TRANSCRIPT:
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Luis Hernandez: The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a ban on sleeping or camping in public places, a decision that’s left many people experiencing homelessness with no place to go. Advocates in New Bedford have responded by encouraging the city to build its own city-run homeless encampment. The nonprofit group leading that effort is called Positive Action Against Chemical Addiction. We’re joined now by the group’s executive director, Carl Alves. Carl, thanks so much for your time.
Carl Alves: Thanks for having me.
Hernandez: What are the likely impacts of this ruling for people experiencing homelessness?
Alves: Significant issues for a lot of folks. The ruling is a challenge for folks that are unhoused and if you take a look at the supply of available housing, which has been dropping over the last years, and the increase in the rental costs, we’re in a perfect storm, and it is creating lots of difficulty for folks that are poor, disadvantaged. We’re finding a lot of people that are getting displaced and are living outside.
Hernandez: What happens to a person when there’s no legal way for someone to rest or keep their belongings somewhere?
Alves: The challenge is that folks are moved along regularly and it’s very difficult to stabilize your life situation if you’re constantly wondering where you’re going to lay your head at night. We all agree that encampments really are not the best answer. However, we’re forced to kind of look at everything at this point because there’s just not enough space for people to rest at night. And so people are sleeping in people’s backyards and public spaces, in a variety of different kinds of places. It’s unsafe, not only for the people that are displaced living outside, but for the community at large. Plus it undermines the economic development and some of the great strides that we’ve been making in terms of creating a great community.
Hernandez: Your organization has proposed a city-run homeless encampment. What would that look like? And how would it work?
Alves: Well, we say city-run. It’s actually city-authorized. So, I mean, it would be a public-private partnership. So we don’t expect the city to just run it by themselves. And we would allocate a space, provide some basic security, some basic hygiene, such as porta poties, that kind of stuff, some kind of running water, and build a little community. The point is, if we can get people to stabilize in one space long enough, we can usually work with them to find a more permanent option.
Hernandez: Who would be allowed to live in that camp? And again, how do you track who those people are and who’s in there and who’s leaving and coming in?
Alves: Well, it would be a community. People would have to register. They would have to agree to abide by rules and understand that this is not a permanent housing situation, but it is an alternative to living in a storefront or in somebody’s backyard. The plan would be to triage folks’ situations and help them move to a better location. Ideally, it would be great if we had more shelter beds. We haven’t created new shelter beds for quite some time over the past decade. You know, the numbers have just been increasing. So again, this was meant to be a stop gap. We need a more comprehensive plan to kind of look at this. This is not going to solve the entire problem.
Hernandez: Opponents of these kinds of mechanics claim that they actually make it more difficult for people experiencing homelessness to improve their lives because there’s no incentive to do so. And other people say that the camps actually put the residents at risk of illness and violence. How do you respond to the opposition?
Alves: I don’t see it as any more risk than what is currently existing in our communities right now. Sadly, we are seeing more and more fatalities, more and more violence in scattered site homeless situations. It is becoming more and more of an issue.
Hernandez: Are there any other encampments like the one you’re proposing anywhere else in the country [that] you could point to and say, look, it’s working at least a little bit?
Alves: You know, I think the most successful options for people in this situation are usually around shelter or brick-and-mortar kinds of things, but those require millions of dollars. We presented this because it would be relatively less expensive and easier to do. If you look at some of the warmer weather states, like San Diego, Texas, they’ve created communities providing services and helping people go online. And again, this would be really for individuals. There’s also a need for families as well, which would be something different, but this would be for individuals. It is meant to minimize the amount of risk because yes, there is risk involved, but there’s risk involved and things are happening currently in the current situation.
Hernandez: How has the mayor or any other city official responded to this proposal?
Alves: We had a meeting with the mayor and the mayor was very professional and interested but skeptical about the proposal primarily because his feedback from other communities is, that hasn’t really worked. Well, okay, what are the other suggestions? Doing nothing is not an option because [of] the number and the consequences of unhoused folks throughout our community – not just New Bedford. I mean, you can look at neighboring towns and towns across the state, so this is not unique to New Bedford.
Hernandez: And you talk about the need for more shelter beds. It’s just the issue of housing, even having affordable housing. But right now, what else do you see as a really important need to help fix this issue in New Bedford?
Alves: I think collaboration. That conversation with the mayor was productive because there is a strategic planning process and we had an outside consultant come in and we expect a report from them with a list of different suggestions or recommendations that we will be looking at over the next couple of weeks. But the real key is not to let the report sit on a shelf somewhere. Our homeless service provider network, community agencies across the community are working on this, and we want to find better solutions because there’s not one solution, just like there’s not one type of person that is living outside.
Hernandez: Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, we had seen the dismantling of homeless encampments. It’s been going on for a while. Why do you think there’s such a strong desire to eliminate these encampments?
Alves: The challenge is, it’s very frustrating and it is risky. Sometimes folks are unwilling to improve their situation and that has an impact on the entire community. And there is some legitimate fear. We’ve got to hold people accountable, but find better pathways. You know, I envision that if we were able to identify a space where we could get this launched, then perhaps we could create in that same space a more functional location with tiny homes or perhaps a space where we could have four walls and it’s not a camp, but we’ve got to get to that place right now. We’ve got to see things as they are, not just as we wish them to be. This may or may not end up happening, but I’m hopeful – cautiously optimistic – that we’ll have better answers in the weeks and months to come, especially with the cold weather coming.
Hernandez: Carl Alves, executive director of Positive Action Against Chemical Addiction, a nonprofit leading an effort to have a city-run homeless encampment built in New Bedford. Carl, thanks so much for the insight. I appreciate it.
Alves: Thank you.
