Matthew,

There are two big issues, one that you are certainly aware of and another that is in the initial stages.

The first being a permanent "tent city" modeled after Dignity Village in Portland. As I'm sure you're aware, the IJFH, recently took a trip to visit Dignity Village, and I have heard some positive initial feedback.

I do not believe that a camp would replace other transitional housing options, but would supplement them, serving to lower the first rung of the ladder and smoothing the transition from the streets to housing. It would provide people an inexpensive option, for them as well as taxpayers. It would be a safe place for people to experience living in a community, provide stability, and in the end facilitate their transition. Camp Quixote, in just a couple of months has proven to be an important stepping stone for residents, with many gaining employment and others moving on to permanent housing. What is your position on "tent cities" as an addition to the housing options in place? Feel free to answer with questions of your own that you may have about the model that we are striving to establish.

Read more...

Second, there has been a call among those who access services in Olympia for more accountability, particularly in regards to the Salvation Army, but including all service providers. We think this would best be addressed by the implementation of a Service Review Board comprised of those who access services to vet and "grade" services, and ultimately report the findings to local jurisdictions in order to ensure that service providers are offering dignity and respect as well as just a place to eat, sleep or hang out. Our model would also include dealing with grievances about local police that are going unheard. Would you support a service review board to work in this capacity?

The third issue, which may be more of a long term dilemma but may also have a couple of easy fixes is a perceived lack of representation in government for our neighbors on the streets. One idea that comes to mind would be granting a group, such as the Poor People Union, some kind of special status, much like a neighborhood association has, in order to formalize a direct relationship between Olympians whose voices are normally not heard and those that make decisions affecting their lives. How would you, as a council person, address the needs of those that feel they are not being regarded as equal in our local democracy?

I want to end by saying that I hold you in high regard for the work that you have done in the past in regards to issues of poverty and houselessness, with the census, and as a member of the IJFH, and look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you and take care,

Rob Richards

Here is his reply:

Rob,

I'm happy to answer your questions. In fact, I'm pleased that anyone takes the time to ask thoughtful questions. So, here goes.

1. What is your position on "tent cities" as an addition to the housing options in place?

A low-income housing facility similar to Dignity Village could be a great addition to other housing options. (It certainly should not take resources AWAY from other housing options, but I don't believe it, nor the Olympia tent city, does.) I've heard very good things about Dignity Village (most recently from Commissioner Cathy Wolfe), and it seems to have the qualities I would wish to see here: safe, supportive, good neighbor, low- or no-cost to the public, leadership from the residents themselves. I'm glad to hear that Camp Quixote is becoming both a supportive community and a stepping stone to employment and permanent housing. I believe it was a mistake for city leaders to adopt a confrontational approach to the tent city. I wish to foster a cooperative effort among city officials, homeless people, homeless advocates, and other community members to ensure that everyone in our community has decent housing.

2. Would you support a service review board to work on accountability for service providers?

Anyone who receives public money must be willing to be held accountable for using that money as well as possible to serve public goals. So, yes, I support efforts to improve service by social service providers, including review by service recipients. Such a review could provide very good information for local officials trying to prioritize the very limited local social service dollars, as well as a good feedback for providers trying to improve their service. I have a few concerns, however. I don't want to just create more bureaucracy and administration, so I hesitate to endorse a new board (at least one that requires tax money to support) until I see more details. I don't want to drive away any providers who are helpful to some people just because they don't serve the needs of everyone. And I want the review to produce constructive suggestions for improvement, not just complaints. That said, I'd support creating a review process that meets the needs of the whole community, including service recipients.

3. How would you, as a council person, address the needs of those that feel they are not being regarded as equal in our local democracy?

Creating greater citizen engagement in their city government is a crucial challenge for the entire community, and one of my priorities. For people with severe economic difficulty and social marginalization, that challenge is all the greater. There is nothing formally stopping any person or group from getting involved, but city processes don't make it easy. There are some successes. When I co-founded the Interjurisdictional Forum on Homelessness, one of the purposes of bringing elected officials together to discuss homelessness and housing was to create a forum – literally – where interested people could talk with representatives from the local jurisdictions all at once. I understand the IFH has invited homeless representatives to regularly attend their meetings, which is great. (The Human Services Review Council, which makes recommendations on local social service spending, should do the same.) One next step is to create greater awareness among city officials that homeless representatives should be a standard part of consulting with the community on city decisions, just as neighborhood associations are. (However, the neighborhood association process for communicating with the city doesn't work as well as it should right now, so I don't want to merely stick PPU in that.) I believe there is no single administrative step to achieve such awareness; it must grow from long-term, constructive interaction – that is, working together well on issue after issue until it becomes standard practice. I hope PPU would commit itself to a relationship like that. As a councilmember, I would commit to it, too.

>

I hope I’ve answered your questions. Feel free to share my answers, preferably in their entirety, and let me know if you have further questions. I would love to have your support in my campaign.

Thanks,

Matthew