The case for Houseless Villages
There is no single solution to the homelessness problem. There is no magic bullet that will make it all go away. But, there are things we can try that have the chance of making a big difference if we give them a shot. And what I want to advocate for is Houseless Villages.
The very first houseless village was Dignity Village, here in Portland. It was established in 2000 and is still running today, making it the longest-running houseless village. Dignity Village originally started as a protest to fight for a sanctioned tent city and they eventually set up camp next to the broadway bridge. They had to move many times due to police interference, but because of all the attention this got in the media they were able to set up a camp for 9 months under the Fremont bridge and they used this time to plan something more permanent. They then set up a nonprofit and split into three factions, only one of which persisted. With the help of volunteers they set up sleeping pods, gardens, and other structures. Eventually, after many threats of displacement and a local right-wing radio host's attempts to try to get the government to intervene, many politicians who had been silent up to that point spoke up in support of Dignity Village. This led to it becoming the first city-sanctioned village in the country. Dignity Village is self-governed and mainly sustains itself with the $70 monthly dues from those living there. Some of the former tenants at Dignity Village went on to create other villages and it has inspired similar villages not only all around the Portland area, but all around the country as well.
The reason I feel that houseless villages are so important, and the future of addressing this crisis, is because they are more effective than traditional shelters. A study done by PSU found “Of those who stayed in a Portland area tiny home village in the past several years, 36% of the county tiny home village residents and 16% of the city’s safe rest village residents, moved on to permanent housing, according to the study. Just 12% of congregate shelter guests achieved that same outcome.” This is believed to be due to a couple of different reasons. There aren’t the same restrictions in a traditional shelter where you have to leave at a specific time in the morning and come back at a specific time at night, which can restrict what jobs you’re allowed to have. (So, no working night shift.) Whereas in a village there’s no strict curfew, which allows for far more flexibility for the people staying there. Also, everyone gets their own space so they don’t have to worry about getting their stuff stolen or other crime that may come with the traditional bunker set up in most shelters. And these villages usually have onsite counseling to help those dealing with addiction and/or mental health issues to address and work on their health. Plus, the community aspect of these villages fosters community and group responsibility, such as with community gardens. People tend to do better when they feel connected to where they are staying.
Houseless villages won’t fix homelessness, it is a far too complex problem to have a single solution. But, it can be a big step into making things better and would, hopefully, provide a working solution for many people who just need a little help and allow us to focus on the outliers who need a different solution.
Comments
Post a Comment