Acknowledgements - Weebly



-5168072top00right45996“We Are Residents Too”From a street, to a camp, to a university00“We Are Residents Too”From a street, to a camp, to a university289560055162Zachary N. SandersA capstone thesis for the requirements of the bachelor’s degree in Community, Environment and Planning University of Washington 201500Zachary N. SandersA capstone thesis for the requirements of the bachelor’s degree in Community, Environment and Planning University of Washington 2015Project AbstractWhenever the world starts weighing on you, one often withdraws into their home to gather their thoughts and confidence. For the homeless, they lack homes but these benefits can be replicated. My primary question is: Do tent cities provide a sense of home for their residents? Then how can we support and improve the functions of tent cities at the University of Washington? Currently, King County’s three sanctioned tent cities switch locations every three to six months scrambling for new or repeat hosts. This migration of up to 100 people per tent city displaces residents and turns daily routines inside out. This also strains local homeless service providers who receive 100 new homeless individuals when the tent city arrives. In response to these issues, this research investigates the benefits of tent city and how they can become a part of an urban university. My methods include observations in how tent cities are operating and in-depth semi-structured interviews of Seattle homeless, host organization members, professionals and University of Washington staff and faculty to gather best practices as well as challenges communities have faced in creating a vibrant tent city which coexists with students. The final product of this research is a paper addressing the opportunities offered by a tent city and what steps can be taken to bring them to a large public institution. The Ave Foundation’s encampment and Tent City 3 will be the main foci for tent cities and the Tent City Collective at UW is the campaign I worked with to design my researchTable of ContentsAcknowledgements4Introduction5Project statement5Goals5Significance5Context & background7Methodology10Question one10Question two11Literature Review14Part one: Defining homeless14Part two: Defining home14Part three: Housing alternatives16Part four: Tent city analysis17Part five: Conclusions19Results21Question one21Methodology overview21Results21Question two23Methodology overview23Results24Conclusion26Outcomes and Implications26Limitations26Future Research27Bibliography28Appendix29AcknowledgementsFirst to Cory Crocker, a mentor, community member and friend, who encouraged me to aim high in my research.To Lynne Manzo, a Landscape Architecture professor who piqued my interest around the equity of public space and prompted me to think outside of the traditional research framework and be more inclusive.To Stephen Crow who first welcomed me into the Ave Foundation’s encampment and taught me so much about homelessness in Seattle in a short period of time.To TAF, Tent City 3, and all the people who welcomed me as a researcher and let me interview them.To Celeste Goulding, a Masters in Social Work student and HEC Lead Organizer who taught me valuable lessons in community organizing and who was present with my efforts with the Tent City Collective to ask the right questions when I didn’t know where else to go.To Hana Alicic for being the loyal Tent City Collective Lead Organizer and keeping the group goingTo Kelly Hostetler, Chris Campbell, and Nico Martinucci who supported us along the path of CEP and enabled me to complete a project I am proud of.To my family and friends who opened their minds to talk with me honestly about homelessness and review pieces of my project.And last but not least to Anna Michel, a fellow CEP student who gave me the confidence to stay on the Ave in September and get involved with this project. 4438650Introduction00Introductionleft2300231140093200Project StatementThis project deconstructs the ways in which people can benefit from having a home and delves into how self-governed tent cities in Seattle can provide those benefits to the homeless. It also outlines why a tent city will help to break down stigmas surrounding homelessness and improve communities. For my research I compared field research at Tent City 3 and The Ave Foundation encampment to determine how they can replicate a sense of home. The second half provides a detailed account of how to bring a tent city onto a university campus through the processes employed by the Tent City Collective (TCC) at the University of Washington (UW). GoalsThe current ‘solution’ to the homeless problem is piecemeal, and current rhetoric cites shelters, food banks, and permanent homes as options. Tent cities fall in the middle by sharing the burden of these camps with the entire region while continuing to provide lodging and other opportunities. While this system isn’t perfect, it is an inexpensive fix for local governments and a grassroots solution utilizing community generosity and empathy. I propose to study the theories of place attachment and home, then apply it to the homeless community and tent cities. More specifically, I will determine if tent cities are more inclusive and feasible than other forms of housing. We all depend on our homes for many reasons and often are subconsciously shielded from fears by that safety net. By fostering these emotions within a population who has been forced to the streets, we can take a homeless problem and start creating solutions to empower those who face constant threat from laws targeting homelessness and are degraded by the stigmas that society has assigned them. The promotion of this tactic for community building and improvement can only be successful if it is proven that tent cities are easy to establish, not resource–intensive, and can yield lasting benefits for residents. To achieve this goal, the following research will tie together theories of home with the study of self-governed tent cities on the west coast and in Seattle to determine if they provide mental support not brought about in shelters. This research will support an organizing effort to bring a tent city to the UW campus. To do this, a student organizing effort will bring together UW stakeholders as well as the experiences of Seattle Pacific University (SPU) in hosting Tent City 3 (TC 3). By having a tent city on campus, the UW can become a leader in accepting alternative methods for ending homelessness and show the power of students, staff, faculty, and the homeless working together. Significance:This project is my first stepping stone as a planner. I chose to focus on social justice and public space management in an attempt to help build equality in today’s and tomorrow’s cities. The intersectionality of social justice and public space is exemplified in homelessness as there is nowhere but the public realm for these people to live. When a protest on University Way (the Ave) by TAF, or The Ave Foundation, popped up in September 2014, I saw the crux of my focus. By spending a night sleeping on the Ave and many hours with those who were part of the protest, my eyes were opened to a problem that our laws attempt to keep invisible in this city. Bringing homelessness into the public eye as an issue we can solve is the first step to getting every Seattlite into a stable home. Furthermore, I supported my focus by working with an under-privileged community to discover what they needed and how we could work together to make it a reality. There were many barriers to this due to being a white male student at UW. My biggest fear when choosing this path was how I would gain acceptance into these communities. By being an active participant in my research and learning to work with the University District homeless community, I began to understand how an outsider can build a rapport with a tight knit communities. On top of the experience of immersion, I began my attempt as an effective liaison between an under-privileged population and other community actors. My role was to help facilitate a discussion of ways to improve our city with TC 3, TAF, the U District Partnership, and the UW and community members. My aim was to learn what TAF envisioned and help them turn it into a reality. The challenge is to do this in a way that is practical and does not alienate people for their beliefs. In order to gain support and create a collaborative environment, all opinions needed to be weighed and understood. This link is crucial because it can often make or break change if any parties fail to understand each other, find middle ground, and understand where the other is coming from. More importantly is the proximity that we all live in with homelessness. This is about more than just passing the homeless on the street. People coming from a position of privilege are just a series of unfortunate events away from becoming homeless. Tomorrow, I could lose my source of income and risk missing rent, being evicted, and being forced onto the streets. The reality that we are just days away from being homeless is one reason that finding solutions to this problem is important. There is no ‘you’ and ‘them,’ it is just ‘us.’ All of us live in one of the fastest growing cities in the country, and face more density and traffic on our streets. Improving our neighborhoods has to be something we start now so as more people move in, we can promote a safe and equitable society for all.On one of my first days with TAF at their first camp on 43rd St and the Ave, I was told “we are residents too, just be compassionate,” and those words have stuck with me. The first claim is one that addresses how homeless residents WANT to be part of Seattle. When someone perceives themselves as part of a community, they are more accepting of it and willing to help it. This is the opposite of how homeless people have been treated on the streets, as a nuisance and as a group that should disappear from the public eye. The last aspect of my academic career that this project addressed was my desire to implement and practice community organizing. The strength of a community when they work together is unparalleled and creating substantial changes in our towns, cities, states, and country require the people to realize their strengths and assets and pool them in order to change the status quo. In the process of getting UW to agree to host a tent city on campus, I practiced the Saul Alinsky model of organizing with fellow students and community members to combine those assets, build relationships, and create solutions for all stakeholders. Context & BackgroundHomelessness has always been something we face. It started making headlines in the 1970’s with a push to provide more services for the rising population as deinstitutionalization of mental health facilities put more Americans on the streets. The neoliberalism era of the Regan administration started to remove public/social safety nets and criminalize homelessness. In these years, many direct services like public housing and Section 8 rental vouchers were cut, and the “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” mentality was used to justify leaving homeless people to fend for themselves. It is only in recent years that there has been a resurgence in thinking about how to help this population in some areas, but the increasing label of “downtown renewal” still covers up how laws, policies, and redevelopment force the homeless to the fringes of society by making busking, loitering, and even sleeping a crime when performed in the public realm. With a vast slew of daily activities made illegal, it is no wonder that the homeless suffer from brutality and harassment by both society and the police. With a wide range of techniques being instituted to end homelessness, it is difficult to measure which are best. This is partially due to the difficulty in gathering statistics on the homeless population, as the only reliable counts performed by cities are based on the users of services or a “one night count.” This means that most rural and potentially many urban homeless individuals are being missed because they aren’t in contact with these services.The US Department of Housing and Urban Development put together a report for Congress in 2014. This report states that on a given night in January, 610, 042 people are homeless. Although this number has declined by 9 percent (61,846) since 2007, it is still a looming problem. In Seattle, the January 2015 One Night Count revealed that 9,294 people are homeless and 3,772 of them are without shelter (Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, 2014). This is a 21% increase of individuals without shelter since 2014 and is a staggering blow to a city that is working on reducing their homeless population. The fact that Seattle is moving in the opposite direction of the nation means something more must be done. Rather than pushing this population to the fringes, we must acknowledge the humanity of every person and work to make a system that contributes rather than drains resources from a rapidly growing city like Seattle. In a time when Seattle has barely enough funding for education, this solution needs to be one that requires minimal resources but has a lasting effect. The current major tent cities in King County are prime examples of a possible solution. Tent City 3 & 4 are both part of the larger organization SHARE/WHEEL (Seattle Housing and Resource Effort/Women’s Housing, Equality, and Enhancement League). This non-profit is an overhead organization that assists Tent City 3 in its operations in Seattle, and Tent City 4 which operates on the east side of Lake Washington and has been working with them since Tent City 3’s inception in 2000 (Werner, 2014). Every three months, these encampments relocate up to 100 people to a location generously donated by religious organizations or other property owners, most notably by SPU for a second time. TC 3 has moved over 75 times and has built a strong reputation as a good neighbor everywhere they go. This is due largely to their self-governed set up. While SHARE/WHEEL provides $4,000-$6,000 per month from their general budget for sewage, garbage, electricity, and bus passes, everything else is done by the camps. SHARE/WHEEL also has weekly meetings that bring together all the camp leaders to talk through any issues in their respective homes. In each camp, the campers have developed a Code of Conduct (Appendix C) and are required to attend camp meetings at least once a week. These meetings are for the purpose of voting in new leadership from the camp, settling disputes amongst campers, and deciding on allowing tours or accepting invitations for speaking events. This process builds a sense of ownership and belonging among residents while fostering leadership and public speaking skills (NCH 2010). This set up is shared by the other two tent cities in King County. Camp Unity Eastside is a group that split off from Tent City 4 late in 2012, and formed a self-organized encampment. Camp Unity shares a powerful relationship with many of its hosts, one of whom had a “doors open” policy, allowing camp residents to use the church 24/7 as long as they also performed security for the building. This group operates on the east side, provides a slightly different structure from its counterparts, and works to empower residents and move them out of tent cities. Despite the differences, they run into many of the same challenges faced by the other encampments. There is also Nickelsville, a 2009 creation in retaliation to Mayor Nickels’ homeless sweeps of the city (NCH 2010). This was a major encampment that also included rules prohibiting drugs and was deemed one of the most civilized tent cities in the country in 2009 (Raymond, 2009). Nickelsville, however, has not had the successful turnover of leadership that the other encampments have managed and is currently in a tumultuous period. The encampment ousted their leader, failed to restructure themselves, and took him back. This is nothing new for tent cities, but their perseverance despite difficulties is continuing to empower them.Lastly, there’s the TAF encampment. This new addition to the Seattle landscape is the first of its kind, because it was solely located in one neighborhood. The concept behind the TAF encampment is the neighborhood religious leaders and community members would share the responsibilities of assisting TAF in order to improve their own streets. This grassroots movement is a push by both the homeless population and the U District Partnership, a non-profit corporation representing a Business Improvement District (BID). The effort is supported as a way to get people off the streets, and to promote work being done to improve safety and cleanliness. The limit on residents was set at 30, and the group still had to move every three months. They did have a local contingent of volunteers who can help them on each move, and forge a relationship to further deconstruct the stigma carried by the homeless. This encampment was self-governed as well, but the 30 person limit acted as their downfall because they did not have the critical mass needed to support leadership turnover. A lack of experience in tent cities also left them unable to deal with the personnel problems they faced early on. Currently, TAF has no encampment but is working out the logistics of starting one again. In March of 2015, Seattle further legitimized encampments by passing a city ordinance that was proposed by Mayor Murray. This ordinance legalized three encampments of up to 100 residents each that would be allowed to stay at a host location for one year. If the stay goes well, the encampment is granted the opportunity to renew a permit well for up to one additional year. These new encampments (or existing ones if they integrate into the new system) must be run by someone with experience in tent cities or a service providing agency. The running of the tent city has the potential to imitate those of the existing self-governed ones, but the ordinance doesn’t require it (Seattle DPD 2015). This bill vastly improves the existing rules which operated on a religious use exemption that made it illegal for zoning to restrict how a church can practice their faith. The institutionalization of tent cities could be a blessing or a curse however. By making them legal, they are able to operate without question of being swept out by police, but it also makes a temporary and emergency solution part of a system that is very slow to change. Either way, a step towards legitimacy can only help those who are homeless now. With more interest being paid to encampments as a solution to homelessness, and the growing problem, it is too late to postpone any further action. That is why we need to start a strategic and systematic system to get people off the streets and into homes. 44386559690Methodology00Methodology0245359093200The two parts of this research required two different approaches which are outlined here. Question One: Do tent cities provide a sense of home for their residents?When The Ave Foundation (TAF) took to the streets in protest of police brutality, the lack of a safe place to sleep, and to bring about their own tent city, they didn’t know where to start in formalizing it. In order to be able to answer my initial question about the benefit of a self-governed tent city as a home I combined the following methods:Research of existing tent citiesObservations Semi-structured interviews Analysis Research of Existing Tent CitiesMy literature reviewed first examined different definitions of home and place attachment to best analyze tent cities. For the best results, I chose a psycho-social lens by Hazel Easthope that focused on stimulation, security, and identity as the three main components of a home. This goes on to look at other forms of alternative housing as insufficient in providing the components of home (Transitional Housing, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Housing First) and looking at other self-governed tent cities and research done on the west coast as better solutions. ObservationsIn order to create a holistic view of tent cities, I needed to also explore them in the context of Seattle. Observations served to show the best physical layouts of a tent city, the social interactions amongst residents, and how the tent city sits in the context of the larger community. It will also give me an idea of the limitations faced by these communities and the dynamics among residents which may not be expressed wholly in other sources. This involved being present at different encampments and making note of the dynamics around me as well as basic maps of camp layouts. I spent an hour and a half at Tent City 3 and two hours the TAF encampment. I consistently identified myself as a UW student doing research for a senior project. While at the TAF encampment I made it common knowledge that they were helping me with my senior project, and that my presence is not just as a friend, but also as a researcher making anonymous observations. Part of this process involved talking to campers and community members in passing and hearing very general ideas about the tent city. When at the camps, I would regularly chip in to assist in day to day duties as part of earning respect from the residents. This may be seen as degrading the validity of my observations, but experiencing being part of the community helped to conjure the feelings that residents would have and made them open up to me more than if I were just a researcher on the fringes. Semi-Structured InterviewsThe other facet of my field work was a set of interviews (Appendix B). I used interviews to gather experiential information. I then compiled these results to begin to build a framework of home in these communities and the steps to building relationships between different stakeholders. I spent at least 45 minutes with each interviewee, for a total of 13 interviews:Four from the leadership and residents of TAFTwo from TC 3 (one leader and one residents)Two representatives from host organizationsTwo community members in the U DistrictOne UW graduate doing homeless advocacyOne representative from a U District service providerOne Seattle Activist and former UW professor These interviews served two purposes. For each group, I created interviews to achieve two main objectives. Their primary purpose was to get an idea of how tent cities have performed in Seattle. Talking to residents, hosts, an activist, and a service provider showed me how the homeless who are living in tent cities have a unique perspective and different values than their counterparts on the street. All the interviewees spoke of the benefits of a self-governed encampment. I also asked for critiques and challenges that each person perceived or experienced as this would be essential for the second half of my project. Understanding what challenges had been presented previously and how fears had been assuaged enabled the latter organizing efforts to address these in the first round of relationship building. Question Two: How can we support and improve the functions of tent cities at the University of Washington?For this part of my project I followed loosely a Saul Alinsky model of organizing and quickly teamed up with the Tent City Collective, a registered student organization at the UW who has been working to bring a tent city to UW for a couple years. This process is still under way with the hope of getting approval in Autumn quarter 2015. The organizing efforts have six main parts:Identify existing groups/partnersRelationship buildingPower analysis of UWInstitutional process for approvalPotential actions (if needed)EvaluateIdentify existing groups/partnersCoalition building between stakeholders working towards the same cause prevents any one group from attempting to reinventing the wheel. By identifying groups within the community who are already working towards the same end or whose work would be impacted by your movement can be the best partners. Tapping into existing resources gives a movement more legitimacy. I did this by asking people who are experts on homelessness or had direct interaction with tent cities on campus. Another way I did this was by searching the UW website for RSOs whose mission statement may cover something like homelessness.Relationship buildingThis involves talking to anyone who may be a stakeholder when a movement goes to get approval. For it we asked 5 basic questions:What is the big picture of having a tent city on campus?What are some of the challenges you see us facing?What is your personal power analysis?Who else should we talk to?What should we read/research to learn more?The goal these questions is to create a connection beyond the movement and interviewee, helping to identify current soft spots in our movement and other potential allies or enemies moving forward. These interviews would last from 15 to 40 minutes and typically took place in the office of the student group, staff, or faculty member who we were interviewing. This step is vital for building support and spreading the word about what you are doing in a way that is respectful to all those who you encounter. As of the end of this project (June 2015) I have met with ten faculty, administrators, student organizations, and community members. Power analysis of UWThis step gives a group a target who has the ability to make the decision that is needed to achieve their goals. For this I talked to staff and administrators about who could make these decisions and this process is still evoloving as those questions are also part of relationship building. I also used the organization charts that UW has produced for each office to see who was at the top of the ladder and who could make TC 3 at the UW happen. These organization charts were also important to identify who was in direct contact with the target, hierarchically. Institution process for approvalFirst we had to understand how the UW makes decisions like this which was part of the power analysis. Building on that, it also means that you have to know the system well enough to navigate it. By building relationships with members of the student senates at UW, we positioned the resolution to get brought in front of the official student representatives before it goes to the administration to show student support. Potential ActionI will not address this in my project because the movement has not reached this point, but acknowledge the importance of this step. Knowing what kind of actions speak loudest to your targets is important. The UW may respond to large-scale student protests, sit-ins, and mass contact by students to the administrators in charge, but these aren’t being used until other routes have been exhausted. When performing actions, it usually creates a controversial atmosphere of one group versus another which makes compromise much harder. On the contrary, it can also strengthen your group as you start going out and displaying all the hard work you have been doing.EvaluateThe last step in the Alinsky process is the most important. After one issue has been resolved, the organization must take the time to review what they did and how it went. Everything from the final decision and how it aligns with your hopes to the people and relationships that were forged or broken throughout the movement should be critically examined.44386573025Literature Review00Literature Review0258693093200 Defining HomelessFirst it is important to look at the different kinds of homelessness. The National Alliance to End Homelessness acknowledges three main divisions of the homeless population. The first and most common is the imminent and short-term homelessness. This group typically includes families and individuals who experience homelessness due to an extenuating circumstance but often return to permanent housing quickly, although they do not escape the threat of becoming homeless. They don’t relapse into the system but rather just use it once and are done. This group requires the fewest services and financial support to return to the housing market but make up 80% of overall shelter users according to Culhane and Metraux (2008). The second group are the episodic homeless. This group is chiefly individuals who move through the homeless system multiple times throughout their lives. They often express from one or two factors that are detrimental to housing such as a criminal record, a mental or physical health issue, or poor credit but make up only 9% of shelter users (Culhane 2008). While they don’t require extensive support to return to housing, they do need more assistance in keeping it. The last group is the chronically homeless who have been homeless for many years throughout their lives. While this group makes up 11% of shelter users, they also demand the most attention and assistance (Culhane 2008). They often have several issues which bar them from traditional housing and many times a substance abuse problem which excludes them from the traditional model of housing provision which requires one to “prove themselves worthy of housing” before getting it. Here is where Housing First can make the largest fiscal impact. (Housing First 2006)Defining HomeTake a second and clear your mind, close your eyes, and picture home. Feel at home, but if that doesn’t feel natural enough, dig deeper and find an important physical space, the one that makes you feel safe, where you can be yourself, a place that defines you. These feelings have been studied in-depth in theories known as place attachment, a sense of place, and a sense of home. Within this topic, Edward Soja (1996) brought general consensus that the physical construction of place is one aspect of your attachment to it, but the rest of the interpretation is up for debate. Soja’s words described this second stage of definition as how people “interpreted, narrated, perceived, felt, understood, and imagined” place. For many other authors in this field like Gieryn, Yuan, Massey, and Jess, the debate around social construction versus personal interpretation of place has been their main focus (Easthope 2004). In order to understand how this theory can help construct a better housing solution for the homeless, we must first understand its significance in a broader context. These relationships between places and people are essential when examining housing options because it forms a basis of theory that describes individual’s relationship with the external world (Easthope 2004). One way in which some have described this relationship is a sense of place versus a sense of rootedness (Rose 1995; Tuan 1980). Rose describes three ways to approach sense of place: a sense of place as natural, like territorial instinct, a sense of place as a cultural interpretation of the world around us, actively defining our lives and being defined by cultural difference and power relations around us, and a sense of place in the terms of solidarity, “defining oneself in opposition to an ‘other’” (Rose 1995). Yi-Fu Tuan categorized the first one as rootedness, an unreflective response brought by familiarity (2001). Rootedness is more about comfort and a reluctance to surrender a space that one knows well. The other two fall more under Tuan’s idea of topophilia, “the affective bond between people and place (Tuan 1980).” Topophilia suggests that we have the conscious ability to alter the meaning of a place and can make it our own or some place to be afraid of. In this way we are able to shape the spaces that we and others are subject to live in. It is this power of molding place which can be used to benefit how we address homelessness.Homelessness is a problem that requires rootedness to places where services and jobs are available, but the sense of place or topophilia can have extensive effects on the homeless that are rarely considered. One form of place that is lacking in the lives of those on the streets is a sense of home. Without a home, dealing with the many issues that one is facing can become near impossible. If we can provide a sense of home for the homeless, the services and housing provided could be more effective in combatting and ending homelessness (Culhane 2008). Hazel Easthope gives us a sturdy foundation of looking at the meaning of home by exploring three ways to define home, as socio-spatial, psycho-social, and emotional space (2004). Socio-spatial definitions of home incorporate both the physical space that is a house, as well as the social aspect of home as a place where you are around your loved ones and relatives. Another way to define the home is through the psycho-social method. This method asserts that “home” must satisfy our personal desire for identity, security, and stimulation, all of which we value differently and seek in different proportions. Identity is fostered in the home by being a stage where we can construct who we are in a safe environment. Security is provided by the social and material constancy of the site, where we can perform day-to-day routines of human existence, and its privacy from the contemporary world. Lastly, the stimulation provided is encouraged by our ability to be in control when at home. The final lens is emotional space that our home and our mood are intertwined, and it provides psychological well-being when we are near it, and vast amounts of distress when we aren’t. For this project however, a socio-spatial lens of the home is a poor way to look into the place attachment of homeless populations who feel “at home” less in physical locations but in specific communities. The psycho-social space gives three criteria on which we can base the effectiveness of housing alternatives as providing a sense of home. These criteria have also been identified by Zoe Loftus-Farren, a lawyer out of University of California, Berkley, as some of the benefits that tent cities can provide over other temporary housing options. The benefits that Loftus-Farren identifies are also present in research done by the National Coalition for the Homeless and their review of tent cities on the west coast. With the fundamental elements of home being defined in this paper as security, identity, and stimulation we can start looking towards best practices being used today on the west coast. This geographical area has been chosen because of the specificity of literature surrounding it and the fact that the Pacific Northwest has unique variables that vary from different parts of the country. The foremost of these is the mild climate in western Washington, Oregon, and much of California which makes living outside year round more comfortable. Another attributing factor is that Seattle is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, with rent skyrocketing and more people being put at risk of becoming homeless. Among the homeless, it is rarely considered how much a sense of home can affect the feeling and willingness to care for a place so they are often stuck in the worst places in a city, out of sight and out of mind [Dignity Village in Portland is located next to a leaf composting plant (Werner 2014)]. The emotional, psychological and social benefits of a home are often just something to dream about but to never really experience on the streets. What is important is to look at the complete picture of place attachment in order to address it in a community. We must remember that the social, emotional, psychological, and physical aspects of a place all contribute to the benefits one can gain from it (Soja 1996). Housing AlternativesOf the different models being implemented across the country to move away from a one size fits all shelter system and provide more shelter options, we can see four main categories. These are transitional housing, housing first, permanent supportive housing, and tent cities. By examining how each strategy promotes a sense of home, we can see where to focus our efforts moving forward to provide the most for the homeless community. I hope to uncover what method can best realize the importance of home for its users and capitalize on it. First we will examine transitional housing as a common solution that has been in use for many years. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Human Services’ Homeless Resource Center, the main goals with this format is to provide temporary housing (typically no more than 24 months) while also providing wrap-around services to help develop stability in the clients lives. While the effectiveness is unclear of this format, it does very little for recovering addicts, the chronically homeless, and the disabled, who need long term support beyond 24 months to be reintegrated back into society. However it does provide relief for people who have recently fallen homeless and can get out with minimal assistance if they aren’t stuck on a waitlist for years. Transitional housing nurtures some aspects of a person’s identity but it lacks the ability to help grow the roots that prevent relapse into homelessness. Without other support, it can also provide a secure home to operate from. There is no built in mechanism however to encourage personal growth. It is also very expensive to implement because it is in such high demand and wait lists can be years long, essentially rendering all benefits useless when a person does finally get in. The best way to improve this system would be to alleviate the demand through other housing options Alternatively, many cities including Seattle have started using the Housing First philosophy, a permanent housing program to just get people off the streets and into a home. In the King County Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness, Housing First is the emphasis, and hopes to retool transitional housing to be more accommodating to people’s individuality without sacrificing the benefit of providing services and caseworkers to those who need it (Alvarez et.al. 2004). Housing First’s chief belief is that a stable housing situation will give individuals and families increased chances to get back on their feet. When this home provided with services also available, there is better results than when a certain threshold of services is required before someone can get housing (Housing First 2006). A great example of this has been used in Los Angeles. Rent at their housing first facility costs 30% of the resident’s income down to as little as $0 a month and this includes access to a library, gym, caseworkers, and on-site healthcare providers, all of which is the resident’s choice to use. While the restrictions of criminalized homelessness are still an issue, pathways into permanent homes are being fostered and opportunities provided in the form of the attached services. What LA has created is a block with everything the residents need to be self-sufficient and get back on their feet, giving them a feeling of control over their lives and independence that is lacked in the current shelter system. This is the current best practice in our country but it takes time and money to keep adding units. While it successfully creates a sense of home by providing a permanent home to the user, it is costly to build units and give them out for free. This alternative is seen as successful because it gives those who are traditionally the hardest to house, the chronically homeless, an option without qualifying factors. Another benefit of this option is it costs less than half of permanent supportive housing using other philosophies and transitional housing. Despite the necessity for an option like this, it is inaccessible for many cities. It requires a wealth of very low-income housing options, something that Seattle has very little of, or enough capital to subsidize apartments and an extensive list of landlords willing to take risks on tenants, a process which takes time and manpower to build while the issue of homelessness bears down on us. We need a solution that can start saving lives rapidly and not something that could take years to start being usable (Housing First 2006).A third primary way that cities have been providing housing is through permanent supportive housing (PSH). While this is the most expansive housing option, it also has some of the most tangible benefits. From 2007-2013, the number of PSH funding increased by 50% and this resulted in a 35% decrease in the chronic homeless population (Byrne et al. 2014). What PSH does is gets people to start using services to qualify for housing and once they qualify they are given permanent housing with continued services. This was intended to serve the chronically homeless such as veterans and others whose problems prevent them from moving into traditional housing. The high cost is a deterrent but it is also near impossible for the homeless to qualify. Asking someone with substance abuse issues or a disability to show progress in a recovery program without a home is robbing them of the security and stability most people need in order to start on the right path. The best way to adapt these is to join them with a housing first philosophyBefore Portland, Oregon introduced a housing first PSH program, they were spending an average of $40,000 annually per person who was homeless. This included everything from services to jail and ambulance costs. Once they started their PSH program, those residents cost them $27,000 annually per person. The savings were seen in behavioral healthcare, police/jail expenditures, shelter costs, and healthcare. While this is a moving statistic for the Pacific Northwest, New York City’s program saw an increase in cost, and Maine and Colorado both experienced very slight decreases in costs. Another issue seen in its use today is that many of the recipients of the PSH programs are not chronically homeless, and if there were other programs available they would be participating in those If a city can provide this and other options, they will be able to address peoples’ needs properly and save money across the spectrum. (National Alliance to End Homelessness -2005b, -2007a)There is also a more accessible option available that many cities have picked up on purposefully or not, tent cities. This option is fiscally more viable but comes with its own costs. A tent city is defined as a large collection of tents, housing homeless people. They have sprung up on their own and have become the modern American shanty town. As the desperation of those without homes becomes more extreme, underpasses and abandoned lots continue to find themselves occupied by tents and ad hoc shelters. Today, many cities have started to legitimize these communities, but no two tent city systems are really the same as they work to address the needs of their residents.Tent City AnalysisAs observed by UC Berkley Law graduate, Zoe Loftus-Farren, very little research has been done on tent cities, their effectiveness, and their cost due to the impromptu nature they often arise through. She worked extensively to start a conversation on the benefits and shortcomings of tent cities, and few have yet to respond to what she put forth. In 2008, it was noted that there were only enough shelter beds and transitional housing in this country for 2/3 of the nation’s homeless population, leaving hundreds of thousands of people to endure the elements outdoors and this is the current proportion of housing in Seattle in 2015 (How Many 2009; One Night Count 2015).With tent cities, these people have found a way to start making communities of their own. Opponents of this solution have valid concerns that Loftus-Farren addresses. One of the biggest is that people need permanent homes, but this is only assuming that the homeless are expected to stay in tent cities rather than use them as stepping stones. There are also sanitation and safety issues that arise when you have people living without the basic necessities of life as we see it in America. Many of the unsanctioned tent cities lack sewage and trash disposal, running water for personal hygiene, and are rank with rickety and unsafe structures. These factors contribute to a squalor that resembles the bleakest pictures of third world countries. This raises ethical concerns about how no one deserves to live in such conditions, but it is a phenomenon happening whether we like it or not and it offers a respite from the difficulties of street life. We have building codes to prevent such substandard living conditions. Such codes prevent ad hoc structures that some people are forced to make to keep themselves out of the elements. There are also zoning restrictions and anti-camping ordinances that specifically prohibit camping or residence at all that are used to displace the tent cities that pop up on their own. However, these laws are being used to target the homeless and push them out of places that are deemed too nice for them to be seen in. Communities and governments have been working to combat these factors in places with a wide range of techniques by legalizing and supporting tent cities. With a Temporary Use Permit or building variances, tents and shelters are made legal in different parts of the cities. Another commonly used loophole is the Free Exercise clause in the First Amendment that prevents zoning from excluding religious uses. The premise is that if a church hosts a tent city, then that cannot be zoned out because it is part of that religion’s exercising of their faith. One way to prevent bad conditions is through policy structures that require non-profits, hosts, or the government to provide some of those basic necessities. The impermanence of these structures goes on to even encourage tent city living as an interim solution. Also decreasing reliance on the tent city like in Reno can help. Reno has an encampment which is only open when all shelter beds are full, thus encouraging uses of the current services but still providing an overflow option. (Loftus-Farren 2011)Due to community backlash, tent cities often wind up in environmental remediation areas or other places that would be deemed unfit for modern developments. This community backlash comes from the term NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard), expressing how many people feel when a tent city locates in their neighborhood. Neighbors say “Yes, the homeless should have this, but does it have to be here? My kids walk past that,” or another excuse. These neighbors carry the assumptions that tent cities will increase crime rates in the area by bringing in vagrants, decrease public safety as strangers now become commonplace, and diminish existing property values, because who would want to live near a tent city? Despite these concerns, current tent city policies are used to extinguish these fears and start to repair the realities that people live in slum conditions in America. One way to assuage the fears of residents is through scheduled relocation as in Seattle’s tent cities. By moving every three or six months, concerns over property values are put in a very short time span, but there is also increased local awareness of a problem that faces a large segment of our population and gives more people an opportunity to participate in helping. These sanctioned tent cities often include public outreach and community service programs as well. Residents of the tent city will do clean up days with the community members, and work to increase safety in the neighborhood by being active eyes on the street. (Herring 2010; Loftus-Farren 2011)ConclusionsWhy does Loftus-Farren argue for overcoming these issues to allow tent cities? She sees far more benefits stemming from this as a form of temporary housing assistance that can help support and encourage the other housing alternatives that are in use. First, there is a cost efficiency that cannot be refuted. In 2010, SHARE/WHEEL, a non-profit organization running tent cities in King County, Washington, reported that they spent $4,000-6,000 per month per tent city for the 200 people that were in both Tent City 3 & 4, which comes out to $40-60 per person per month. When you compare this price to estimates of anywhere from $1,634-2,308 or more per month for shelters, transitional housing, or PSH, there seems no question of the possibility of using tent cities as another temporary solution to homelessness. This economic incentive for both residents and taxpayers can help make this an easy decision. (Herring 2010; Loftus-Farren 2011)She also identifies many of the same strengths of a tent city as those aspects that make for a strong feeling of the home. The security provided to homeless by tent cities can be seen as their safety from the anti-homeless laws that are pervasive in American cities as well as in a safe place to store one’s belongings (Loftus-Farren 2011). When someone is staying in shelters, they often have to take all of their belongings with them during the day even if they plan to return that night, and this can make holding down a job very difficult. An aspect of a person’s identity can also begin to be formed as homeless people find themselves in a community and forced to be as resourceful as possible. The idea of using the strengths of those in the community can be very beneficial to all communities as it encourages confidence in your own capabilities as well as a feeling of worth (Green 2006). This sense of community is also forged through the openness of the tent city regulations as compared to shelters. Shelters are infamous for separating partners every night, and they rarely allow pets. By including and often encouraging these bonds to be strengthened, a tent city caters greatly to the emotional welfare of its residents more so than many other housing alternatives (Loftus-Farren 2011).The final aspect of the home, stimulation, can also be found through the governance and freedom of a tent city in a unique way. The sense of autonomy that is granted to a homeless individual is something we cannot even imagine. In many shelters, the homeless are subjected to bed times, wake up times, and even hours which are appropriate to shower, but all of these only deepen ones sense of being dependent and needy rather than of giving them this power and showing that they can do it on their own (Green 2006; Loftus-Farren 2011). One other way that stimulation is provided is through the tenant of self-governance. Most of the tent cities I will look at are run by the people living in them. This includes making their own code of conduct to deciding how much work each person must do to fully contribute to the camp. This activity is not just helpful in making tent cities more livable for residents, but it also promotes self-reliance, determination, and capability, especially from government institutions which they would otherwise be dependent on. These attributes all make help build and reinforce the mindset necessary to get back into the world enact the “pull yourself up the by bootstraps” mentality that is all that is left for many in this country, not to mention creating a stable and secure community in which to live in. Overall, these benefits of the tent cities are training many residents to reintegrate themselves back into society. (Loftus-Farren 2011)While homelessness is a complex issue stemming from many different aspects of our society, there is a pressing need to respond to the symptoms simultaneously with trying to patch the root causes of it. As people die on our streets without a home, solutions must be found to encourage the programs that we have already established. The housing alternatives currently used, transitional housing, housing first, and permanent supportive housing, are best implemented in harmony, but no one can end homelessness or even provide the immediate relief that is offered by encampments. The most successful models have resident’s building their own regulations and work schedules, which requires it to be a local approach. If we can encourage homeless communities to organize for a tent city, and give them sufficient support in local communities and the government, then the benefits of this model can be seen quickly with relatively little investment from the systems we already have in place. 4438655715Results00Results0191577093200Question one: Do tent cities provide a sense of home for their residents?Methodology overviewCombining the four methods below, I was able to dissect the intricate differences that a tent city can have when it is operated efficiently and sustainably. Research of existing tent citiesObservations Semi-structured interviews Analysis ResultsFirst, I chose to define home using a psycho-social lens which is comprised of three benefits that home provides: security, stimulation and identity (Easthope 2004). Security is the easiest to understand and that is how your home is a safe place to retreat to and that you can be at ease mentally when you know you always have a safe place to return to at the end of the day. The stimulation it provides encourages you to expand your mind and reach for something beyond your comfort zone. Identity is a how a home gives you a place where you can try on different faces and experiment with who you are. I wanted to assess whether a tent city can supply this for their residents without jeopardizing the encampment’s functionality or feasibility.Using this lens I compared the tent cities I researched in my literature review with my observations and interviews within Tent City 3 and the TAF encampment to find where there were consistencies that aligned with a psycho-social lens of home. Despite the scant research on the benefits of tent cities and their function to improve lives, existing literature confirms my belief that there are marked benefits for residents when tent cities are effectively self-governed. When I looked at the tent city report prepared by the National Coalition on Homelessness, two theses on tent cities (one on the Eastside of Lake Washington, one in Berkley, California), and my own research, the tent cities which were self-governed could fulfill all three aspects of home no matter where they were located on the West Coast. Camp Quixote, Camp Unity, TC 3, and Nickelsville are all very successful tent cities today because of their structure, stability, and self-governance. The TAF encampment, while self-governed, lacked the other two factors and I will explore why this wasn’t ideal shortly.When these communities are in full swing, everyone who used to live on the streets where danger is ever-present, can now spend that energy to focus on getting back on their feet. One of the ways tent cities achieve this is through providing a multi-faceted sense of security. There is the physical security of being in numbers, protecting people from the crimes that we see committed against those who are alone on the street. Tent City 3 leader, Roger Franz said in an interview that the first thing someone should do if they find themselves on the streets for a night is “find people, it doesn’t matter if you can’t stand them. Find people and stick with them.” There is also security and comfort in knowing that you aren’t committing a crime every time you find a place to sleep. Jackie, the president of The Ave Foundation was grateful for the respite of being woken in the morning by park rangers, as this was too hard on her family. The stability of a tent city allows a sense of safety to flourish. Tent cities provide the residents with an anchor to tackle their daily life from. Knowing they are safe when there, that their tent is being protected, and that at the end of the day they don’t have to find a place to sleep removes a significant burden. Another aspect of this security occurs when the homeless are at work and know their belongings are safe. When some homeless people get jobs, they bring along a duffle bag with all of their belongings in it, but employers often take measures to prevent this. Without a tent city to watch over their life possessions, there is no telling how likely it is to go missing. These security benefits extend even beyond a camper’s stay. After getting out of the tent city, some are prone to relapse into homelessness from one large medical bill or the loss of a job; they always are thankful for having a tent city to rely on. In order to meet the needs of a home, self-governed tent cities also create a community which stimulates and pushes residents to achieve new heights. When visiting Tent City 3 and The Ave Foundation encampment, and in literature about Camp Unity Eastside and Camp Quixote, the camp will elect board members to have administrative power while all campers perform daily tasks that are required for smooth operation of the camp. These tasks range from security detail which every camper is required to do, cooking, clean up, and even speaking engagements with community organizations and schools that request them. The elected positions are all made up of campers, making every position an opportunity for a camper to realize their own potential, gain leadership, communication organizing, and planning experience, and reinforce for them how much they have to offer. This confidence and sense of self-worth provides benefits that are overarching across many aspects of a person’s life including helping them with job placement and staying in touch with a community. As campers at TC 3 are required to attend AT LEAST one camp-wide meeting per week, they are held accountable to the democratic process and their participation alone instills values that are lost on many Americans. Lastly, tent cities give campers an opportunity to foster their personal identity. One role of TC 3 is to serve as an educational tool for the community hosting them. This can be seen most clearly when TC 3 was at Seattle Pacific University (SPU) in the winter of 2015. Through interviews with Tent City 3 leaders and SPU staff and students, the level of interaction and collaboration between the school and camp was remarkable. The camp spent 90 days on campus in front of the student union building, participated in over 100 speaking events for clubs and classes and had over 1,700 visitors. All of these interactions present opportunities for campers to go out and share their story and create a sense of place in the camp. Both of these are ways to help someone continue to build their own confidence but also gather their thoughts and create a plan on where they want to go after the tent city.The structure of self-governance has afforded each resident the opportunity to start exploring another side of themselves as an activist and educator. It also protects the person during their daily lives within the camp. Well established rules and regulations keep private space for each resident protected and the channels in place for conflict management have withstood the test of time. Because of this, each resident has a home in this community where they can be themselves and experiment if they wish. The TAF encampment, while self-governed, was only able to last for three months for several reasons. Interviewing both TAF leadership and their host organization, University Congregational Church (who has hosted Nickelsville on two occasions) made clear that TAF lacked what the other camps had. The biggest perceived issue was the size. While the Seattle Encampment Ordinance and the other tent cities around Washington are capped at 100 people, TAF was only 30 people strong to start because of the localized nature of its residents. This prevented them from reaching a critical mass which could sustain them through leadership changes and resident fluctuation. Observed by their host, there was also a lack of organization due to the limited experience of the leaders who were present. While there was a constant point of contact for Nickelsville, TAF had multiple contact people but only one phone to reach them. As the phone changed hands, the hosts would regularly contact a leader who was not updated on current happenings. The lack of organization also made conflict management difficult within the camp. One resident was accused of threatening another U District resident with a firearm. This dispute raised many red flags and the camp was searched for the gun the perpetrator was threatening to use, and while it turned out he had no weapon, the process was laborious and disorganized causing undue stress on all parties. This lack of process for conflict resolution spelled failure for the tent city early on. However, when a home is provided to those who have lived for days or years in an environment of marginalization a measure of hope can be restored. The successful attempts of self-governed camps to create a sense of home should be the minimum requirements for our services for the homeless. Providing stimulation, security and identity should always be our goal to give those who are homeless a fighting chance. If we change the mindset of homeless from hopeless and useless to confident and safe, we can make a difference in the face of growing homeless populations and start to alter the stigmas of this population.Question two: How can we support and improve the functions of tent cities at the University of Washington?Methodology overviewThe organizing done for this half of the project is extensive, ongoing, and has been performed by more than just myself. Much of the following is work I have done, but it is a team effort and I owe the Tent City Collective a shout out as crucial to the work detailed here. The six steps we are using are:Identify existing groups/partnersRelationship buildingPower analysis of UWInstitutional process for approvalPotential actions (if needed)EvaluateResultsAt the start of organizing, I had to find partners and groups whose resources I could tap into to start a campaign for more tent city legitimacy. It was in this stage that I discovered the Tent City Collective (TCC). I quickly partnered with them as our group goals aligned very well. We were both advocating for an Encampment Ordinance in City Council (Appendix E). Working with them allowed me to be a source of information on how to do student organizing, but allowed work to be spread out amongst the ten core members. I learned that we are following in the footsteps of two other organizing efforts at the UW in the last ten years to get the UW to host Tent City 3, the most recent in 2009. Because of this, our relationship building has extended to focus on the opponents of the previous resolutions to build alliances where it is least expected. What I have learned has been beneficial and almost all positive. Almost everyone I have met with believes that the UW taking responsibility in the community to help support our tent cities is a good idea. The interviewees also see huge potential educational benefits if academia can be in such close proximity to TC 3. After SPU had such a successful experience hosting that tent city for the second time, there is no reason to believe we would be any less successful at the UW. One administrator whom I interviewed also gave us great insight into the previous attempt to pass a resolution through the Provost. We learned that the UW President has the final say but that before that decision came to pass, the governor at the time, Christine Gregoire, told the UW that if they hosted a tent city it would set a precedent for state land that would be unacceptable. This set us on the task of learning where current governor Jay Inslee stands on the same topic. I also created a power analysis (Appendix D) which we used to identify sub-targets who could support us in our ask to host a tent city of Interim President Ana Marie Cauce. These included the Faculty Senate who we hope to reach through the Associated Students of the University of Washington Undergraduate Student Senate (ASUW) and the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) presidents (because they are the official voice of the student body), and the School of Medicine who has more power than most other colleges at the UW. TCC has already forged alliances with the School of Social Work and Urban Design and Planning and hope to keep growing our base until we have a large number of departments in support of an integrated curriculum with TC 3. The other key player we have identified are the Greek system councils because they have helped block the previous attempts to pass this resolution (Appendix F). Their support would show a willingness of the student body as a whole to start giving back to the community. The support from ASUW and GPSS means that we aren’t operating alone but there have been deliberations over our resolution and that students support it. Their support will also give us access to the Faculty Senate by way of the ASUW and GPSS presidents who are adjunct members of Faculty Senate. By using these existing power structures to build support and hone our final product, we are expressing our willingness for collaboration. In the past, both student senates passed this resolution so we are fairly confident we can get them passed in Autumn 2015, but the Faculty Senate is a new goal to gain even more support moving forward. The next steps of this phase of my project is to continue working with TCC to build relationships and work our way higher into the administrative levels to understand in more detail what we will need to make a UW tent city a reality.023812509320044386553312Conclusion00ConclusionOutcomes and ImplicationsWith homelessness on the rise in Seattle, policy makers and community members are starting to respond. This is a state of emergency as the unsheltered homeless population increased by 21% since last year. Tent Cities, while not a perfect solution or one that can permanently end homelessness on its own, is certainly an attainable, viable, and effective solution that is currently being used. My first research question: Do tent cities provide a sense of home for their residents, is strongly supported when you look at the way tent cities have been run historically in Seattle. We can learn from the shortcomings of the TAF encampment and incorporate this idea as we move forward with forming more tent cities to accommodate those on the streets who are left wanting some form of shelter and permanency. By creating self-governed tent cities which incorporate a detailed structure and can have assured stability such as TC 3 and Nickelsville, we can foster the most important benefits of home without having to fund whole housing developments in the immediate future. It is very important to still focus on how to move people out of tent cities and back into the rental market and this should be the next step that Seattle takes. There is currently more talk about affordable housing in City Council, but it needs to be realized that tent cities are not a long term solution. One worry that has been roused by the Encampment Ordinance is that with it legitimizing tent cities, they will become a permanent fixture of Seattle. If this happens, we are failing in the ending of homelessness because tents are very substandard housing for anyone. We also must be prepared to deal with community pushback against the siting of tent cities. Because they are mobile and move every three months to a year, new communities are faced with this who may not know what to expect and are nervous. By aiding in identifying host locations and performing community outreach, the city can help encampments find the homes they need. The work being done at SPU and now by the Tent City Collective at UW are one step in the direction of assuaging those fears. Exposing college students to the reality of homelessness and enveloping them in education around what the real face of homelessness is will help to deconstruct many of the assumptions that are held by people today. The UW is also a premier institution that should lead the social agenda by example. If the university wants to be boundless and raise the next generation of movers and shakers, it should be able to uphold the ideals on its own campus.LimitationsThis project covers only a narrow swathe of our response to homelessness and is limited by a variety of factors. First, it is west coast specific. No information was drawn from tent cities elsewhere in the country and many of the manifestations of tent cities which I looked at are located in Washington state. It is also important to know that this is a local solution that has been implemented in times of need. There has been no real county or state policies addressing tent cities. This may prevent them from being scaled up into a larger emergency response strategy, but could also mean that further legitimacy will allow them to reach more people around the state. Lastly, there is a chance that the UW will not pass a resolution to host TC 3. This would be a major blow to the momentum behind tent cities in Seattle and would be an unfortunate outcome after all the effort being poured into it by TCC. Further Research This research has raised many other questions along the way that could aid in the effectiveness of tent cities. I have identified four questions which are vital to ensure that we are doing all we can to end homelessness. What are the benefits experienced by a community with a tent city in it? This question comes about after hearing the anecdotal evidence from those who I interviewed. When planning for the TAF encampment, many residents came forward with fears that crime would increase and the U District would become a mecca for the homeless. These concerns stem from the stigmas attached with homelessness, but I could not locate any research on whether they were situated in fact. My interviews with hosts and TC 3 revealed that they feel crime decreases when a tent city is in a community because they are adding 24/7 eyes on the street. If a comprehensive study was done to see the actual outcomes, then the statistics could better inform decisions based on the siting of tent cities. How do you optimize physical layout and resource use of a tent city? While the experience of Roger and Martin at TC 3 lead to an incredible wealth of knowledge on how their encampment needs to be set up, a documentation of this knowledge would be valuable for future encampments. Understanding where improvements could be made and how to integrate the community and the tent city will help make the most of every location. How do you best pair services with tent cities? As Seattle moves towards using a housing first philosophy to house the chronically homeless, they are working on pairing personalized services with those units. The same should be done with tent cities to ensure that the residents can receive high quality services which will help them improve their lives rather than their being efficiency loss from the translation of existing services into a modern solution to homelessness.How can we help move people out of an encampment and into permanent housing? The most important question that needs to be answered is how do we insure that people living in tent cities don’t wind up relying on it as a permanent fix to their housing instability? Making sure that the people who come out of encampments, rich with skills, perspective, and motivation, have a place to go where they are able to continue their path of self-improvement. This will involve looking at what affordable housing options are best suited for this population and how it can be targeted to this population effectively. left82Bibliography00BibliographyAlvarez, Humberto., Et. Al.?A Roof Over Every Bed in King County. Rep. Seattle: Committee to End Homelessness, 2004. Print.Byrne, Thomas. Fargo, Jamison. Montgomery, Ann Elizabeth. Munley, Ellen. and Culhane, Dennis P. "The Relationship between Community Investment in Permanent Supportive Housing and Chronic Homelessness" Social Service Review 88.2 (2014): 234-263.Cost Savings with Permanent Supportive Housing. Rep. National Alliance to End Homelessness, 1 Mar. 2010. Web.Culhane, Dennis P., and Stephen Metraux. "Rearranging the Deck Chairs or Reallocating the Lifeboats? Homelessness Assistance and Its Alternatives."?Journal of the American Planning Association?74.1 (2008): 111-21. Web.Devine-Wright, P. (2014). “Dynamics of place attachment in a climate changed world.” In Manzo, LC. And Devine-Wright, P. (Eds.). Place Attachment: Advances in Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Routledge.Easthope, Hazel. "A Place Called Home."?Housing, Theory and Society?21.3 (2004): 128-38. Web. 12 Nov. 2014.Green, Mike. McKnight, John. (2006). “When People Care Enough to Act.” Inclusion PressHerring, Christopher.?Tent Cities in America: A Pacific Coast Report. Rep. N.p.: n.p., 2010. Print.Hester, R. (2006). “Excerpt from Design for Ecological Democracy.” Cambridge MA: MIT Press.“Housing First: A New Approach to Ending Homelessness for Families”. Rep. National Alliance to End Homelessness, 27 Nov. 2006. Web."How Many People Experience Homelessness?"?National Coalition for the Homeless. National Coalition for the Homeless, July 2009. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.Loftus-Farren, Zoe. "Tent Cities: An Interim Solution to Homelessness and Affordable Housing Shortages in the United States." California Law Review 99.4 (2011): 1037-081. JSTOR. Web. 25 Jan. 2015.National Alliance to End Homelessness.2005a. “Community Snapshot: San Francisco.” Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness.-----. 2005b. “Community Snapshot: New York.” Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness.-----. 2007a. “Community Snapshot: Portland and Multnomah County.” Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness"One Night Count."?One Night Count. Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, Jan. 2015. Web. 08 February 2015.Raymond, Adam K. "6 Tent Cities Making a Difference."??Sept. 2009: n. pag. Print.Rose, G. (1995) “Place and identit: a sense of place”, in D. Massey and P. Jess (eds) A Place in the World?: Places, Cultures and Globalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87-132.Soja, E. W. (1996) Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Cambridge: BlackwellTuan, Y. (1980) “Rootedness versus Sense of Place”, Landscape 24:3-8Tuan, Y. (2001) ?ntroduction: Cosmos versus Hearth”, in P. Adams, S. Hoelscher and K. Till (eds) Textures of Place: Exploring Humanist Geographies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 319-325Werner, Virginia C. "Planning for Self-Organized Homeless Camps: Policy, Community Relations, and Locational Process." Thesis. University of Washington, 2014. Printleft441Appendix00AppendixAppendix A: TimelineTasksOctNovDecJanFebMarchApril May JuneHuman ResourcesGather SourcesFind UD HostFinal Proposal due11/26 Tent City BackgroundFinalize SurveyMentor Contract Signed1/14Start interviewsStart ObservationsPlace attachment lit reviewMeet with neighborhood groupsStart processing results and tailor to neighborhood needsBuild/analyze systemLiterature Review2/4Methodology Draft2/25Finish interview/obsOutline guidebookUpdated Abstract & part one Project write up3/116 Slides/5 Minutes3/13Background for bookAnalyze all results, finalize data in book and format/ writeRevised Abstract & Part One Project write-up4/1Visual EditingFinal Abstract Due5/411x17 Dues5/11Senior Project Night5/14Mary Gates Research Symposium5/15Final Project Due5/27Senior Project Posters Due6/8Present to other neighborhoods\Appendix B: Interviews (Questions are Unedited)Interview questions for currently or formerly homeless:Are you/have you been a resident in a roving tent city (Tent City 3, 4, Nicklesville, etc…)If Yes, How often have you worked to help/improve your host or host community?What was the greatest hurdle of Moving Day?Did this camp make you feel your voice was heard, and help you grow?How do you feel about living in a Tent City?What are the benefits and drawbacks?What kind of interactions do you have with other Tent City residents? How do these differ from interactions with other homeless people on the streets?Could you describe your interactions with your hosts at any locations you have been at?What do you think is the greatest challenge facing the TAF encampment?What do you thinking it has to contribute to the community?If No, What is your opinion of tent cities? Have you considered living in a tent city? What stopped you from moving there?How do you feel about making an encampment move every 3 months? What are the benefits and drawbacks?Do you feel a tent city should be visible and on the street or set back from the road to provide more privacy?Have you attended a community meeting where homelessness/a tent city was a large portion of the debate?If so, can you describe your impressions of this community from the meeting?How does the appearance of a tent city effect the neighboring community?What kinds of things do you think would make communities more receptive to the homeless community in general (specifically a tent city)? Are there structures or services that a tent city could provide that would help you achieve your goals?Why are you living in the neighborhood that you currently live in?Would you move to another neighborhood you like more?If you could live in a tent city in your favorite neighborhood, would you?Are there any other things you would like to share with me about your experiences with a tent city, TAF, or community relations?Interview questions for host organization members:How long have you been a part of [insert organization name here]Do you also live in the neighborhood?Why did you choose to live where you do?Do you think this has improved your quality of life?Are you active in your organization’s outreach to the homeless?If so, what do you do?What are some of the difficulties you face in outreach to the homeless?What was your first impression of tent cities?How have your views (of tent cities and homelessness) changed over time?What instances caused your views to shift?What was the most significant experience or piece of information that you would want to share to other potential hosts?What interactions have you had with a tent city? (Talked with campers, volunteering, community meetings)If you have interacted with multiple tent cities: How have the different encampments been easier or harder to work with?Has an encampment given back to your organization in some way? If so, how so and was it effective/worthwhile?Can you describe what the camp looks like physically from the outside?Do you think its appearance has an effect on the community’s perception of the placeDoes the placement of the camp on a specific lot have an effect, positive or negative?Does its context in the neighborhood have an effect?If the tent city you hosted were exclusive to one neighborhood, would this make you more or less likely to host it again?Do you think there are advantages to giving homeless people the chance to live in their neighborhood of choice?Would a tent city of only residents from the neighborhood make in more accepted by the community?What do you think would make people more receptive to a camp in the neighborhood?What do you think are the greatest challenges in front of the TAF encampment?What do you think are its greatest strengths and contributions?Is there anything else you want to share with me about hosting tent cities?Interview questions for municipal employees, planners, and professionals:What is your official job title?How long have you held this position?What are your official job responsibilities?Probe: experience or responsibilities relating to working with/considering homeless people?How does your job interact with tent cities?In what ways does the City hope to further support self-organized homeless organizations in the near future?Appendix C: Tent City 3 Code of ConductDrug & Alcohol FreeViolators will be asked to leaveNo weaponsNo violenceNo degrading ethnic, racist, sexist or homophobic remarksNo physical punishment, verbal abuse, or intimidationRespect the rights and privacy of othersIn tents, No:Men in women’s tentsWomen in men’s tentsOpen flamesNo loitering or disturbing neighborsNo trespassing in other people’s living areasMandatory attendance of AT LEAST one community meeting each weekAppendix D: University of Washington Power AnalysisAppendix E: Seattle Encampment OrdinanceCITY OF SEATTLEORDINANCE _1247474__________COUNCIL BILL ___118310__________AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Sections 23.42.054, 23.54.015, 23.76.004, 23.76.006, 23.76.032, and 23.84A.038 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding new Section 23.42.056; to permit transitional encampments for homeless individuals as an interim use on City-owned or private property.WHEREAS, there is a well-documented history of homelessness in Seattle and a demonstrated need for additional facilities to address the issue;WHEREAS, the current crisis of homelessness is impacted by a broad number of other societal challenges, including the growth of poverty and inequality, and the erosion of state and federal investments in our criminal justice, mental health, substance abuse, foster care and safety net systems, which have compounded in a crisis that requires the response of not just government, but by our entire community;WHEREAS, since 2010, people sleeping without shelter in Seattle have increased 30 percent, to more than 2,300 in the One Night Count in 2014;WHEREAS, in the fall of 2010 a Citizen Review Panel on Housing and Services for Seattle’s Unsheltered Homeless Population recommended that the City establish a transitional encampment to help meet the immediate survival and safety needs of individuals without access to safe shelter;WHEREAS, the City’s focus on solutions for people who are homeless should be a roof-over-head and services to connect individuals with a pathway toward long-term housing, however, the current capacity of our housing and homeless services continuum cannot meet the needs of all those who are homeless and, as an alternative, tent encampments can offer a sense of safety and community while seeking longer term housing options;WHEREAS, temporary encampments hosted by qualified organizations on properties owned or controlled by religious organizations as authorized by Ordinance 123729, effective November 2011, must provide, at a minimum, running water and hygiene facilities for people in the encampments; andWHEREAS in 2012, the Council added a Comprehensive Plan goal to, "Guide the operation of safe and healthy transitional encampments to allow temporary shelter for those who are homeless;"WHEREAS, agreements are encouraged between transitional encampment operators and the owner of the property where an encampment is located to provide encampment guidelines that extend beyond zoning standards, including prohibiting alcohol, drugs, weapons, and sex offenders; or establishing rules for children in encampments;WHEREAS, in 2014 the Mayor with support from Council launched a three-part strategy to address the growing population of homeless individuals and families that included convening a Housing Affordability and Livability Advisory Committee to make recommendations for creating more permanent, affordable housing options across the income spectrum, including housing for homeless or formerly homeless people, and;WHEREAS, the Mayor directed the Human Services Department to evaluate the City’s investments in homeless services, interventions, and prevention and make recommendations to better align our efforts with national best practices, and;WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Mayor and the City Council that any encampment operator seeking City funding for operations or a lease agreement for use of any designated City-owned properties to site an encampment would be required to participate in the City’s Homelessness Management Information System as managed by the Human Services Department; WHEREAS, the Mayor convened an Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness to make recommendations to rapidly address the needs of those who are without shelter;WHEREAS, in December of 2014, the Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness recommended to the Mayor a proposal to make public and private lands available for tent encampments; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:Section 1. Section 23.42.054 of the Seattle Municipal Code, enacted by Ordinance 123729, is amended as follows:23.42.054 Transitional encampments accessory to religious facilities or to other principal uses located on property owned or controlled by a religious organizationA. Transitional encampment accessory use. A transitional encampment is allowed as an accessory use on a site in any zone, if the established principal use of the site is as a religious facility or the principal use is on property owned or controlled by a religious organization, subject to the provisions of subsection 23.42.054.B. A religious facility site includes property developed with legally-established parking that is accessory to the religious facility. Parking accessory to a religious facility or located on property owned or controlled by a religious organization that is displaced by the encampment does not need to be replaced. B. The encampment operator or applicant shall comply with the following provisions:* * *6. Individuals under the age of 18 that are not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian shall not be permitted in an encampment.7. File a site plan with the Seattle Department of Planning and Development showing the arrangement of the encampment, including numbers of tents or similar sleeping shelters, all facilities that are separate from the sleeping shelters, and all existing structures on the property, if any. The site plan is for informational purposes and is not subject to City review or permitting requirements.* * *Section 2. A new Section 23.42.056 to the Seattle Municipal Code is adopted as follows:23.42.056 Transitional encampment as an interim useA Type I Master Use Permit may be issued for a transitional encampment interim use according to the requirements of this Section 23.42.056.A. Location. The transitional encampment interim use shall be located on property meeting the following requirements:1. The property is zoned Industrial, Downtown, SM, NC2, NC3, C1, or C2; except if the property is in a residential zone as defined in Section 23.84A.048 or is in a special review district established by Chapter 23.66.2. The property is at least 25 feet from any residentially-zoned lot.3. A property may be less than 25 feet from a residentially-zoned lot and used as an encampment site if:a. All encampment facilities, improvements, activities, and uses are located at least 25 feet from any residentially-zoned lot. Access to the encampment site may be located within the 25-foot setback area.b. Screening is installed and maintained along each encampment boundary, except boundaries fronting on an opened public street. The screening shall consist of existing or installed vegetation that is sufficiently dense to obscure viewing the encampment site, or a 6-foot high view-obscuring fence or wall.4. The property is owned by the City of Seattle or a private party.5. The property is within 1/2 mile of a transit stop. This distance shall be the walking distance measured from the nearest transit stop to the lot line of the lot containing the encampment site.6. The property is, as measured by a straight line, at least 1 mile from any other legally-established transitional encampment interim use including encampments accessory to a religious facility or accessory to other principal uses on property owned or controlled by a religious organization. This subsection 23.42.056.A.6 shall not apply to encampments on sites owned or controlled by religious organizations, or to any legally-established transitional encampment interim use that provides shelter for fewer than ten persons.7. The property is 5,000 square feet or larger and provides a minimum of 100 square feet of land area for each occupant that is permitted to occupy the encampment site.8. The property does not contain a wetland, wetland buffer, known and potential landslide designations, steep slope, steep slope buffer, or fish and wildlife habitat conservation area defined and regulated by Chapter 25.09, Regulations for Environmentally Critical Areas, unless all encampment facilities, improvements, activities, and uses are located outside any critical area and required buffer as provided for in Chapter 25.09.9. The encampment site is not used by an existing legally-permitted use for code or permit-required purposes including but not limited to parking or setbacks.10. The property is not an unopened public right of way; or designated as a park, playground, viewpoint, or multi-use trail by the City or King County.B. Operation. The transitional encampment interim use shall meet the following requirements:1. The encampment may be operated by a private party that shall prepare an Encampment Operations Plan that shall address: site management, site maintenance, provision of Human/Social Services, referrals to service providers that are able to provide services to individuals under the age of 18 who arrive at an encampment unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian, and public health and safety standards. The operations plan shall be filed with the transitional encampment interim use permit application.2. The operator shall have prior experience managing and operating shelters, low-income housing, or homeless encampments. The transitional encampment interim use permit applicant shall include documentation as part of the permit application demonstrating that the encampment operator meets this standard.3. The Director, in consultation with the Human Services Director, shall adopt a rule according to subsection 23.88.010.A that provides for:a. Community outreach standards that the encampment operator shall comply with before filing a transitional encampment interim use permit application, whether for a new transitional encampment or relocation of an existing transitional encampment. At a minimum, outreach standards shall contain a requirement that the encampment operator convene at least one public meeting in the neighborhood where the transitional encampment interim use is proposed to be established, at least 14 days prior to applying for a permit;b. A requirement that the proposed encampment operator establish a Community Advisory Committee that would provide advisory input on proposed encampment operations including identifying methods for handling community complaints or concerns as it relates to the facility or facility clients. The committee shall include one individual identified by each stakeholder group in the geographic area where the proposed encampment would be located as best suited to represent their interests. The committee shall consist of no more than seven members. Encampment operator representatives shall attend committee meetings to answer questions and shall provide regular reports to the committee concerning encampment operations. City staff may attend the meetings; andc. Operations standards that the encampment operator is required to implement while an encampment is operating.C. Additional requirements. The transitional encampment interim use shall meet the following requirements:1. The requirements for transitional encampment accessory uses in subsections 23.42.054.B and 23.42.054.C.2. The operator of a transitional encampment interim use located on City-owned property shall obtain prior to permit issuance and maintain in full force and effect, at its own expense, liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured in an amount sufficient to protect the City as determined by the City Risk Manager from:a. All potential claims and risks of loss from perils in connection with any activity that may arise from or be related to the operator's activity upon or the use or occupation of the City property allowed by the permit; andb. All potential claims and risks in connection with activities performed by the operator by virtue of the permission granted by the permit.3. The operator of a transitional encampment interim use located on City-owned property shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Seattle, its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against: a. Any liability, claims, actions, suits, loss, costs, expense judgments, attorneys' fees, or damages of every kind and description resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the operator of a transitional encampment interim use located on City-owned property, its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and anyone for whose acts or omissions they may be liable, arising out of the operator’s use or occupancy of the City property; and b. All loss by the failure of the operator of a transitional encampment interim use located on City-owned property to perform all requirements or obligations under the transitional encampment interim use permit, or federal, state, or City codes or rules. 4. A transitional encampment interim use located on City-owned property shall allow service providers to access the site according to the approved operations plan required by subsection 23.42.056.B.1.D. Duration and timing. The transitional encampment interim use shall meet the following requirements:1. A permit for a transitional encampment interim use under this Section 23.42.056 may be authorized for up to one year from the date of permit issuance and may not be renewed.2. At least 12 months shall elapse before an encampment use may be located on any portion of a property where a transitional encampment interim use was previously located.E. Limit on the number of encampments. No more than three transitional encampment interim use encampments shall be permitted and operating at any one time, and each encampment shall not have more than 100 occupants. This limit shall not include transitional encampments accessory to a religious facility.Section 3. Table A for 23.54.015 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 124608, is amended as follows:23.54.015 Required parking* * *Table A for 23.54.015 Parking for ((n))Non-residential ((u))Uses ((o))Other ((t))Than ((i))Institutions Use Minimum parking required I. General Non-residential Uses (other than institutions) * * *G.TRANSITIONAL ENCAMPMENT INTERIM USE1 space for every vehicle used as shelter; plus 1 space for each 2 staff members on-site at peak staffing times ((G))H. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES((G))H.1. Cargo terminals 1 space for each 2,000 square feet((G))H.2. Parking and moorage((G))H.2.a. Principal use parking None((G))H.2.b. Towing services None((G))H.2.c. Boat moorage 1 space for each 2 berths((G))H.2.d. Dry storage of boats 1 space for each 2,000 square feet((G))H.3. Passenger terminals 1 space for each 100 square feet of waiting area((G))H.4. Rail transit facilities None((G))H.5. Transportation facilities, air 1 space for each 100 square feet of waiting area((G))H.6. Vehicle storage and maintenance uses 1 space for each 2,000 square feet((H))I. UTILITIES 1 space for each 2,000 square feetII. Non-residential Use Requirements For Specific Areas((I))J. Non-residential uses in urban centers or the Station Area Overlay District (3)No minimum requirement((J))K. Non-residential uses in urban villages that are not within an urban center or the Station Area Overlay District, if the non-residential use is located within 1,320 feet of a street with frequent transit service, measured as the walking distance from the nearest transit stop to the lot line of the lot containing the non-residential use. (3)No minimum requirement ((K))L.Non-residential uses permitted in MR and HR zones pursuant to Section 23.45.504.No minimum requirement* * ** * *Section 4. Table A for 23.76.004 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 124378, is amended as follows:23.76.004 Land use decision framework* * *Table A for 23.76.004LAND USE DECISION FRAMEWORK1Director’s and Hearing Examiner’s Decisions Requiring Master Use Permits((DIRECTOR'S AND HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONS REQUIRING MASTER USE PERMITS))TYPE I Director's Decision(Administrative review through land use interpretation as allowed by Section 23.88.020[2])* * **Uses on vacant or underused lots pursuant to Section 23.42.038*Transitional encampment interim use*Certain street uses * * *Section 5. Section 23.76.006 of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 123963, is amended as follows:23.76.006 Master Use Permits requiredA. Type I, II, and III decisions are components of Master Use Permits. Master Use Permits are required for all projects requiring one or more of these decisions.B. The following decisions are Type I:1. Determination that a proposal complies with development standards;2. Establishment or change of use for uses permitted outright, interim use parking under subsection 23.42.040.G, uses allowed under Section 23.42.038, temporary relocation of police and fire stations for 24 months or less, transitional encampment interim use, and temporary uses for four weeks or less not otherwise permitted in the zone, and renewals of temporary uses for up to six months, except temporary uses and facilities for light rail transit facility construction and transitional encampments;* * *C. The following are Type II decisions:* * *2. The following decisions are subject to appeal to the Hearing Examiner (except shoreline decisions and related environmental determinations that are appealable to the Shorelines Hearings Board):* * *l. Establishment of temporary uses for transitional encampments, except transitional encampment interim uses provided for in subsection 23.76.006.B.2 ; and* * *Section 6. Section 23.76.032.A of the Seattle Municipal Code, last amended by Ordinance 124378, is amended as follows:23.76.032 Expiration and renewal of Type I and II Master Use PermitsA. Type I and II Master Use Permit expiration 1. An issued Type I or II Master Use Permit expires three years from the date a permit is approved for issuance as described in Section 23.76.028, except as follows:a. A Master Use Permit with a shoreline component expires pursuant to WAC 173-27-090.b. A variance component of a Master Use Permit expires as follows:1) Variances for access, yards, setback, open space, or lot area minimums granted as part of a short plat or lot boundary adjustment run with the land in perpetuity as recorded with the King County Recorder.2) Variances granted as separate Master Use Permits pursuant to subsection 23.76.004.G expire three years from the date the permit is approved for issuance as described in Section 23.76.028 or on the effective date of any text amendment making more stringent the development standard from which the variance was granted, whichever is sooner. If a Master Use Permit to establish the use is issued prior to the earlier of the dates specified in the preceding sentence, the variance expires on the expiration date of the Master Use Permit.c. The time during which pending litigation related to the Master Use Permit or the property subject to the permit made it reasonable not to submit an application for a building permit, or to establish a use if a building permit is not required, is not included in determining the expiration date of the Master Use Permit.d. Master Use Permits with a Major Phased Development or Planned Community Development component under Sections 23.47A.007, 23.49.036, or 23.50.015 expire as follows:1) For the first phase, the expiration date shall be three years from the date the permit is approved for issuance;2) For subsequent phases, the expiration date shall be determined at the time of permit issuance for each phase, and the date shall be stated in the permit.e. Permits for uses allowed under Section 23.42.038, and temporary, interim, or intermittent use permits issued pursuant to Section 23.42.040, and transitional encampment interim use permits issued under Section 23.42.056, expire on the date stated in the permit.* * *Section 7. Section 23.84A.038 of the Seattle Municipal Code, which section was last amended by Ordinance 124378, is amended as follows: 23.84A.038 "T" * * *"Transitional Encampment" means a use having tents or a similar shelter, including vehicles used for shelter, that provides temporary quarters for sleeping and shelter. The use may have common food preparation, shower, or other commonly-used facilities that are separate from the sleeping shelters. * * *Section 8. This ordinance shall be automatically repealed without subsequent Council action on March 31, 2020.Section 9. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, sub-division, section or portion of this ordinance, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its approval by the Mayor, but if not approved and returned by the Mayor within ten days after presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Seattle Municipal Code Section 1.04.020.Appedix F: TCC Resolution for ASUWASUW ResolutionA Resolution in Support of the University of Washington Hosting Tent City IIIWHEREAS shelter is a basic human right. WHEREAS according to a King County Survey, an estimated 10,047 people are homeless on any given night, and;WHEREAS in 2015 the annual One Night Count found 3,772 sleeping outside without shelter in Seattle, a 21% increase from ?2014, and;WHEREAS over 7,000 people in King County are faced with finding shelter night after night, or are on waiting lists for transitional housing programs, and;WHEREAS on a single night in 2012 at least 214 children and 152 adults looking for shelter were turned away, and;WHEREAS 67% of people living in emergency shelter and transitional housing are people of color, as opposed to 35% of the general population of King County, and; WHEREAS less than 5% of all apartments in King County are affordable to households earning less than 30% of median income ($26,400 for a family of four) and 45% of all renter households in King County pay more than 30% of their income for rent, and;WHEREAS Tent City III offers a temporary fix to the problem of homelessness in King County by providing temporary housing to those without housing for a minimal cost, and;WHEREAS the Emergency Task Force on Unsheltered Homelessness recommended in its December 2014 report that the city of Seattle permit camps to be sited on public land or privately-owned, non-religious property, and; WHEREAS in March 2015 the Seattle City Council authorized up to three new homeless encampments for 100 people each on private property or city land, including the University of Washington, and;WHEREAS Seattle University hosted Tent City III in February 2005, and;WHEREAS Seattle Pacific University hosted Tent City III in January 2012- March 2012 and in December 2014- March 2015, and;WHEREAS Tent City III has moved 75+ times in its 15 years historyWHEREAS Tent City III is currently staying at Shoreline Free Methodist Church in Shoreline, WA, and;WHEREAS Tent City III is in need of a new host to allow them use of land on which to live for a period of time to not exceed 90 days, and;WHEREAS as students at a major public university located inside of King County within the greater state of Washington, we are intimately involved with the problems of poverty and homelessness; andWHEREAS as students at the University of Washington we interact with the homeless community daily on the Ave (University Way NE); andWHEREAS while the standard cost is negligible, the cost to the UW is cost-neutral and there would be fundraising efforts; WHEREAS Session 15 of the ASUW Student Senate approved a similar resolution (R-15-21) in support of hosting Tent City III in 2009, and;THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON:THAT in an effort to support social justice and community outreach, the students of the University of Washington support the university in hosting Tent City III for a period of time between 30 and 90 days, and;THAT the decision on where to locate Tent City should involve significant student input from across the campus community. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download