A while back I wrote an article about what was happening in Sonny Lawson Park. At the time it was closed off for “remodeling.” The reason given for spending over $450,000 on the project was to beautify the park and to somehow make it more appealing to the local neighborhood. There was some concern that the park was heavily frequented by local homeless people and not being used by the other residents in the area as well. The spin was all about “integrating use” in a very diverse neighborhood. There was discussion that the park would reopen as a place that was more inviting with more community style events allowing better mixing to occur. The park reopened in early June.

The additions to the park included some exercise equipment, the kind you would find along a running trail with stations for sit ups, pull ups and some balancing and stretching kinds of exercises. Also added were Ping-Pong® tables, a very nice new playground for children and some additional tables for picnicking and games like chess or dominoes. At the same time another nearby park--Triangle Park--was also closed for remodeling. 

The infamous Triangle Park was notorious for drug trafficking. Triangle Park has not reopened.  Now that Sonny Lawson has, guess who has entered into the mix that was not there before--the very element the frequent users of Sonny Lawson in the past were hoping to avoid. Folks who thought they were going to be able to push out the unsavory element that was not there to any significant degree before wound up inviting them in. This new element, however, is only a small part of what is currently happening in Sonny Lawson Park. It has retained much of the character it had before it was closed for “remodeling.” A half a million dollars was spent to change very little. That being said, a local farmer’s market opens on Saturdays and is frequented by the community. There is some light use of the exercise equipment and some light use of the playground. But in the end nothing much has changed. 

So who benefited from the project? Local leaders will tell you quickly just how much public money was spent on the project. As if that makes it a success. Well, maybe for the builders it is beautiful, but it was before. In the end half a million dollars of public money has been spent with very little impact. Where else could that money have been spent? There is still not an accessible public bathroom the park, which has always been a need. At least then there would be some public infrastructure as part of the improvements. 

Heard of those Tiny Homes? They’ve become a big trend recently, as more and more Americans begin to question our oversized lifestyles. The term generally refers to living quarters of less than 200 sq. feet that are typically well designed to maximize space. Many, but not all, are put on trailers and are made to be quite attractive. From rich folks who can drop $55,000 on a prebuilt micro-house, to homeless advocates who build them for $5,000 or less, they are challenging the American notion that in order to have a place to call home you need a mortgage and a full time job to pay your heating bill.

In May of this year, Westword--our local arts, culture and politics rag--printed an article about Denver Homeless Out Loud’s (DHOL’s) Tiny Home Working Group--See “Could tiny houses solve a big problem in Denver?” on westword.com--It was about 90% correct –pretty darn good for the press! All in all, Kyle, the writer, did a respectful piece, but there were a few problems which I wish to address here.

First off, the article focused way too much on me, and made me out to be a quasi-saint of sorts who saves the world and spent some time with his Grandma in Indiana. I thought the article would be on homeless people, and as anyone in DHOL can tell you, I’m no saint, just a big grumpy turd. And my grandma is from Illinois, thank you.

Secondly, fellow DHOL friend, Frank, was characterized slanderously. I won’t get into the details of how – but just know that Frank’s a lot better than he is depicted in that article.

Thirdly, the article stated that I, a currently housed person, would be the first recipient of a DHOL Tiny Home. What that leads the reader to assume is that DHOL is paying for a house that I will eventually live in, instead of building homes for people who need it. The truth is, my fiancé and I decided to build a Tiny Home right around the time DHOL was getting interested in building them. So we invited whoever wanted to, to come over and drink our coffee and beer, eat our pizza, play with power tools if they wanted, and have conversations about how we can get more tiny homes built for folks who have no home. And, to be clear, we never asked for a dime.

So why not build more? Because we have no land. At the time the article was written, our Tiny House barely fit on the property we were building on. We’re reaching out to neighbors, churches and community groups to try and acquire places to put them, but so far, no one has been able to commit to it. And the reason that no one has been able to commit, I think, is what the Westword article should have been about: housing policy and how it affects homelessness.

Part 1: The Untold Story

Here’s a little, far too simplified and condensed, overview of housing policy and its effects on homelessness in America:

1933 – Government estimates 1.5 million homeless individuals in America.

1934 – Government rolls out New Deal with well-funded housing programs.

1940 until 1980 – Housing program works (for the most part). Government says homeless population stayed at a consistent low of 100,000 people throughout these four decades (even as total population grew).

The Big Change - 1978 to 1983 – US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gets its low-income housing budget slashed from $83 Billion to $13 Billion.

Cause and Effect - 1980 to 1989 – Homelessness triples in size – up to 300,000 people counted by HUD in ‘89.

1990’s – Homelessness doubles again, up to 600,000 people counted. HUD budget still diminished.

Today – Over 3.5 Million Americans homeless for at least some time each year. Federal Low Income Housing Budget roughly half of what it was in 1978 - $45 Billion

Zoning Codes and other regulations– After White Flight began in the 1950’s, and many affluent people began building gigantic housing in the suburbs, building codes and HOA rules became stricter to regulate new construction. The ‘90’s and early 2000’s housing boom made regulations even stricter, forcing developers and home builders to build bigger and bigger. Denver now requires new construction to be at least 1000 sq. feet, bedrooms have to be 100 sq. feet, and living rooms have to be at least 150 sq. feet. (Neither I, nor the dog I share a bedroom with in our 1890’s house ever complain about our meager 72 sq. feet.)

New Urbanism and Urban Displacement - At some point, people figured out that living in a cul-de-sac in the suburbs, commuting an hour to work each way and shopping at Walmart was lame, boring, and not very “sustainable;” so began the new White Migration, called “New Urbanism,” where everybody wanted a “greener,” more walkable life in the city center. This form of “sustainability,” of course, didn’t include poor people. Because of this “new urbanism,” most of the old inner city neighborhoods that people moved to because they were quirky and interesting, became less and less so as poor people were pushed out of them by greener-minded “entrepreneurs.” These “new urbanites” also pushed for tighter regulations of their communities, and particularly public spaces, helping usher in the new age of criminalizing homelessness by making it illegal to do basic acts of survival, like lying down.

The result: Today, if you live in Denver, you probably can’t afford housing. Any rent burden that is greater than 30% of your income is considered unaffordable by HUD. In Denver, if you work full time at minimum wage, you make $1280 a month before taxes, but a one bedroom averages $1040/per month. So why not build your own house like people have done for millennia? Because it’s ridiculously expensive to build “up to code,” and it’s illegal to build reasonably sized structures. So what do you do? There aren’t enough shelter options or housing vouchers, so you might just wind up being one of the roughly 4,000 people stuck outside on any given night. But if you try to cover yourself to stay warm with anything other than your clothes, you run the risk of the cops running you off or arresting you for violating the camping ban.

Part 2: A Tiny Solution
Anyone who’s studied homelessness on a systemic level knows that creating more housing options for unhoused people is the most effective way to actually end homelessness. It’s also cheaper than keeping people in a desperate cycle of emergency shelter stays, emergency room visits and jail stints that are caused by a hard life subsisting on the streets. But the federal housing budget is diminished and local government won’t allocate enough funding for housing.

So what if people took the housing crisis into their own hands? A few days before Christmas, 2000, a group of unhoused people in Portland, Oregon did just that. They first created a tent city underneath a bridge near the court house, and were going to stay there until the city gave them a better alternative. Immediately this caused a controversy with passionate supporters and critics alike raising their voices. A heated standoff ensued between the city and the “campground” that was protected under the First Amendment. Thankfully, many of the residents of the campground were also well-spoken advocates. Eventually, the city offered the group of unhoused people a piece of property just north of downtown where they were given the right to build their own housing. Fairly soon, people donated materials and labor, and residents began designing and constructing their own homes.

Today, 60 units--each custom designed and built to the specific needs of the residents--make up Dignity Village. They share common facilities (including kitchen and bathrooms) and maintain a garden together. Residents make up the council that regulates the property, and each person offers 10 hours a week to make the place better. At Dignity Village, each dwelling has its own door and privacy, and populations that are generally underserved are welcome – including couples without children, transgendered folks, and people with pets. And to top it off, they are able to offer dignity to a lot of people while staying within a smaller budget than any other housing program in Portland. Many express a sense of ownership over the space, and there is a waiting list for each house, because people prefer this model over the overcrowded shelters in town which don’t cater to the specific populations of people that make up Portland’s homeless community.

Dignity Village is such a beautiful model, and the houses are so attractive, it’s started a revolution around the country. From Austin, to Madison, Eugene, Fresno and Olympia, more and more cities are attempting different models of tiny home communities, each with the emphasis on creating a more dignified alternative to overcrowded shelter options and brutal weather on the streets. Why shouldn’t this happen in Denver too?

DHOL would like to help make “Little Denver” (or “Dignified Denver”) a reality. We recently acquired a new building site for tiny home construction and we’re excited to get started on another house. Sure, there’s still the problem of not having any land to put them on when they’re built, and we’re expecting a few complications from the city, but where there’s a will, there has to be a way. Everyone deserves a home, period. 

The idea of a 24 hour “rest and resource center” for people experiencing homelessness was
brought to the public’s awareness over two years ago, by Mayor Hancock, City
Councilman Albus Brooks and others, during hearings leading up to the passage of Denver’s unauthorized camping ordinance. “We know there is a shortage of resources,” said Hancock. “I believe what this ordinance will do is help us focus even more sharply on helping develop these resources.” And Brooks echoed this sentiment, insisting in a Denver Post Op-Ed piece that “The ordinance provides accountability and enables us to leverage our position with the business community to build upon existing assets and infrastructure.”

 I think both Hancock and Brooks want us to believe that an ordinance which punishes homeless people for sleeping-an act of survival--was somehow needed in order to get the mayor and other city officials off their existing assets and do their jobs. Doing their jobs includes, at the least, making such absolute necessities as affordable permanent housing,
decent temporary housing and related services a reality so that 11,000 homeless people in the Denver metro area can both be safe and get off the streets, and not-yet-homeless people
can NOT become homeless.

So, what essential services is this all-important 24 Hour R&R Center, touted by Brooks as “the first of its kind in the city,” supposed to deliver to homeless people? And, after two and a half years, what is its status?  Well, apart from a “final” report from the task force which Brooks assembled to work on the project, outlining how the R&R Center might operate, it does not exist whatsoever. Milliner and task force members (mostly from the service provider community) explain that the hang-up is the place. Apparently no one whose opinion counts
in this matter wants the center in their neighborhood. Those whose opinions count include housed people and the “business community” with whom city government is “leveraging our position” (read “buying them off our back”) by passing the camping ban. 

Those whose opinions do NOT seem to count include the unhoused people for whom the center is to be built. Although in so many ways they are the “experts” on what services they
need, and how these services can most effectively be provided, there is a dearth of homeless people on the task force. (Randle Loeb, a strong advocate for homeless people’s rights and with a long history of homelessness himself, is on the task force.) 
 
City officials have leaked that a place has been found, and that it is “far outside downtown,” but they have not yet identified the location. One rumor puts it somewhere on south Federal Boulevard, miles from the downtown area where homeless folks find services such as shelters, free meals, employment assistance, and health care.  This rumor has caused many to wonder
how people would get back and forth, whether transportation will be provided, and 
whether the aim might be to “disappear” homeless people from the downtown area-perhaps
forcibly, with the aid of squad cars.  (When people are kept in the dark about projects
that will affect their lives, rumors will abound.)

What is this R&R thing that businesses and housed people don’t want in their neighborhood? As stated in the “Final Report for the Work Group” on the center, the initial concept included a 150-bed shelter (which would have made sense, since there is a serious lack of shelter beds even while the camping ban has outlawed sleeping outside), but “adding a shelter element does increase the difficulty in identifying a location within the siting and density requirements of the existing zoning code.” Translation: by placing severe restrictions on where needed
overnight shelters and other homeless service centers can be located (and thereby preventing the sight of too many “unsavory characters” from supposedly keeping customers away and residents on edge), our city’s zoning code reinforces the desires and preferences of the housed and business communities, at the expense of the survival needs of the unhoused. 

In highlighting the increasing need for a 24-hour drop-in shelter, the report states that “While the need to secure the business climate and private residences is a concern, the need to provide alternative
solutions for those affected by the new [urban camping ban] ordinance is of equal 
concern.” Presumably this statement implies that the camping ban was passed to “secure the business climate and private residences” against homeless people sleeping outside. But the camping ban CANNOT keep people from sleeping outside, given that realistic alternatives 
don’t exist for many homeless people, who MUST and WILL sleep somewhere.

So, if this 24 hour center will not provide shelter beds, or affordable housing, what “alternative solutions” for those affected by the camping ban WILL it provide? According to the “final” report, it will be open 24 hours to allow a safe place out of the elements “for those who choose
not to access regular shelters”--but they will not be allowed to lie down and sleep. So one can’t help wonder: Why, except in extreme weather, would unhoused people, who have already “chosen” not to go to an overnight shelter (i.e. they couldn’t get in or couldn’t stomach the idea--could you?) opt to go to a place where they can’t sleep, rather than just sleep outside--unless they were coerced? 

Has anyone on the task force done any “field research” (i.e., asked homeless people) about this? And, given what is known about the importance of sleep to a person’s physical and mental health, how can anyone purporting to advocate for homeless people possibly
support a plan for a center which lets people in at midnight or 2am, but does not
allow them to sleep? (Let’s not forget that this scheme was tried at the St Francis
Center some ten years ago, and it WAS PRETTY AWFUL.)

A key feature of the proposal is its “two
tier” service delivery system. The center is
to offer “basic drop-in services” (to include
such things as showers, telephones, laundry 
service, limited storage, and mail/internet 
access) to all guests. Beyond that, through
a “coordinated entry and assessment
system,” everyone would be screened to
determine whether they are ready and
willing to end their homelessness or not. 
11
Those guests who are assessed to 
have “the ability and desire to move into a 
more stable and long-term living situation”
would be welcomed into Tier 2, which
allows them to work with a case manager
“to participate fully in the rigors of the path
to stability.” Case managed services would
include assistance in obtaining benefi ts,
legal support, mental and behavioral health
“administration” and employment (“if able”).
“Ultimately, the [Tier 2] guest will move
from transitional to permanent housing,
then on to full self-suffi ciency.”
Sounds great. But has anyone who
signed off on this report actually considered
the educational credentials, work
background, and skills--not to mention the
willingness and/or ability to conform to the
social norms of mainstream society--that
are needed to achieve “full self suffi ciency”
in today’s economy? And is no one
who worked on this report aware of the
appalling lack of affordable housing, which
no amount of “ability and desire” to become
housed can overcome? As Thomas Wakute
said in a recent email to Get Loud, “Don’t
even ask me to work anymore because
there is nothing involving a residence on
the end of that paycheck.” So the word
“rigors” applied to the path to stability is
certainly a gross understatement.
Meanwhile, those NOT determined
to have such “ability and desire” would
be assigned to Tier 1, where they can
be warm, use computers, get mail, drink
coffee, hang out--but would not engage in 
more intensive services.
The system sounds judgmental and
dismissive toward those assessed to be
Tier 1 material. But perhaps it isn’t meant
to be. Without having an explanation from 
CONT’D ON PG.1

he system’s designers, let’s assume the best--that what
they meant to convey is that, while at any given time some
would be actively engaged in services toward housing
stability and others would not, the goal would be for
everyone to be engaged at some point. Let’s assume that
the R&R Center staff would continually be offering hope,
encouragement and services to all guests in an effort
to help them improve their lives--recognizing that each
person’s “readiness for change” is constantly in fl ux--that
someone “not ready” today may be “ready” next week or
next month.
How about ASKING the homeless?
We should assume only the best intentions from the
24 Hour R&R task force members, many of whom, in the
words of city spokesperson Jamie Bradwell, “have daily
contact with the homeless, advocate for the homeless
every day or have personally struggled with episodes
of homelessness.  They are extremely knowledgeable
about the issue and fi nding supportive ways to help the
homeless fi nd permanent, supportive housing.”
This is what Ms. Bradwell said when asked whether
the input of people experiencing homelessness had been 
obtained and incorporated into the center proposal.
But no matter how much service providers interact with
the recipients of those services, their perspective is bound
to be different from that of the people who are actually
experiencing homelessness and KNOW WHAT THEY
NEED.
So I have a different proposal for the task force: How
about actually ASKING those who are homeless what
assistance they need most, and how that help can best be
provided? If you do this in good faith, demonstrating that
what homeless folks say really matters and will be taken
seriously--I am convinced that what you hear will surprise
you. And if you really listen, and design a service system
around what you learn, I believe what you end up with
will be truly unique in its ability to make a difference in the
lives of people experiencing homelessness.
seriously--I am convinced that what you hear will surprise
you. And if you really listen, and design a service system
around what you learn, I believe what you end up with
will be truly unique in its ability to make a difference in the
lives of people experiencing homelessne