Effectively managing our homeless population is a source of continued frustration for our communities, businesses and policymakers. While the City and County of Honolulu has made substantial progress, both in its ability to address the obvious problems and to direct precious resources to provide permanent solutions, the fact remains that there is no single answer that will solve homelessness.
Increasingly, government officials, community leaders and organizations are made aware of the need to tailor solutions to the specific needs of the individual, which range from someone who requires a helping hand temporarily to the chronically homeless person who needs heavy doses of specialized services.
City Council Resolution 17-277, CD1, FD1, adopted on Nov. 1, authorizes the city administration to identify lands that may be used as “safe zones,” or temporary legal encampments for the homeless. This approach is controversial and has well-meaning advocates divided on the issue. Yes, safe zones will not provide the long-term solution that permanent affordable housing can offer. But the development of permanent housing is a time-consuming and complex process that will not address in the short-term many of the immediate problems homelessness creates.
Ultimately, in the continuum of actions, where doing nothing is on one end of the spectrum and permanent housing rests on the other, there is a place for safe zones.
During deliberations on Resolution 17-277, I expressed that I have a difficult time embracing the traditional notion of safe zones of tent cities or encampments because I truly do not believe they are acceptable and humane alternatives to shelters. I vividly recall the spectacular failure of trying to turn Aala Park into a tent city.
However, after seeing firsthand a successful example of a city-sanctioned safe zone, such as the Tiny House Village in Seattle, that provides inexpensively built temporary wooden shelters, shared bathrooms, kitchen and other facilities, and case management services, I am persuaded that safe zones modeled after this one by the Low Income Housing Institute has a place among all of the options that government is considering.
It is not a permanent solution and should not be designed that way. The City Council’s approach would ensure that any safe zone has a definite sunset date.
With the passage of this resolution, the city’s focus would include the identification and designation of suitable parcels of city-owned land toward the creation of safe zones where a tiny house village or other low-cost temporary shelter, such as modular housing, can be made available.
Based on our own experiences right here in Honolulu, we can see that there is a need for transitional housing and shelter, which prepares homeless individuals to eventually move into permanent housing. Safe zones can be an effective tool to help with that transition.
The city has made a great start with Hale Mauliola on Sand Island, a project that is designed much closer to what I envision in a safe zone: low-cost, temporary shelters and facilities where the homeless can stay without fear of eviction and with access to shared bathroom and kitchen spaces, and where the delivery of social services can occur in a secure setting.
I am also hopeful that Gov. David Ige and the state Legislature will overcome their differences on this issue and recognize that with proper planning and design, safe zones can buy them valuable time as they develop affordable housing.
Ron Menor is chairman of the Honolulu City Council.
