In thinking about public policy as cultural value statements, my quest to learn more about homelessness and housing policies continues. Nothing speaks louder about the way our culture feels about human life than the way we take care of those who are struggling deeply.
I perused the incredible resource file that Julie assembled for our group, and sort of excitedly noted that at least on a surface level – the brainstorming, researching, and planning process of the folks at city hall wasn’t dramatically different than that of my peers! My forever skeptic mind, and pervasive: “can we actually do this kind of work?” thoughts took another step back, as I began to see the feasibility of the work. Thank you, Julie for providing us with an inside look into city planning ☺.
In addition to reading the city of Worcester’s, “triage plan” for homeless reduction, I began doing some side research to learn about what other cities have done well, in the spirit of “housing first.” I was struck by the tiny house model that originated in Portland, Oregon (known as Dignity Village).
Dignity Village is a community of “temporary” Tiny Houses, created to serve the pervasive homeless population of Portland. Despite the transitional nature of the homes, folks seem to show no interest in leaving – the structures have turned into an established community. There are self identified ground rules: anti theft laws, mutual respect, and horizontal giving among residents (Heben, 2014).
An MIT student, Catharine Mingoya, completed a comparative case study of Dignity Village and a similar Tiny House village in Madison Wisconsin, acknowledging some of the benefits and drawbacks of such models (2015).
Based on her study of the communities, Mingoya uncovered that some of the greatest challenges faced include ongoing financing of the projects, sanitation, oversight and governance in the communities, and building quality/longevity (2015). These issues are especially relevant when applying this model to Portland, ME as our weather can be quite extreme leading to wear and tear on homes.
While creating Tiny House communities may only be a temporary and partial solution to the plight of homelessness, a structure of one’s own grants dignity and autonomy that simply doesn’t exist in the current shelter system.
Understanding the trials and tribulations of other cities in terms of homelessness is helpful in advocating for alterations to housing policies in Portland, ME. Tiny House communities, at least on the surface level, could be a short term, community-fostering alternative to the institutionalized, humiliating shelter system as it currently sits.
References:
Gearty, T. (2015). Tiny houses could help mitigate a big problem: homelessness. Retrieved from: http://news.mit.edu/2015/tiny-houses-could-mitigate-homelessness-0723
Heben, A. (2014). Portland’s dignity village: Thirteen years later. Retrieved from: http://www.tentcityurbanism.com/2014/08/dignity-village-thirteen-years-later.html.
Mingoya, C. (2015). Building together. Tiny house villages for the homeless: A comparative case study. Retrieved from:https://dusp.mit.edu/sites/dusp.mit.edu.
Hi Ellen,
ReplyDeleteI didn’t know about Dignity Village in Portland, OR until you posted about it. We need to think about more alternative strategies such as this in order to creatively address the homelessness crisis. It makes me think about what Utah has been doing with providing permanent housing to chronically homeless individuals. They claim to have reduced homelessness by 91%, and there is debate around that figure, but regardless, they have made huge strides in their “housing first” goals. Whether it is tiny houses, or other models, the tricky part comes in regards to city planning and zoning laws. Looking at Portland, OR again, they have an incredible public transportation system and much more space to have a tiny house village. Looking at our Portland, I fear that the places where there is space to set up a similar Dignity Village would be so far away from services and bus lines that it would make the plan untenable. Our city’s specific geography, coupled with skyrocketing land value and poor transportation infrastructure really creates a unique situation that many other cities of our size and larger do not struggle with in the same way.
I say all this not to rain on the tiny house parade (I actually love the idea and love the creative problem-solving), but to begin to figure out how these creative solutions can be implemented within our Portland’s unique constraints.
I love the tiny house idea - Austin has implemented a similar model. Housing is such a confounding issue; however, it is also a critical and exciting one. The concept of home means so many different things to people but the bottom line is it a right or a luxury? If it is a right, we can find innovative responses, multiple ones, to provide the right to all people. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI love just about everything about the first article you mentioned.
ReplyDelete"All proceeds go toward a collective fund to pay for DV’s insurance and utility costs. Along with $25/month payments from each of the residents, this is how the village covers its operating costs without being dependent on outside donations". Such a simple yet impressive collective action to ensure that this community remains active and fairly self-sufficient. Ellen, I think the tiny house idea reflects a great solution to a complicated ("wicked") problem that is faced every where. And that this has been working with little (at least not mentioned) conflict in the area this is established, really shows that helping thy neighbors to help themselves has greater benefits than it does evidence-based fear.
I wonder how this could be approached in the State of Maine for short-term solutions (or even tiny-houses for escape in winter!). Thank you Ellen!