Honolulu Star-Advertiser

Friday, April 26, 2024 74° Today's Paper


‘Tent cities’ worth a try, with caveats

Members of the Honolulu City Council are working to find additional approaches to grapple with the homelessness crisis as it manifests in their own districts.

This is a welcome development in general, because on Oahu, despite the focus on Downtown, Kakaako and Waikiki communities, the social and economic problems that land people on the streets is an islandwide phenomenon.

There’s a delicate balance to be achieved, though. What the Council needs is a mix of facilities and services that accommodates the need without being so accommodating that lasting encampments proliferate around the island.

Members also must avoid siphoning away too much funding from other solutions that better support a move to self-sufficiency.

Council Chairman Ernie Martin directed members to find ways to address homelessness in each of the nine districts. He and Councilmen Trevor Ozawa and Joey Manahan all have endorsed the broad concept of “temporary encampments” — a term they prefer to “tent cities,” as they’re often called.

These are places where the homeless can live with some security provisions, as well as sanitation and other basics. Further, they would be sites where social services could be provided on an outreach basis.

The three lawmakers have proposed that they be located near hygiene centers, restroom-shower installations. These are facilities that are greatly needed and would provide a public service, assuming that sufficient funds are allotted for maintenance and upkeep.

The councilmen have pointed to the experience in Seattle, which has had some success with its homeless villages, and which they would like to emulate.

These would be distinct from the “navigation center” the city administration created at Sand Island, a complex of converted shipping containers called Hale Mauliola.

The administration asserts that this facility is focused on helping homeless people who are determined to work their way back to society but need help and direction. The Council has complained, with some justification, that this leaves too many families and individuals on the streets, and has advocated for programs that match the scale of the problem.

There should be room in Honolulu’s homelessness strategy for a pilot project of one or two hygiene-centered encampments, located where they could be most practical, accessible to bus connections.

But establishing them in every district would be a mistake. Experiences in Seattle and many other cities point to these “temporary” camps becoming permanent. The substantial upkeep costs will continue to mount, and there is only so much financing available for it. Federal authorities tend to frown on funding this approach and prefer providing “housing first” support to subsidize more permanent rentals.

The Council is right to add public restrooms and other services in scattered hygiene centers. The challenge will be maintenance, and a source of financing for these amenities must be secured.

One approach would be to encourage the support of these facilities through the “community benefits” packages developers provide in return for land-use permits and generous entitlements. For example, on the 133 Kaiulani project in Waikiki, Ozawa proposed that much of the $1 million package be diverted to fund an urban rest stop.

Some version of that proposal should be implemented. In addition to covering maintenance, the city needs resources to continue enforcing its laws against camping in restrict- ed areas.

What’s been missing from most of the homelessness initiatives has been the element of personal accountability. Directing the homeless toward basic chores at the facilities they use — either for a stipend or in lieu of a penalty for law violations — should be considered.

There are lessons to be learned from other cities using the “tent city” approach. One camp in Portland, dubbed Dignity Village, involves the residents in self-governance and community care, a responsibility for which they take some pride.

That’s been part of its success, and in whatever camps it creates, Honolulu’s government should find a way to emulate such a program. Having the homeless take some measure of personal responsibility is good for all concerned.

Honolulu should lend a helping hand to the truly needy living on the streets, but its programs shouldn’t make it easy to languish there.

12 responses to “‘Tent cities’ worth a try, with caveats”

  1. lespark says:

    Enforcement. Let’s start. No camping means no camping. What do we care about people who break the law. Keep it simple. They want help, help. They don’t want help, don’t help FGS.

  2. whs1966 says:

    The article reads, in part, “But establishing them in every district would be a mistake.” Wrong. If the camps are set up, they must be set up in every part of the island; otherwise, the homeless will be foisted upon communities that already deal with many problems. Additionally, establishing them in every community would foster wider engagement to better address the homeless crises.

  3. palani says:

    Embrace, if you must, the delusion that these tent cities would be temporary, but get them established. Then, focus on those stragglers who insist upon usurping the rights of the general public with their continued vagrancy.

  4. soundofreason says:

    If one needs to get rid of a feral cat problem, does one put out cat food to do so?

  5. FARKWARD says:

    “JUST DO IT!” Stop the debates, “Committees”, and farcical-political-posturing’s, theatrics, and demurs… The “Homeless” first need an alternative to their present living situations. The City/County Politicians waste more money on their daily gluttonous-lunches and coffee-klatches. The investment is a mere pittance, by comparison. Get it done, forthwith! IMUA!

  6. Kuokoa says:

    How about setting up some trailer parks and renting to the homeless at nominal fee?

  7. Keolu says:

    Any solution involving the homeless needs to have some investment made by the homeless. With no skin in the game, they just want their cake and icing and will leave you with he dirty dishes. If taxpayers provide them a place to stay, then they need to clean the toilets and help provide security and clean up the grounds.

    This will result in some form of accountability. If you’re cleaning the toilets and picking up rubbish, chances are you won’t be littering or trashing the restrooms.

    • fiveo says:

      Absolutely right. You have to have the homeless have a stake in the process of helping them. Tent cities have to be transitional or yes, they will become permanent as they will have nowhere
      to go but back to the street. These tent cities need to be created but tied to some form of permanent housing so there can be the necessary transition. This means that government
      will have to fund the construction of low rental housing otherwise you will be just kicking the can down the road which is why in other jurisdictions, tent cities have more or less become
      permanent and has attracted even more homeless from elsewhere.

  8. kuroiwaj says:

    Hawaii homeless challenge began in the late 1970’s early 1980’s. So, how did Hawaii handle it homeless issue prior to that period? How did Hawaii handle the homeless issue during the 1970’s to early 1980’s? You may find the solution to where we are today.

  9. lee1957 says:

    n. Temporary Encampment. Syn: Tent City, Homeless Shelter.

  10. maafifloos says:

    Homeless 1; Taxpayers 0. No one has an answer. You cannot stop it. In time homelessness will eat you up.

Leave a Reply