New York Times Hails Denver’s $178M Homeless Housing Push

"Finally, the national media say Denver is doing something right."

That was the sentiment of one local observer this week, reacting to a New York Times opinion piece that hailed Denver as a model for addressing homelessness. The praise is high-profile, but the reality on the ground in Mile High City is more complicated than a headline suggests.

The Times piece, published last week, cited data showing Denver’s unhoused population has dropped 64% since 2023. It quoted business owners and others praising the mayor’s determination to keep his promise to get homeless people sheltered, even in a city with some of the most expensive housing in the country. The article put cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, Burlington, Vt., and Portland to shame by comparison.

For neighbors who walk the streets of downtown Denver, that 64% drop is a tangible shift. But it doesn’t erase the current reality. According to a recent survey, more than 500 people still live on the city’s streets. The question is whether a national spotlight changes how those remaining individuals are treated, or if it just lets the city rest on its laurels.

The math holds up, but only with a significant asterisk regarding cost. The mayor’s office and the city auditor have bickered about the exact total spent on these efforts, but it appears to be somewhere between $158 million and $178 million. That is a lot of taxpayer money for a city that still struggles with basic infrastructure and public safety concerns.

It costs real money to buy hotels, build tiny houses, and contract with nonprofit organizations to manage the projects. That expense is a big reason cities don’t have great track records for dealing with their unhoused populations. An even bigger reason is that it requires a politically fraught combination of compassion and tough love to get recalcitrant individuals into stable housing.

The comparison to Portland, Ore., is stark and instructive for anyone who has visited the Pacific Northwest recently. One observer described a trip to Portland to watch a grandson compete in a cross country meet. While the city has lovely walks along the Willamette River and great restaurants, a brief encounter with a man who passed out and wet his pants on the sidewalk "sabotaged all my best efforts to reflexively defend a place I used to love."

Portland counts something like 7,500 unsheltered people. In the 1970s and ’80s, homelessness was less widespread there, and the city oozed a cheeky counterculture optimism. It was the place that returned federal funds for the Mount Hood Freeway to build light rail instead, and it tore up downtown to create a carless transit mall. Now, Portland circa 2026 feels seedy.

Denver’s approach is different, or at least it appears to be more aggressive in its current phase. The city has made great strides in getting people into homes and shelters, according to the New York Times. But "strides" is a word that implies direction, not destination.

The Times piece suggests Denver is the model because it actually moves people into housing rather than just managing the visibility of homelessness. That distinction matters to locals who are tired of seeing tents in parks or sleeping bags on sidewalks near their commute. But the cost is significant, and the political will to sustain that spending through election cycles is untested.

To hear them tell it, the national media are finally acknowledging what locals have been saying for years: that Denver is trying. But "trying" isn't the same as "solving." With 500 people still unsheltered, the work is far from done. The national praise might help secure funding or political cover for the next phase, but it doesn't change the daily reality of a city that is still grappling with one of its most persistent social challenges.

The observer who visited Portland noted that the city’s current state "sabotaged" their love for it. Denver hopes its 64% drop is enough to keep the national narrative positive, but for the people still on the street, a headline in New York doesn't provide shelter. It just provides context for why the city is spending so much money trying to get them off it.