, one day of incarceration at Riker’s Island costs $1,414 and one day of hospitalization costs $3,609.
Another example in Denver indicates a similar trend. The study focused on individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who were in frequent interaction with the criminal legal system and emergency health services. When that group was enrolled in a city-operated supportive housing program, annual per-person costs for public resources such as jail, the court system, police, and emergency medical services lowered by $6,876.
Truthfully, the societal costs of incarceration go much deeper than daily operations and administrative fees. An estimated $370 billion each year is lost for people who have a criminal conviction or have spent time in prison—an enormous sum that could be spent on educational opportunities, buying a home, or a number of other economic investments that foster growth and community improvement. And when considering the massive amount of consequential loss associated with incarceration due to forgone wages, adverse health effects, and developmental challenges of children with incarcerated parents, the aggregate cost burden is believed to be roughly one trillion dollars.
These studies are incontrovertible proof that substituting jail and prison for housing is a gross misappropriation of taxpayer dollars, while providing no observable positive effects on solving homelessness.
True Solutions are Rehabilitative, Not Punitive
For years, it has been evident that real solutions focus on rehabilitating vulnerable populations, not jailing them. Time and time again, it’s shown that the solution is cheaper—fiscally and societally—than the problem. Comprehensive research has proven that criminalizing homelessness is expensive, wasteful of limited public resources, and harmful to public health and safety.
Now is the time to focus our collective efforts and funding on real solutions: creating broader shelter and housing models alongside comprehensive supportive services for displaced populations. Only then will we be able to observe progress in ending this crisis and restoring equity, safety, and dignity to our communities.
With life-threatening extreme heat arriving earlier in the season and with increased intensity, communities need more extensive solutions to protect their residents.
2023 marked the warmest year on record in a 174-year period of climate reporting. The impacts were not only felt by those living in traditionally warmer climates, but also people living in historically temperate areas in the form of unprecedented heatwaves and heat islands. And although it affects everyone, it’s proven that extreme heat impacts unsheltered groups, communities of color, and low-income populations most adversely.
While many cities and jurisdictions have taken measures to plan for increasing heat, many remain unprepared. A broader and more inclusive approach is needed to effectively protect vulnerable communities from harm.
Extreme Heat Continues Intensifying
Even in early June, temperatures across the country have led climate researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to predict 2024 has the potential to surpass 2023 as the hottest year on record. As an unseasonably intense heatwave moved through the southwest and the West Coast in the first week of the month, Las Vegas saw its earliest 110-degree day in history.
Cities in regions that routinely face high temperatures have long-standing infrastructure such as universally air-conditioned public buildings and housing, temporary cooling centers, and emergency text and email alert systems. These measures may not be sufficient: extreme heat kills more people than other types of natural disaster, and as heat indexes regularly reach dangerous and extremely dangerous levels, the likelihood of people experiencing heat-related illness or death dramatically increases.
With these hazardous temperatures coming earlier in the season, people’s bodies don’t have adequate time to acclimate, and with highs lasting longer into the nights, less time to cool and recover from the day’s heat.
These trends pose serious risks. Although cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and Phoenix who have faced dangerous conditions for decades have taken measures like appointing “chief heat officers” and opening cooling centers to offer people relief, elderly populations, outdoor workers, and those living unsheltered remain vulnerable to heatwaves that reach higher temperatures and last longer.
Previously Temperate Regions Are Unprepared
Areas of the country that have always experienced dangerously hot seasons are more advanced in heat preparedness strategies. These regions are also expected to have air conditioning installed in stores, restaurants, community buildings, and people’s homes. At the same time these places are seeing temperatures spike, traditionally mild regions are being struck by unparalleled heat—and with a lack of cooling infrastructure and strategies to provide relief to underserved communities, these temperatures are particularly dangerous.
The Pacific Northwest, a temperate part of the country where lasting heat spells are historically rare, experienced a week-long heatwave in July 2021 that caused the deaths of 800 people across Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. This demonstrates how underequipped many regions are to address mounting temperatures.
In response, Oregon passed a statewide law requiring all new housing built after April 2024 to have air conditioning installed in at least one room. This legislation is a significant step in the right direction, as air conditioning is the most effective protective measure against heat-related illness and death, and the status quo for federal level policy requires it only for publicly subsidized apartments—there are no mandates in place for landlords to provide air conditioning to their tenants.
The Northwest is an apt case study of regions underprepared for swelling heat, but it is only part of a global trend. Deaths caused by extreme heat increased by more than 74% between 1990 and 2016. In 2019 alone, 356,000 people died from exposure to heat across nine countries.
In addition to the implementation of widespread cooling infrastructure, more innovative solutions are needed to immediately offer protection from extreme heat.
The Importance of Heat Resilience
The threats of heatwaves have long been understood, and the importance of preparedness planning in protecting public health is illustrated in resources like the World Health Organization’s Heat-health action plans. But without broad and inclusive action taken to mitigate the effects of dangerous temperatures, many groups remain at high risk.
Heat is known to exacerbate underlying conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and asthma, while also increasing the risk of accidents and transmission of infectious disease. It also has adverse effects on mental health: research has shown a link between heatwaves and increased risk of self-harm, suicide, and hospitalizations related to chronic mental health conditions.
It's also been shown that extreme weather and climate-related events disproportionately affect vulnerable, underserved communities. Elderly groups, people living with disabilities, displaced communities, and low-income populations are often hit the hardest when temperatures peak. Structural racism also plays a role: practices like redlining have historically relegated Black and brown communities to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with fewer resources and green spaces, which cause these often concrete-surrounded areas to endure significantly hotter temperatures than their wealthier, predominantly whiter counterparts.
Communities can achieve heat resilience by investing in and providing more equitable options across the board. Along with cooling centers, emergency notifications, and installing air conditioning in public spaces and housing, interim solutions like Pallet have the potential to make a substantial positive impact.
In addition to the ability to be quickly installed, our individual shelter units are climate controlled and able to stay cool in extremely hot temperatures. Cities can store units and deploy them as needed in a heat-related crisis to accommodate their vulnerable residents, and our 400-square-foot Community structure can act as a rapidly available cooling center.
This two-fold approach—expanding permanent infrastructure and investing in rapid interim solutions—is key to building true climate resilience and protecting every member of the community from harm.