Homeless Create Conundrum for the City

October 19, 2017
On October 18, Vermont Public Radio Broadcast this news segment:
http://www.tinyurl.com/y9ptlqu3

And this is my response:

Thank you for a newscast which substantially expresses the feelings and thoughts of those who were interviewed, and the facts on the ground. I would like to develop a few points.

The claim attributed to Mayor Weinberger that "city staff have visited the encampment to speak with the people living there, and to help them find options for housing." suggests that everything was done to get the residents into housing. But the City has one staff person who has visited the camp, and she does not work in the housing field - she is liaison for the police department. The fact is, the city's resources are extremely limited. There isn't enough housing, and the City knows it. My position is that the best course of action for the City is to create a legal right of occupancy, so that services can be delivered, and accountability can be individualized.

Readers not well acquainted with this story will want to know why "individualized" is important. The order to close the camp was signed by the City Attorney pursuant to several incidents, including destruction of the property of one camper by another camper, and possession of a firearm by a visitor. But without evidence of a specific crime, the City has no power to remove one camper, to stabilize the camp. Their only option, to remove the danger from that location, is to close the camp. A sort of group punishment.

But the City in moving campers out of the camp is playing a dangerous game. A hybrid of musical chairs and Russian Roulette. They have no idea where the campers will choose to go. Right now they live in Joan Shannon's district, and she wants them moved because her constituents are scared. So if the campers are scary (they are not a threat to the community, but the neighborhood doesn't know that), they will land in - Dave Hartnett's ward? Kurt Wright's ward? Moving campers around isn't helpful. It's irresponsible.

The best response creates a landlord relationship. Mark Flynn, another homeless advocate, has said he would manage a non-profit to create a safe and sanitary environment for campers, by renting directly from the city and using the sovereign rights of a property holder to hold campers accountable. But the city could change it's ordinance that says the campers are trespassing, and create a zoning allowance which permits the city to provide "emergency accommodations for persons lacking permanent housing". By embracing the radical challenge of allowing homeless camps, the City would gain the power to regulate who camps where, and provide the safety, dignity and services that homeless persons deserve and want as much as anyone with the good fortune to be housed.

The irony is that the campers have solved this problem in their own way. They have moved to the vacant and derelict parking lot next door. Now the problem for the city is what to do with the stuff that was left behind. Keeping their pledge to not discard the possessions of campers, the City is faced with the problem of what to do with the stuff. Earlier this year, I asked Brian Lowe, Chief of Staff to the Mayor, for trash pickup and hygiene facilities. He asked me "What am I going to say to the North Ender who says to me 'I pay for my trash pickup?'" I reminded him, "Right now the campers want to move the trash out. By the time you close the camp, the City will have to do all the work, and it will cost more." Don't let me conflate trash and personal possessions. But a cooperative relationship would have done much to eliminate this problem.

I don't envy the City its task. Why does this burden fall on Burlington? It's a county problem, a state problem, and a national problem. Most homeless are Vermonters, but not from Burlington. They come here because this is where the resources are. The proper arena for this discussion, since we don't have county government in Vermont, is the State Legislature. All of the communities of Chittenden County owe something to this problem, and funds should be flowing from the wealthier communities to state funds which can be used for trash, hygiene and safety.
But the City has the job, and it could be a leader, it could change the conversation away from the criminalization of homelessness toward the restoration of homeless people into the community up a ramp that begins, for some, in a publicly sanctioned homeless camp. Then it could, by walking the walk, demand regional solutions which includes resources from other towns.
Stephen Marshall