By: Brian Bouteller
In recent discussions at the city council, the recurring suggestion to open a low-barrier tent camp as a solution to the issue of campers in our city parks has left many residents feeling perplexed and frustrated. The fact that we’re all just a 30-minute drive away from a neighboring city already hosting such a camp makes this proposal even more baffling. As we visit that city for shopping or leisure, we can’t help but notice the changes in their “green ways” – now more aptly termed “brown ways” due to annual fires linked to homeless activity. Their parks, bike paths, underpasses, and freeway exits have become gathering spots for vagrants and the litter they leave in their wake. Curiously, this problem persists despite the presence of at least one sizable low-barrier tent camp.
“But surely accommodating some of them will help!” you may argue. However, according to our city attorney’s remarks in the May 7th edition of the Daily Courier regarding the Mission, “Even if it counted, there aren’t enough beds to accommodate people.” This underscores that sheer numbers are the decisive factor here. If we can’t compel individuals into the available beds at the Mission, we’ll face similar challenges with a low-barrier tent camp that can house less than 600 people (possibly double that, per the attorney). The same obstacles preventing the Gospel Rescue Mission’s efforts from being counted will impede a low-barrier tent camp. Our city now finds itself entangled in an impossible numbers game, making it unwise to surrender more public land without genuinely addressing the problem.
It’s crucial to recognize that “low barrier” often translates to “low safety.” When you hear the term “low barrier,” consider it synonymous with diminished safety measures. Those barriers involve enforcing sobriety, conducting contraband checks, implementing firm codes of conduct, scheduling court appointments, taking a 30-day hiatus before seeking employment, and introducing individuals to values such as “you shall not commit murder.” Recently, a newcomer to the Mission displayed concerning behavior, indicating potential drug use. He admitted to breaking his sobriety agreement and subsequently checked out, opting for the city parks where barriers are low. After three days of low-barrier living, he committed a fatal shooting at Riverside Park while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Low barrier equals low safety.
There is scant evidence to support the efficacy of low-barrier shelters in significantly reducing homelessness in any city. Even representatives from AllCare presented research findings before the city council this year, emphasizing the ineffectiveness and undesirability of low-barrier tent shelters. Two years ago, Chad McComas, formerly of Rogue Retreat, echoed this sentiment before the council, asserting that a low-barrier tent village would not visibly reduce camping in our parks, greenways, or freeway exits. His reason? He had experience running one in Medford, where it failed to alleviate the issue.
For those eager to solve this problem, here are a couple of alternative suggestions. First, privatize the parks to nullify the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling, allowing the police to use trespassing laws. Second, enact ordinances taxing and regulating the distribution of camping gear, penalizing those providing such gear and using the revenue to fund park cleanups.
