NEWS

In Wake of Jefferson Street Bridge Encampment Closure, HUD Hosts Encampment Strategy Workgroup in Nashville with Unclear Impact

BY INDIA PUNGARCHER

In February, the Jefferson Street Bridge Encampment was officially closed after existing as a place to receive resources, a meal or shelter for those experiencing homelessness in Nashville since at least the 1980s. Amid criticism of both a lack of timely public notification as well as clear communication surrounding this camp’s closure timeline, process and decision, representatives from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) hosted an “encampment strategy workgroup” in mid March.

Community and government stakeholders, including individuals with lived experience of homelessness, were invited to participate in this two-day workgroup that sought to, “provid[e] the unsheltered in Nashville an access to an array of housing choices and services options, in the event that an encampment has been deemed for closure,” according to an email notification of the event.

Dozens of nonprofit service providers joined Metro Nashville staff and elected officials, police officers, community members, and friends with lived experience to participate in this workgroup facilitated

by Heather Dillashaw and Melissa Mikel of HUD Technical Assistance. At the beginning of the first day of the workgroup, Dillashaw said that the group was not going to talk about any specific encampment or about closing encampments.

The rest of the four-hour meeting was spent discussing various topics related to encampments. Some recounted how encampments provide things like safety, community, freedom, as well as proximity to services, transportation, and jobs. Later, the group discussed what federal HUD funding could and could not provide for Nashville when thinking about encampments. Advocate, writer and vendor for The Contributor Chris Scott Fieselman, inquired whether or not HUD funds could be used to purchase tiny homes or sheds, to which Dillashaw clarified that these funds can only be used for rental assistance — not for the acquisition of property or structures. The usual conversation surrounding the inefficiencies of and gaps in “the system” also ensued, with the group circling back multiple times to the inescapable reality that Nashville desperately needs more affordable housing units.

Converting hotels into permanent housing was cited as one success and trend being employed by communities nationwide. Day one concluded with Dillashaw’s critique of stakeholders “spending a lot of time yelling at each other over the past six months” and a plea for the community to stop “yelling at each other even if we don’t agree.”

On day two, the workgroup was split into small groups tasked with brainstorming ideas related to various topics like timelines, communication, how to transport people from an encampment and what to do if someone refuses to leave an encampment. When brought back together to discuss these ideas as a collective group, director of local nonprofit People Loving Nashville, Ryan Lampa, asked a clarifying question surrounding the intent of the workgroup itself. Was the group operating under the assumption that an encampment closure was unavoidable? Unstoppable?

An email explanation of the workgroup said: “While HUD TA does not recommend encampment closures without sufficient permanent housing resources, there may be instances when a decision is made outside of the recommendation of the CoC which will displace those living in the encampments.”

However, HUD TA facilitators minimally addressed this, nor any other, preconceived notions on the first day of the workgroup, perhaps in an attempt to ease — or avoid — tensions around this controversial and emotional topic.

The workgroup appeared to operate under the premise that camp closures are inevitable and that the community should accept them as a truth they have no control or say over. Still, asking people to come up with a plan to address an action they fundamentally disagree with made some people uncomfortable and upset. Vicky Batcher, Contributor writer and vendor who experienced homelessness for a number of years, questioned the group: “Is this workshop meant for us to feel better about encampments closing?”

The conversation about what to do if someone refuses to leave an encampment slated for closure was similarly muddled. The group was asked, “If a person refuses to leave, what do we do?”

Batcher replied first: “Stand with them because they have no place else to go,” and was met with snaps of approval from some participants, signaling agreement and solidarity. Facilitators retorted that sometimes arrests are going to happen, again offering an undisclosed operating assumption of the group — that policing is an unavoidable response to homelessness. Andreos Chunaco, Director of Outreach for People Loving Nashville, expressed concern about asking outreach workers to facilitate camp closures in general, citing the damage this can have on our collective and individual relationships with those experiencing homelessness. Chunaco contended that outreach workers should instead stand in advocacy and solidarity with residents who do not want to leave an encampment.

While the meeting ended with no collective plan or list of best practices, the group expressed commonality around some ideas. The need for transparency and better communication about encampment closures to the general public, outreach workers, and camp residents themselves were repeated themes. One suggestion read, “each camper gets an ‘outreach buddy’ to explain, each day if necessary, what is about to happen.” The need for advanced notice of a camp closure was also agreed upon, although varying numbers were offered regarding how far in advance said notification should occur. Chunaco suggested that a timeline should instead be measured via goals like, “until every resident secures permanent housing” rather than a number of days.

Frustrated, Batcher said: “this (meeting) is not providing solutions. They think it is, but it’s not. I want to attend a meeting where there are actual solutions.”

So what happens next? Will anything come from yet another meeting? According to HUD TA, Dillashaw and Mikel will use all of the feedback solicited to inform their recommendations that they then submit to the Metro Homeless Impact Division (MHID) by March 31. From there, MHID is to present these recommendations to the Homelessness Planning Council, the body tasked with vetting all things related to homelessness here in Nashville. The goal is to have a logistical plan that Nashville can turn to when an encampment is slated for closure.

Even with a plan in place, closing encampments fails to address why they exist in the first place. If entities want to close encampments, the conversation needs to address our housing crisis. Without deep investments in the creation and preservation of affordable and accessible housing, encampments will continue to exist as well as reappear. Until Nashville recognizes encampments as symptoms of our housing crisis with its actions, policies, and dollars, we will continue to just move the problem around with futility.

As Batcher reflected after she had time to process the workgroup, “Closing encampments without solutions is just moving the problem.”