Item B: Update on Homeless Initiative Action Plan

Home Browse Search

because we do not have the money -- even with our proposed new funding -- or the will to provide more shelter. a. Emergency shelter is very expensive, because it has to be staffed 24/7. As a reflection of this, we have actually decreased our existing emergency shelter units for families over the past 20 years because we cannot pay to operate the units. b. Emergency shelter is incredibly difficult to site, especially for single men. I believe that we could not site the Mission in this community if it had to move from its current location under the Chambers overpass. There are others in our group who know this subject better than I, such as Ron Chase. But I have been involved in 4 very contentious efforts to site homeless shelters in Eugene, the "homeless moms" of the old Jefferson Pool site (which led to the Opportunity Shelter, now run as a day access center by SVDP for homeless families) and 3 tries over 3 years to site a homeless campground. None were successful except on a temporary basis; we could not find an acceptable permanent site. c. I understand the concerns about the Eugene Mission -- about the lack of accessibility, the forced religion, the "go-to-the-Mission-or-be-arrested attitude of some police, the separation of teenage boys from their mothers. But I suggest to you that Eugene voters will not support a tax to provide something that the Mission provides with no taxpayer support. 2. So, given my assumption that we do not now and will not ever have enough money to both fund more shelter and build new transitional and permanent affordable housing units, I strongly support putting our limited funding into preventive services -- to help people, including single adults, not become homeless -- and into new transitional or permanent affordable housing units, and not into more shelter. a. If we don't, we will only be able to keep providing shelter. We will never make any headway on meeting the need for more affordable housing. . b. Shelter is not the answer for homeless people, be they families or singles. Homeless people don't want emergency shelter, living in a dorm-like setting with dozens of other people. They want a home, a private space, just like everyone else. c. Shelter is also not the answer for helping homeless people get and succeed with alcohol and drug treatment. Those services are not going to work well in a shelter setting. Richie recently circulated the Portland article about Portland's version of Million Dollar Murray. The article described the success of helping that "Murray" go into detox, and then stay clean and sober -- in a permanent housing unit, not in a shelter. Finally, while I accept that our report, as it stands, lacks a call for more emergency shelter, it is unfair to say that it does nothing for homeless people, families or singles. We have had some significant success recently with prevention programs -- helping people avoid evictions. Prevention helps singles as well as families. And we have built new apartments for single adults, and can and should build more. Prevention and new housing are successes. But we need more money to do both. Is this a difficult choice? Yes, perhaps even unfair. But it's the choice we've got. Remember that our overall strategy in the report is to make a modest proposal for taxpayer support and then show the voters that we can use their money effectively and efficiently, so that they will trust us 34 Blue Ribbon Committee on Homelessness, Recommendation April 2, 2008 -- Page