Why Affordable Housing Advocates Worry Atlanta's Unhoused Population Is Growing
She's been homeless ever since.
Capital B Atlanta spotted the 62-year-old Ruff using a walker to travel down Cleveland Avenue on Wednesday. Advocates say she's one of a growing number of unhoused Black Atlantans struggling to get back on their feet who list the higher cost of rent and lack of affordable housing as their biggest obstacles.
'It's real hard out here,' Ruff told Capital B Atlanta. 'You can't find no low-income apartments. … You got to have enough income. You have to have enough [security deposit] to be able to get an apartment.'
Atlanta's homeless population appears to be on the rise for the third consecutive year, according to experts who say low-income, often Black, city residents who've lived here most of their lives make up the majority of those dwelling on the streets, in shelters, and in extended-stay hotels.
The homeless aid group known as Partners for HOME and its affiliate partners in Atlanta Continuum of Care conducted their annual point-in-time census count of the metro area's unhoused community this week from Monday through Wednesday.
The count is submitted annually to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to determine the number of people experiencing homelessness across the country.
The federal government uses this data to allocate resources to local aid providers. The official homelessness count total won't be released until later this year, but aid group leaders say they anticipate another surge.
The homeless count conducted in 2023 revealed a 33% year-over-year rise in the number of unhoused people living in the Atlanta metro area. Last year, their ranks grew by 7% to nearly 2,900, enough to make Atlanta's homeless population the 25th largest in the nation, according to U.S. News & World Report.
Black people, who constitute about 47% of the city's population, made up roughly 86% of the city's homeless population last year, according to Partners for HOME.
'My guess is that we will probably see, at minimal, a 7% increase yet again, if not more, but what that number would be is really too early to tell,' Raphael Holloway, CEO of the Gateway Center, a homeless service provider that manages four local homeless services locations, told Capital B Atlanta on Wednesday.
Holloway and other homeless aid advocates stressed the need to wait for their full count before precise deductions can be made, but based their preliminary conclusions on their own observations over the past year.
Multiple aid workers said tent cities have grown larger, more visible, and harder for public officials to ignore downtown near Atlanta City Hall, the Georgia State Capitol, and the headquarters of the Gateway Center, which manages roughly 600 total beds in the city.
The problem appears to be worsening, according to Tracy Woodard, program manager for InTown Cares, a nonprofit that specializes in working with unhoused residents who've been homeless for extended periods of time.
Woodard expressed confidence that this year's final homeless count will 'definitely increase' and said more than half of the unhoused people she encounters regularly are 'Grady babies,' legacy Atlanta residents who are overwhelmingly Black and often low-income.
Woodard said the greatest cause of their displacement is the high cost of rent. The median rent price for a one-bedroom apartment in Atlanta reached nearly $1,700 this month, according to Zumper.com, up 10.7% from 2019.
Rent prices in metro Atlanta leveled off last year since peaking in 2022, according to an Atlanta Regional Commission report, but rates have remained higher than they were prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
'Before the pandemic. I would work with these people who were getting a Social Security check, which is $750, $800 a month, and I could find them a room for maybe $500 a month,' Woodard said. '[Today], you can't find that within 50 miles of Atlanta.'
One of the more distressing realities of Atlanta's problem with homelessness is the growing number of unhoused people who are gainfully employed but still don't earn enough to afford rent in the city where they work.
Woodard estimates half of the unhoused people with whom she works have full-time jobs. She said many work in food service, hospitality, and service sector industries that used to pay enough to live in Atlanta before low-income housing vanished. She said policymakers concerned about maximizing real estate profits need to consider who's going to do lower-paying service industry work in a city where many low-income residents don't own vehicles.
'They're making $15 an hour. Where are they going to stay?' she said. 'Are they going to drive two hours each way? … No. You need to have something that's in the city so that you can keep the city running.'
Both Woodard and Holloway praised Mayor Andre Dickens for prioritizing affordable housing construction, but they also expressed concern that the many units being built are priced too high.
Those housing costs also affect folks who help the unhoused, according to Holloway, who said many homeless aid workers are leaving the sector because it doesn't pay well enough to keep up with the cost of living.
'You have this dynamic of the individuals that are providing the service also now going through struggles to work in this space because of the cost of living and the impact inflation is having on their lives,' he said. 'It's becoming more and more difficult to even draw people to want to work in the homelessness space.'
Increasing funding for substance abuse and mental health training is one of the main proposals recommended by Holloway and Woodard in addition to building more low-income housing and adopting 'Housing First' aid policy initiatives.
Ruff said most of Atlanta's so-called affordable housing units aren't affordable for people like her.
'Help me find a low-income apartment, and I'll bet you I pay my rent every month,' she said.
The post Why Affordable Housing Advocates Worry Atlanta's Unhoused Population Is Growing appeared first on Capital B News - Atlanta.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
38 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump addresses pardon decision for Sean 'Diddy' Combs, but questions remain
President Donald Trump is breaking his silence on pardoning Sean "Diddy" Combs for the first time since he was acquitted of the most serious charges in a federal sex-crimes trial last month. In an interview that aired Friday, Aug. 1 on Newsmax with host Rob Finnerty, Trump discussed the possibility of presidential pardons for convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, Combs and former Rep. George Santos. After Finnerty asked, "Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Would you consider pardoning him?" Trump responded: "Well he was essentially, I guess sort of, half-innocent. I don't know what they do, he's still in jail or something. He was celebrating a victory but I guess it wasn't as good of a victory." Trump 'should not pardon' Sean 'Diddy' 'Diddy' Combs, Megyn Kelly says On July 2, jurors found Combs not guilty of racketeering and sex trafficking ex-girlfriends Casandra "Cassie" Ventura Fine and a woman known as "Jane" in his sweeping trial that nearly lasted two months. He was convicted July 2 on two of the five counts against him for transporting those same women for prostitution, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years per count. During the interview, Trump said "probably..." before pausing and revealing to Finnerty, "You know, I was very friendly with him, I got along with him great, seemed like a nice guy. I didn't know him well, but when I ran for office he was very hostile." The Newsmax host noted then that "he said some not so nice things about you, sir." "Yeah, and it's hard. You know, like you, we're human beings and we don't like to have things cloud our judgement, right?" the president continued. "But when you knew someone and you were fine and then you run for office and he made some terrible statements… so I don't know... it makes it more difficult to do." Then, Trump replied, "I'd say so," when Finnerty clarified by asking if it was "more likely a no for (pardoning) Combs?" In the interview, Trump was seemingly referencing Combs' expletive-filled 2017 comments in The Daily Beast, essentially saying that "(Black people) don't really" care about Trump. "The tomfoolery that's going on in D.C., that's just regular everyday business to Black folks," Combs told the left-leaning outlet in-part, adding later in the interview that he had to "keep it focused on that self-love that we need to give our race." Trump first weighed in on the possibility of pardoning Combs on May 30 in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." Despite last month's verdict, Combs' legal saga continues. On Wednesday, July 31, lawyers for Combs requested his acquittal, or a new trial altogether, in court documents reviewed by USA TODAY. A day earlier, conservative host Megyn Kelly urged Trump against potentially pardoning Combs. Kelly said in an X post on July 30 that "Trump should not pardon Diddy" because "he doesn't deserve it." "He's a Trump hater. He's a woman abuser. MAGA is already upset over elites seeming to cover for each other. This would not help. GOP struggling w/young female voters, most of whom will HATE a Diddy pardon," Kelly wrote. Contributing: Taijuan Moorman

NBC Sports
an hour ago
- NBC Sports
Tony Buzbee responds to Shannon Sharpe's claim that he targets Black men
Anyone who has been following the NFL since 2021 knows the name Tony Buzbee. He arrived on the scene as the lawyer representing the first plaintiff who sued then-Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson for misconduct during massage-therapy sessions. Eventually, Buzbee represented more than 20 plaintiffs against Watson. Most recently, Buzbee settled a lawsuit on behalf of a woman who claimed that Hall of Fame tight end Shannon Sharpe committed sexual assault. After the lawsuit was filed in April, Sharpe attacked Buzbee personally, claiming among other things that he 'targets Black men.' In a new Esquire profile, Buzbee responded to that claim. 'I didn't wake up one morning and say, 'I want to sue Shannon Sharpe.' He has no relevance in my life,' Buzbee said, via Sean Keeley of 'I actually think he's very entertaining when he yells and screams and talks about sports that he's not involved in. But if I think it's a legitimate case, then I pursue it. And I think this is worth my time.' Buzbee's business model, if he's doing it properly (and the results would suggest he is), doesn't discriminate. He told Esquire that he receives as a fee roughly 40 percent of any recovery his clients get. That's how the American civil justice system works. Individuals who have grievances and who can't afford to pay lawyers by the hour hire them based on a contingency fee. This creates a strong business incentive for those lawyers to take good cases, not weak ones. The question of whether a case is worth pursuing has three prongs: clarity of liability, amount of damages, and the ability to collect on a settlement or verdict. Beyond that, nothing else should matter. And given that Sharpe's lawyer immediately admitted that at least $10 million was offered to settle the case before it was filed and that the case was eventually settled without Sharpe ever responding to the civil complaint, chances are that Buzbee walked away from the Sharpe case with at least $4 million in fees. That's how it works. Find strong cases, pursue strong cases, settle or try strong cases. Buzbee did that after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, generating more than $500 million for more than 10 thousand clients who pursued claims against BP. 'I guess a bunch of old white men could say I'm targeting them, and a bunch of multinational corporations could say I'm targeting them as well,' Buzbee said. 'I guess you could say I was targeting BP. . . . Well, I probably was targeting BP.' That's how it works. For anyone who represents individuals on a contingency fee. For Buzbee, the Watson case made him a go-to choice for anyone with valid claims against current or former NFL players. Without the Watson cases, there's a good chance the plaintiff in the Sharpe case wouldn't have known Buzbee's name. That also explains Buzbee's publicity-driven style. At a time when plenty of lawyers advertise their services with gigantic billboards and goofy TV commercials, the best advertisement remains free advertisement from news coverage. Buzbee knows that. His business thrives on that. And there's no reason to pursue a weak case simply to harass someone. That said, a case that seemed strong can turn out to be weak, if the lawyer mistakenly believed a client whose story didn't hold up under scrutiny. That's what may have happened in Buzbee's misadventures with Jay-Z, which resulted in the plaintiff acknowledging inconsistencies in the story she was telling about allegations of rape when she was 13 and the case eventually being dismissed without a settlement. The Esquire profile contains this curious statement: 'Buzbee later withdrew from the case because he has not been admitted to practice law in the Southern District of New York.' The presence of that assertion in the final product, frankly, shows that whoever wrote and/or edited the story has no idea how the legal system works. Lawyers licensed in one jurisdiction routinely seek and receive what's known as pro hac vice (Latin, 'for this occasion') admission in other jurisdictions in a specific case. As long as a local lawyer who is licensed to practice in that court is personally involved in the case, pro hac vice admission is routinely granted. Actually, that's how Buzbee pursued Sharpe. The primary lawyer on the complaint filed in Las Vegas was Nevada lawyer Micah D. Nash. Buzbee's name appears on the document below Nash's, with this designation: 'Pro Hac [Vice] Forthcoming.' This doesn't mean Buzbee was targeting Jay-Z because of his race. The more plausible explanation is that Buzbee took on a case that ended up being far weaker than he thought it was, so he found a way to retreat. Of course, he's now facing a lawsuit from Jay-Z claiming that the lawsuit sparked $190 million in business losses. Unfortunately for Buzbee, he's got the money that would make him a target for a lawyer who represents plaintiffs on a contingency fee. That's the primary motivation in this specific form of legal practice. It's good business to take strong cases with significant damages against defendants who have money. The personal characteristics of the defendants do not matter. All that matters is: (1) did they do something they shouldn't have done?; (2) did those actions cause tangible and significant harm?; and (3) can they easily write a check to make things right?


Time Business News
3 hours ago
- Time Business News
ITUC's New Report Spotights Prison Slavery in the United States
In a chilling revelation that has reignited national debate, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) has released a new report exposing the systemic use of prison labor in the United States — a practice the organization likens to modern-day slavery. The report, titled 'Prison Labor in the United States: The Business of Punishment' , details how incarcerated individuals are being exploited under forced labor conditions, often for pennies an hour, with little to no choice in the matter. The United States is home to less than 5% of the world's population — yet it holds nearly 25% of the world's prison population. With over 1.2 million people currently serving time in state and federal prisons, the U.S. correctional system has long been criticized for its mass incarceration rates. But what the ITUC's report brings into sharper focus is how that system is being monetized through what many call 'prison slavery.' The report outlines how incarcerated workers are often compelled to work in unsafe conditions, without proper training or labor rights, for shockingly low wages — sometimes as low as $0.13 an hour. In some states, prisoners aren't paid at all. Refusing to work can result in punishments such as solitary confinement, loss of visitation rights, or denial of parole eligibility. At the center of this issue lies a clause in the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the amendment abolished slavery in 1865, it included a significant exception: slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal as punishment for a crime. 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.' This clause has paved the way for what critics describe as a legalized form of slavery inside America's prisons — disproportionately affecting Black and brown communities. According to the Sentencing Project, Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of white Americans. The ITUC's findings suggest a complex web of beneficiaries — including private corporations, state governments, and correctional institutions. Prison labor is often used to manufacture everything from furniture to military equipment, and to provide services such as food preparation, laundry, and even customer service for government agencies. Some of the corporations linked to prison labor — either directly or indirectly — include major household names. While many of these companies have stated that they are unaware of or do not directly manage prison labor programs, the opacity of the supply chain often leaves room for unethical practices to go unchecked. Beyond the economics, the human cost of this system is enormous. Incarcerated individuals working in these conditions often lack basic labor protections: no right to unionize, no worker's compensation if injured, and no pathway to upward mobility. These jobs rarely provide the kind of training or education that would help with rehabilitation or re-entry into society after release. Furthermore, the emotional toll is immense. Many inmates describe their labor as coercive and dehumanizing, where the daily routine mimics slavery more than rehabilitation. Families of prisoners have also spoken out, saying their loved ones are being punished twice — once by incarceration, and again through exploitative work. The ITUC is not alone in sounding the alarm. Human rights organizations, lawmakers, and advocacy groups have been pushing for reform — calling for the removal of the 13th Amendment's exception clause and the implementation of fair labor standards within the prison system. States like California and Colorado have already taken steps to address these issues. In 2020, Colorado voters approved a ballot measure that removed the exception for slavery from the state constitution. In California, a similar measure failed to pass in 2022, but the push continues. Representative Nikema Williams of Georgia and Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon have introduced federal legislation — the Abolition Amendment — which seeks to end the 13th Amendment loophole. While support is growing, the road to constitutional change remains steep and politically charged. The ITUC's report serves as a critical reminder that reforming America's criminal justice system isn't just about reducing prison populations — it's also about protecting human rights within prison walls. Ending exploitative prison labor will require more than just public outcry. It demands legislative action, corporate accountability, and a cultural shift in how we view incarceration. Rehabilitation, not exploitation, must be the cornerstone of any just and humane correctional system. Until then, the voices of those inside — working against their will for next to nothing — will continue to echo the old abolitionist cry: 'Am I not a man and a brother?' TIME BUSINESS NEWS