Street Roots editorial
Imagine a village that, due to circumstances beyond its
borders, had several thousand people living without housing.
In response, the village established an array of services
and shelter for its citizens. Over time it became clear that the services
offered were simply not enough to maintain individuals and families needs.
Those who could not take care of themselves began to fall through the cracks.
Many of the disabled and elderly scrambled to obtain services. People dealing
with mental health problems were left out in the cold. Families trying to stay
together did everything in their power to maintain a dignified life despite
their circumstances. In one year, 47 people without shelter died.
In response to the crisis a group of citizens created their
own makeshift refuge. Installing tents and canopies on a plot of land to better
serve those without shelter, the small group created a safe place for people to
exist until services became available.
Many people in the village who had no resources and cared
for the poor believed the group’s actions were justified and held them up as
heroes. Others believed the group to be rogue and an eyesore for the community.
Villagers were conflicted. On one hand, the group was
creating a safe place for people to be. The group was orderly and maintained
basic principles and standards that held people accountable. On the other hand,
the group was unconventional, and viewed as an obstruction to progress and new
development that would help increase the livability for the rest of the
village.
To make matters more complicated, the owner of the plot of
land where the refuge was set up was seen as a villain by the village’s leaders
and many in the public eye.
In the end, the refuge was deemed illegal and fined for
existing. The group responded by suing the village through a democratic process
to be allowed to exist. Those who believed the group should be disbanded or
moved out of the public’s eye began to organize against the group, putting
public pressure on the village leaders to take care of the situation.
Village leaders sent mixed messages. Some believed the group
was doing good work. Some exalted its work during local elections as being a
solution, while others either ignored or worked to disband the group by
demanding the one thing it didn’t have: money. There were no clear outcomes or
leadership toward a compromise, splitting public opinion and giving people on
all sides of the issue anxiety over what the solution might actually be.
Over time people grew tired and weary, especially during the
cold, hard winter months — both at the refuge and in the village. Some took it
as a sign of hope for the people without shelter, while others grew cynical and
believed that nothing good would come of the situation.
The village is Portland, Oregon, and the refuge is Right 2
Dream Too, a tent city created to serve people experiencing homelessness. The
City of Portland should work to find a solution.