by Stop the Sweeps
We know one main thing: shelter is not being offered to most people being swept from street encampments in the US. There are hardly ever enough shelter spaces available.
According to a decision upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Martin v. Boise — a decision currently at risk of being struck down in the case Grants Pass v. Johnson — cities cannot legally sweep people if they are not able to offer every individual shelter. The city of Seattle is regularly failing to meet its legal responsibility to provide adequate alternative shelter when sweeping people.
We know from listening to our unhoused neighbors that most people being swept are desperate for housing and would accept reasonable shelter if it were offered, but those offers do not come.
Whether it be emergency shelter, transitional housing or rapid housing, there are only about 8,000 units in King County, Washington’s system available for the over 53,000 people experiencing homelessness. Even utilizing every single unit would serve only 15% of our unhoused neighbors.
The sad but very stark reality is that there simply is not enough shelter for all. The city plainly cannot meet its legal obligation to provide shelter, and to distract from that fact, it trumpets the idea that unhoused people are refusing to take what is offered.
There are some instances where unhoused people do not accept shelter that is offered, but often, it is because the offer does not meet their needs. In other cases, it is because shelters can hurt more than they help. The system of shelters is inflexible and riddled with problems.
When you get an offer for shelter, you are expected to show up that day or the next. Otherwise, the offer expires. The time limit on the offer assumes you or a loved one do not have a medical emergency, have work that day or have mobility issues that make moving difficult. Additionally, you might not be able to get a ride or help to move your belongings.
You might not even qualify for shelter, as many places have restrictions in place based on gender or criminal record. Other shelters will eject people if they have mental health episodes while they are struggling to get medication, and there usually is no way for an unhoused person to appeal if they are ejected and banned — they do not receive due process.
If you do manage to make it to the shelter on time, there are often still additional, severe restrictions, including no pets, no visitors and a strictly enforced curfew — so good luck if you work the night shift. Many shelters force you to leave during the day, meaning that they offer nothing beyond a place to sleep.
Even then, there is no privacy: you sleep in a dorm-style setup or maybe a three-sided cubicle. You might end up sleeping in the middle of a big open room with dozens of other beds. You might not even get a bed. It could be just a mat on the floor. You cannot secure your belongings, and you have limited storage space.
This layout often creates an unsafe environment, especially for those on a journey of recovery from substance abuse. There has been a long history of staff at many shelters and tiny home villages being uncaring, abusive or simply untrained. If you do not experience mistreatment by staff, you might find yourself staying in a shelter with someone who has harmed you on the street, or you could even be physically attacked by others staying in the shelter. Additionally, it is not uncommon for personal belongings to be stolen because you were unable to store them.
When people accept shelter in the city, they put themselves at risk of being isolated from friends, family and pets. Shelters restrict their freedom of movement and put their privacy, safety and any jobs they might have in jeopardy.
Some people decide that accepting shelter is worth it; some do not. But it is never a straightforward, obvious decision, especially when one is forced to make it under the pressure of being swept.
If you think that this sounds wrong, we encourage you to contact your city council member or the mayor’s office. When the system is set up so fundamentally against people, only collective action can create change.
Courtesy of Real Change / INSP.ngo
