Background

1. Homelessness and attendant problems continue to increase, and no amount of

enforcement has been able to stem this trend.

2. Public and private funds are increasingly inadequate.

3. No current effort has been effective in slowing the growth of these problems.

A Potential Avenue of Solution

1. Evaluate proposal-based exceptions to civic laws pertaining to homelessness.

2. Allow discretionary authority on the part of code enforcement to forgo

action against benign solutions.

3. There are individuals and groups within most towns with the compassion and

resources to greatly improve the living conditions of individuals or

small groups of homeless people – albeit at a small fraction of

mainstream expense.

4. This would allow creative experimentation of alternatives to the proven

failures of existing efforts. Without such an avenue, there is no reason

for most people to consider ways of solving these problems.

5. Any decrease in the number of people living in the streets would free up

civic resources to address those remaining. Success in this achievable step

could be multiplied on a small unit basis to produce a far broader impact.

6. One potential drawback ofthis approach would be the development of a

new poverty strata within our society. Ongoing research and experimentation

would be required to ensure that it was only a transitional step. In any case

even this would be far superior to the abject filth, crime, and hopelessness

among the existing homeless.

Example Proposal Summary

Objective:

Produce a transitional lifestyle that escapes the primary negatives of

homelessness as we know it.

The Difference:

1. The residents are protected from danger by a fence they can lock.

2. Population is limited to 3 to 5 people.

3. Sanitation, bathing,and a clean environment protect their health.

4. Weatherproof shelters protect from exposure.

5. Cost is less than 10% of traditional mainstream living.

6. A limited cubic feet of storage per-person eliminates hoarding.

7. A clean stable lifestyle makes employment or education possible.

Administration:
1. Authority is external.

2. Litter and substance abuse would not be tolerated.

3. A legal understanding includes eviction without cause or notice.

4. Any reasonable complaint may close the project.

5. Weekly service hours may be assessed for those unemployed.

6. Restrictions would apply to sights, sounds, and smells.

7. Civic liaison would be under the purview of code enforcement.

Template Options:

1. Single residence: This would primarily target a tightly supervised backyard

facility for a friend or family member the property owner was willing to help.

It might also be considered as a private addition to a larger micro-community.

2. Population of three to five: A small-scale community that could exist either

on public or private property. Since the structures would be temporary or

portable, a gate to be locked by the residents would would be essential to

security.

3. Supervised micro-community: This would require a responsible staff person

on-site. It could involve rotating shifts or an accountable permanent

resident. The facilities would begin with the single residence package for

the staff, but would expand to any appropriate level.

Next Actions (Pending civic interest)

1. Create a list of technical amenities required for each of the three above-mentioned templates. Include costs and approximate man-hours.

2. Locate one or more benefactors (individuals or groups) who would be willing to sponsor a project.

3. Secure the availability of one or more suitable sites.

4. Screen and select initial occupancy candidates.

5. Present details to the cognizant civic office.

Pending civic approval:

1. Assemble and install hardware on site.

2. Hold open house for those interested and involved

3. Occupy and begin test.