Tag: Tiny house villages

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson

Council Committee Approves Larger New Shelters Amid Cloud of Mayor-Council Conflict

By Erica C. Barnett

The city council’s land use committee approved the final piece of Mayor Katie Wilson’s shelter expansion proposal today, increasing the maximum size of tiny house village-style shelters throughout the city. The bill will allow villages, or “transitional encampments,” with up to 150 people (up from from 100), subject to restrictions that include minimum case management and overnight staffing, good neighbor agreements, and written public safety plans. The bill, which still has to be adopted by the full council, is the final piece of legislation the Wilson administration requested as part of a plan to add 1,000 shelter beds this year.

The shelter vote was clouded by a growing tension between the council and mayor’s office that exploded into the open over the past week.

On Tuesday, less than 24 hours before today’s scheduled vote, the mayor’s council liaison called land use committee chair Eddie Lin to ask him to pull the legislation from today’s agenda because the mayor’s office had problems with some of the changes the council has proposed. Lin said no.

This demand from the mayor’s office was a highly unusual breach of the legislative process in itself. Later in the day, Wilson’s senior advisor on housing and homelessness, Jon Grant, along with at least two other mayoral staffers—Kate Brunette Kreuzer and Nicole Vallestero-Soper—met with council members one on one and continued demanding last-minute changes to the amendments.

The meeting turned into a heated late-afternoon conflict that several sources described as a serious and significant breaking point in the relationship between the mayor and council. Several sources characterized Wilson’s staffers as “disrespectful” and expressed surprise that Wilson’s office seemed to believe they could order the council around.

Before Wednesday’s vote, council members thanked each other for their professionalism, speed, and transparency before moving the bill forward Wednesday, and Council. President Joy Hollingsworth alluded to a “lack of communication” about the amendments; only Lin thanked the mayor’s office.

Wilson herself, several people we spoke to emphasized, has always been polite and thoughtful in their interactions. But the mayor herself has rarely been around, according to council sources, sending staffers down to discuss legislation with council members and staff instead.

In response to questions, Wilson’s spokesperson, Sage Wilson, said the mayor’s office will “take our share of responsibility for that [communication] gap,” adding, “we did ask if the committee chair was open to providing more time to continue discussions so we could get to a good place together.”

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Council members have raised concerns about the increasingly fractured relationship with Wilson’s office before; in fact, just last Friday, Council President Joy Hollingsworth met with mayoral staff to express how important it is that they communicate with the council throughout the legislative process. At a council media availability on Monday, before the mayor’s office asked Lin to pull the shelter bill, Hollingsworth said, “I know it’s a big learning curve, but it would just help us … that we’re talking before legislation is being transmitted” in order to avoid “surprises.”

It’s worth a brief digression here about how the city’s legislative process works. Legislation can come from the council itself, or the mayor can “send down” legislation by identifying a sponsor who will carry their bill through the council process and having them introduce it—a step Wilson skipped with her make-or-break shelter legislation. Then the mayor typically works with council allies to shepherd a proposal to the finish line, communicating closely with the sponsor and discussing any concerns as soon as they arise. Legislation is a give-and-take process between coequal branches of government, and mayors typically accept non-fatal amendments as part of the deal.

Instead of raising concerns with the bill and amendment sponsors when they proposed the amendments last week, the mayor’s office waited until the day before the vote to raise specific objections. (There would ordinarily be more time between introduction and a final vote, but the mayor’s office asked for an expedited timeline, designating the legislation as an “emergency” bill.)

Wilson, the mayor’s spokesman, said the mayor “raised concerns since amendments were initially released about the implications of putting policy related to shelter operations into the land use code. … We had good conversations with Councilmembers about how to address those concerns and thought we had come to an understanding, but there seems to have a miscommunication, because the language released Tuesday morning was not in line with what we had expected.”

The amendments Wilson’s office objected to weren’t the ones you might expect. Maritza Rivera’s proposals to create shelter-free “buffer” zones around schools, child care centers, and parks and require uniformed security outside every shelter did not move forward (she could reintroduce it at full council, but it lacks the votes to pass). Neither did language—apparently inadvertent—that would have made shelter providers responsible for unsanctioned encampments and public safety issues in the area around shelter sites.

Instead, the purportedly problematic amendments came largely from Wilson’s own progressive council allies. Alexis Mercedes Rinck, for example, added amendments that would set a nonbinding “goal” of minimum case management staffing and require staffing at night, and bill sponsor Dionne Foster added an amendment, on behalf of Debora Juarez, to require shelters to adopt public safety plans.

Another amendment, from Hollingsworth, stipulates that the new shelters must adopt good neighbor agreements, something many shelter providers already do. (Hollingsworth changed the amendment on Wednesday to remove many requirements she said shelter providers identified as problematic.) And Dan Strauss proposed a new version of an amendment that would require shelter providers to divide larger shelters into distinct, separate “neighborhoods” with controlled access, after Low Income Housing Institute director Sharon Lee emailed the council Monday with concerns about the original, more rigid proposal.

LIHI provides most of the city’s tiny house villages and will likely be one of the biggest beneficiaries of funding to provide the new micromodular shelters. Grant, Wilson’s senior advisor on housing and homelessness, was most recently a longtime staffer at LIHI and frequently testified at council meetings on their behalf.

The shelter bill, a marquee proposal meant to fulfill Wilson’s biggest campaign promise, could represent a turning point in Wilson’s relationship with the council members whose support she will need to move her ambitious agenda forward. Just not in the way she probably hoped.

 

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson

Proposed Changes to Wilson’s Shelter Plan Include Shelter-Free “Buffer” Zones, Mandatory Security

By Erica C. Barnett

City Councilmembers Maritza Rivera and Joy Hollingsworth proposed amendments to Mayor Katie Wilson’s ambitious shelter proposal that would mandate 24-hour security and buffer zones around parks, schools, and child care centers where large new “transitional encampments,” a term that primarily refers to tiny house villages, won’t be allowed. (Seattle has had a few actual temporary encampments, but Wilson’s plan centers around tiny house villages rather than tents).

Last month, Wilson introduced a legislative package that would make it easier to site and build larger tiny house villages. The council’s land use committee is considering the part of her proposal that increases the maximum “shelter census” from 100 to 150 people in most areas, plus a potential 250-person shelter somewhere in the city.

Hollingsworth sponsored the amendments that would impose security mandates and no-shelter zones because Rivera isn’t on the land use committee.

The first of the two Rivera-Hollingsworth amendments, which would both apply to shelters that serve more than 100 people would require the presence of “identifiable security personnel” on site 24 hours a day. The second would prohibit new tiny house villages within  750 feet of all child care centers, schools, and playgrounds, and within 500 feet of most city parks. (Small “pocket parks” under 2 acres would be exempt).

It’s unclear how much of the city would be automatically off-limits under this expansive prohibition. Using an online GIS map creator, I drew a 750-foot radius around every public school in the city as well as a couple dozen child care facilities in a large swath of Hollingsworth’s district. (Child care facilities in private homes don’t count as child care facilities under city code, according to a council staffer.)

Not indicated on the map are the park buffer zones, which would extend 500 feet in each direction from midsize or larger park, and park playgrounds, which would be subject to the 750-foot buffer zone.

Under the amendment, sober shelters and those “that are exclusively for families with children” would be allowed inside the buffer zones. The council expressed its “intent,” in legislation that released funds for Wilson’s initial shelter push, for two of the new shelters to be limited to families with children and one to people in recovery from addiction.

The proposed changes were just two of seven proposed amendments to the original bill, sponsored by Councilmember Dionne Foster.  Another amendment, from Councilmember Dan Strauss, would require tiny house providers to separate the new, larger villages into fenced-off “neighborhoods” whose residents would be physically restricted from entering each other’s area.

A fourth, from Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, would require the new, larger villages to have at least two shelter staff on site 24 hours a day. Other amendments would require good neighbor agreements and public safety plans and request a 1-to-15 staff-to-resident ratios for shelters serving people with high-acuity behavioral health conditions..

Rivera, speaking in favor of her proposal to establish no-shelter zones, said she was trying to protect children from dangerous people who might live at the new tiny house villages. “We know that for shelters that are not sober … there might be drug dealing and other public safety issues, and we don’t want near that near children,” Rivera said. Then, conflating unmanaged encampments with managed shelter, she continued, “I know we’ve had issues with encampments at our major parks.”

Rivera also attempted to link tiny house villages to a recent gunfire incident near a press conference Mayor Wilson held to announce new education and child care investments. “Everybody knows by now that there was a shooting and shots were fired … right into the Yesler Community Center,” Rivera said. “So I’m not saying shots are going to be fired outside of these sanctioned shelters. But again, we cannot say that there won’t be drug dealing outside of these shelters or attempting to be done outside of these shelters, and so we need to make sure that we’re keeping our kids safe.”

Hollingsworth and Rivera introduced their security and buffer zone amendments at the last minute, so the only copies consisted of physical printouts in council chambers. The committee didn’t vote on Tuesday; they’ll meet at least one more time next week before pushing the bill forward to a full council vote.

homelessness, Mayor Wilson, podcasts

Seattle Nice: Mayor Wilson’s Shelter Plan, King County Assessor’s Stalking Charges, an Ambitious Library Levy, and More

By Erica C. Barnett

If you aren’t listening to Seattle Nice, the weekly podcast I co-host along with political consultant (and my former Stranger colleague) Sandeep Kaushik and longtime reporter and producer David Hyde, now’s a great time to tune in—in the last couple months, we’ve talked to City Councilmember Eddie Lin about plans to increase density across the city, debated Mayor Katie Wilson’s apparent plan to move forward with the police surveillance cameras she once opposed, and talked to Downtown Seattle Association director Jon Scholes about the DSA’s unusually sunny forecast for the future of downtown.

This week, we talked about the mayor’s plan to build 500 new tiny house village-style shelter units by this summer, stalking charges against the King County Assessor (who has refused to step down despite a unanimous King County Council vote demanding his resignation), and the latest library levy, which Sandeep said was just another example of Seattle’s willingness to pay any amount of taxes for any purpose.

Sandeep said he was impressed by the mayor’s announcement last week that the city will open 75 new shelter beds in Interbay and expand tiny house villages in two other locations. The biggest unheralded news, he thought, was the announcement that T-Mobile, Starbucks, and Microsoft are all helping to fund the mayor’s initial shelter push, kicking in around $3 million so far.

As someone who’s genuinely excited by Wilson’s ambitious agenda but skeptical about her ability to upend the Seattle Process, I argued it’s too early to declare victory—noting, for instance, that the last time the city participated in a privately backed venture to address homelessness, the “Partnership for Zero” effort to eliminate visible homelessness downtown, they got burned—that initiative, spearheaded by the King County Regional Homelessness Authority, fell apart when it proved harder to house people directly from the street than the homelessness agency anticipated, and funders pulled out, forcing the partnership to shut down in 2023.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

People who’ve been around Seattle’s homelessness system for a while say they’re hopeful about the mayor’s plan, but I’ve also heard concerns that it’s too focused on a single shelter type—tiny house villages—and too optimistic about the timeline for siting nearly 1,000 more tiny house units around the city in the next nine months. Another concern is cost—Wilson’s team has said the average tiny house unit will cost $28,000, all in, but that estimate seems low, given the higher cost of existing villages with the kind of wraparound services and 24/7 security Wilson has suggested will be available at each site.

All that said, you know who didn’t really even bother trying to add shelter in Seattle? Wilson’s predecessor Bruce Harrell, who promised to add 2,000 “shelter or housing” units by the end of his term but ended up using dubious math (taking credit for shelters that were underway by the time he took office, for instance) to claim he had actually added 3,000. (In reality, by the end of Harrell’s term, there were around the same number of shelter beds in Seattle as when he took office). In other words, even if Wilson gets no further than the initial 100 or so additional tiny houses she announced last week, she’ll have increased shelter more than Harrell did in his entire four years in office.

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson

Wilson’s “Path to 500” New Shelter Beds: $17.5 Million, With First Units Opening In April
The Wilson Administration’s ambitious schedule for opening up 500 new shelter beds.

By Erica C. Barnett

On Monday, the Seattle City Council got its first, partial look at Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposal to build 500 new shelter units by the end of May, and 1,000 before 2027. The mayor’s office is waiting until later this month to announce the sites they’ve identified for the first few new tiny house villages, so the briefing was mostly an opportunity for the council to ask questions about the proposal—including how much new money it will require, how the mayor’s office plans to get buy-in from neighborhood residents, and why the King County Regional Homelessness Authority (KCRHA), which manages the region’s shelter contracts, has been effectively cut out of the proposal.

The biggest news to come out of the briefing was the total estimated price tag for the first 500 units. According to city Budget Director Aly Pennucci, the mayor’s office has identified about $17.5 million to pay for the first 500 units. That number includes$4.8 million Wilson’s team previously identified from an underutilized Community Development Block Grant revolving loan  ($3.3 million) and unused funds from a downtown development fee program dating back to the 1980s ($1.5 million), plus shelter funding from the city’s 2026 budget that hasn’t been spent yet. The average annual operating cost for each new shelter unit, according to Pennucci, will be around $28,000 for each new shelterbed.

That number is be lower than the cost of tiny house villages that feature the range of services, including case management, meals, and 24/7 on-site staff, that Wilson said would be among distinguishing features of the new shelters. For instance, the city allocated $5.9 million to the Low Income Housing Institute to add about 100 new tiny houses last year.

According to the mayor’s office, the $28,000 figure assumes that some shelters will cost less than the ones serving “high-acuity” clients, while some will cost more. In addition, some that are located on publicly owned land may end up paying essentially no rent, if the city can work out a deal with the owners.

At the same time, the legislation would allow the city to lease land at market rate, opening up more potential sites at a higher cost.

“We know that without services, these shelters are not successful, [and] because the people who cause the most disorder and have the highest impact on our community are people who have high needs and high acuity, we know we need 24/7 staffing,” Wilson’s chief of staff Kate Kreuzer said. “We want case management. We want integrated behavioral health support, so that when people come inside, they have the services they need, and then that is getting them on a pathway to housing.”

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

In addition to a bill that would allocate the $4.8 million, Wilson’s office sent legislation to the council that would allow the city’s Human Service Department to select shelter providers directly and allow the department of Finance and Administrative Services to lease the property for new shelters itself. If it’s approved, this streamlined procedure would sidestep the KCRHA and bypass the usual 9- to-12-month process for siting shelters, which includes a competitive bidding process and requires providers to negotiate their own leases, permitting, and site preparation.

Nicole Vallestero-Soper, Wilson’s director of policy and innovation, said the first shelters could open as soon as next month. Wilson’s land use bills will likely go through Councilmember Eddie Lin’s land use committee, and the financing will probably go through Dan Strauss’ budget committee.

Councilmember Bob Kettle, seeming to conflate “housing first” with tiny house villages, said he supported the idea of “housing first” if it was a “photo finish with wraparound services” that would not include the kind of “actions that really allow [unsheltered people] to not be ready” to come inside. (Wilson’s plan is more “shelter-first” than “housing first,” in that it consists mostly of new shelter, not rapid rehousing for chronically homeless individuals).

“I really think that the services piece is key, and then setting [people] up for success is the encouragement piece, as opposed to making it easier to stay outside, for example, because there’s a lot of service-resistant folks,” Kettle said. Service providers generally reject the notion that unsheltered people are “service-resistant” or that people live outdoors because it’s “easy,” arguing that there are valid reasons people avoid shelter and services that have failed before, such as shelters that prohibit pets and programs that kick people out for failing to maintain sobriety.

As we reported earlier this month, Wilson’s office did not preview the shelter proposal for the council or secure support in advance, which has been the practice with previous administrations. According to Lin’s office, he has outstanding questions about how the Wilson administration plans to rapidly scale up shelter, how the mayor’s office will measure success, and what role the city will play in engaging with the people living near new shelter sites.

homelessness, Mayor Wilson, podcasts

Seattle Nice: Mayor Wilson Wants to Go Big on Shelter. Will She Succeed—and If She Does, What Then?

By Erica C. Barnett

This week’s episode of Seattle Nice was all about shelter—specifically, Mayor Katie Wilson’s proposal to allow larger tiny house villages, spend $5 million up front funding them, and—boring but potentially most significant—put the city itself in charge of leasing land for new tiny house villages, RV safe lots, and sanctioned encampments. Currently, any organization that gets city approval to set up a village or sanctioned encampment still has to get permits and approvals from a long list of city departments, which can add as much as a year of delay.

With the city itself in charge of stuff like approving and connecting utilities, signing leases with property owners, and making sure tiny house village locations are up to code, Wilson is betting the city can dramatically cut the timeline from a shelter proposal to opeming day.

Wilson, as we discussed this week, vowed during her campaign to add at least 1,000 new shelter beds in her first year, with a goal of 4,000 new beds by the end of her term. This ambitious goal marks a philosophical shift away from strict housing-first principles (the idea that people need permanent housing before they can tackle their behavioral health issues) toward a shelter-first approach that emphasizes mandatory case management and individualized services to stabilize people after they leave the streets.

PubliCola is supported entirely by readers like you.
CLICK BELOW to become a one-time or monthly contributor.

Support PubliCola

Listening back to our conversation, I was struck by how familiar much of the conversation sounded—not to our usual Seattle Nice bickering over whether Seattle NIMBYs treat homelessness as an aesthetic problem (but—last word—they totally do), but to the last 15 years of debate over how to fix homelessness. Over time, the political pendulum has swung back and forth between a focus on new housing for almost everyone (which costs millions and often takes years), housing vouchers for almost everyone (the concept behind the short-lived Partnership for Zero) and shelter for almost everyone (as a “front door” to housing). The pendulum currently rests on shelter, this time with mandatory case management and bespoke services that will, the Wilson administration hopes, be a more successful approach than past shelter efforts.

Wilson will probably propose a local capital gains tax, or some other kind of progressive revenue, to supplement $5 million her team found in two underutilized city funds. (Note/clarification: This post, and my comments on the podcast, were both a bit flip about the funding source. Around $3.3 million comes from two funds in the Office of Housing that were being underutilized. Both are revolving loan funds paid for by Community Development Block Grants.) And she seems likely to propose using unspent Office of Housing funds to pay for shelter, a prospect that could mean less money for permanent housing in the future, money being fungible. But actually solving homelessness—no one talks anymore about ending it, but making it “brief, one-time, and rare”—has eluded every mayor since Ed Murray declared an official state of emergency on homelessness in 2015.

My biggest concern is that Team Wilson will address unsheltered homelessness by getting thousands of people in shelter, and people for whom homelessness is primary an aesthetic problem—we have to clear those tents near my house, it isn’t compassionate to let them live that way!—will oppose efforts to fund housing for all those people in shelter because they consider the problem solved. My modest hope is that she’ll find a way to build all the shelter she wants and create more pathways to permanent housing, because no matter how warm or colorful, a 100-square-foot shelter is not a home.

City Council, homelessness, Mayor Wilson

Wilson Announces First Steps Toward 1,000 Shelter Beds: Simpler Leases, Larger Tiny House Villages, More Money for Shelter

By Erica C. Barnett

Mayor Katie Wilson introduced three pieces of legislation on Wednesday that she says will reduce barriers to tiny house villages—groups of small, freestanding shelters—by reducing bureaucratic obstacles, freeing up money, and removing a cap on the size of tiny house villages that Wilson called out of step with nationwide best practices.

Framed by tiny houses-in-progress at Sound Foundations’ 15,000-square-foot tiny house production facility in SoDo, Wilson said the legislation is just the beginning of a plan to dramatically reduce visible homelessness and get people into shelter as a step toward permanent housing.

“We have twice as many homeless people in Seattle as we have shelter beds, leaving thousands of people with nowhere to go,” Wilson said.  “We also have a responsibility to make sure that everyone can access and enjoy our parks, trails, sidewalks and other public spaces. But we can’t just keep moving people from place to place, and calling that progress. The single most important thing we can do to address our city’s homelessness crisis is to rapidly expand emergency housing.”

Wilson’s first bill would allow the city, through its Department of Finance and Administrative Services, to directly lease and prepare land for tiny house villages and other types of noncongregate shelter. Wilson said the 56-word amendment may seem like “a small and technical change,” but will relieve shelter providers of the obligation to negotiate their own land deals with property owners, prepare sites for opening, and connect new tiny house villages to electricity, water, and other utilities, a process that can push opening dates back months.

The second piece of legislation would significantly increase the cap on the size of individual villages. New villages, currently capped at 100 residents, could have as many as 250, with a limit of one such large shelter per council district (or nine citywide). Additional villages could have no more than 150 residents.

Wilson also announced that her office has identified $4.8 million in unspent city funding to help stand up new shelters, which the third piece of legislation would appropriate. The mayor has pledged to open up 1,000 new shelter beds by the end of her first year, 500 of those before the FIFA World Cup comes to Seattle in June.

Speaking to PubliCola late Wednesday afternoon, Wilson said she’s focusing on shelter because it’s a high-impact strategy that can be implemented quickly—unlike housing, which costs more and takes longer to build.

“Right now, the big thing is just that we need to make an impact fast. We’ve seen the number of unsheltered homeless folks going up and up and up, year after year, and it takes time to build housing,” Wilson said. “To me, the most important number is how many people are sleeping unsheltered in Seattle, and I think we’re going to be adjusting [strategies over time] to make more of an impact.”

Several supporters of Wilson’s plan who spoke on Wednesday sounded notably cool on aspects of “housing first,” the idea that people can’t recover from addiction and other behavioral health challenges until they’re in stable, permanent housing. Conservative politicians and talking heads have made “housing first” a bogeyman for all kinds of supposed giveaways to unworthy lowlifes, but the concept is also a matter of debate among homeless advocate themselves, and the pendulum in Seattle appears to be swinging toward a new kind of shelter-first approach—one where shelter (and mandatory case management) is a prerequisite for housing, at least for people with complex needs.

“Strong shelter programs with robust support services can be a game changer in achieving stable, permanent housing placements,” Fé LopezGaetke, co-executive director of Purpose Dignity Action (PDA), said. “In fact, taking three to six months to stabilize a person significantly improves outcomes for those who go on to permanent housing. Housing providers benefit when tenants come in with a lot more support and when a lot of obstacles to recovery and stabilization have already been tackled.”

This is a dramatic turnabout from the rhetoric of, say, 2020, when anti-shelter sentiment was thick in the air. The thinking at that time was that there is no such thing as a person who isn’t “housing-ready,” and that housing, not shelter, is the best way to stabilize a person with addiction or behavioral health issues that are exacerbated by living on the street. In a city without adequate permanent supportive housing (housing designed specifically for people with disabling conditions), people were getting stuck in the shelter system, and a renewed focus on housing was seen as a more effective way of addressing homelessness.

This focus on housing, rather than shelter, led to approaches like the Partnership for Zero, a pandemic-era public-private partnership that was supposed to rapidly “end” visible homelessness downtown. That program shut down in 2023 after housing 230 people.

At the exact same time, the PDA was launching its JustCARE and CoLEAD programs, which included hotel-based emergency shelter combined with  intensive case management, health care, and housing navigation. This model of shelter, proponents now argue, is more effective at getting people into permanent housing than either those that move people from tents into apartments or older, non-“enhanced” shelter models.

Chief Seattle Club director Derrick Belgarde, who spoke at Wilson’s event, told PubliCola Wednesday afternoon that the people who are most successful in CSC’s permanent supportive housing are the ones who’ve gone through mandatory case management at one of their shelters, which include two tiny house villages, first. “If ‘housing first’ is getting people off the streets, getting people in a safe room with a door, then it’s good, but when we’re talking about permanent housing, we haven’t been fans,” Belgarde said.

People can be kicked out of a CSC shelter for behavior that wouldn’t get them evicted from permanent housing, and as a result, they’re far less likely to start fights, blast music, or engage in other un-neighborly behavior once they move into a housing unit, Belgarde said. “In our shelters, it’s not even about shelter—it’s about a program to build community and get life skills and keep them safe, with a roof over their head.”

Wilson’s office suggested that the city will be ready to sign leases on several properties shortly after her legislation passes, assuming the city council approves it (more on that in a moment.) But they wouldn’t say yet where the properties were, or if they’ll include the very large villages Wilson’s proposal would authorize.

“Obviously, we don’t want to just put 250 people in a huge tent and be like, “OK, here you go!'” Wilson told PubliCola. “It’s going to be based on a case-by-case analysis.”

Belgarde said his organization is unlikely to apply to build much larger tiny house villages than the ones they currently operate. “I’m not opposed to other people trying it. I’m not an expert on anybody else’s community,” Belgarde said. “I know about our own unique trauma, and I know where the a chronically homeless person sits, as far as their acuity level and their needs. A 100-person shelter would be downright dangerous for us. We’re not going to entertain the idea of opening a shelter that large.”

Low Income Housing Instititute director Sharon Lee, who also spoke at Wednesday’s event, said if LIHI was to build a very large tiny house village, they would divide it into separate “neighborhoods” to prevent it from feeling dangerously large. Currently, LIHI’s biggest tiny house village has 73 units.

One group the discussion about enhanced shelter leaves out is people who don’t need intensive case management—those who are homeless due to economic circumstances like job loss and evictions for unpaid rent. During the campaign, Wilson proposed providing rent subsidies to some of these “low-acuity” homeless folks to move into tax-credit-subsidized housing units that are currently sitting vacant because there’s a glut of subsidized studio and one-bedroom units that cost about as much as market-rate apartments.

“You won’t be surprised to hear that we are going to be looking at ways to move low-acuity folks into some of the vacant units in our affordable housing sector with some kind of rent subsidy,” Wilson told PubliCola. “That will be a strategy that will take people who are hanging out in the shelter system, putting them into a housing situation, and hopefully freeing up some space in shelter that is set up to deal with higher-acuity folks.”

“Among the homeless population, there are a number of people who just can’t pay the rent—the working homeless person, the person who finally got into recovery and now is employed,” Lee said. “They can live in regular workforce housing. I think it’s a valid model, and it’s a lot cheaper to do it that way than to subsidize vacant units.”

Belgarde, echoing comments LopezGaetke made during the announcement at Sound Foundations, said his main concern about the new push for shelters is that shelter becomes a path to housing, rather than a final stop. “If there’s any worry, it’s a worry that it’s not the solution,” he said. We don’t want people to see there’s not any more tents on the sidewalk and think we’ve solved it, because you haven’t solved it if people are just sitting in a tiny house village.”

Wilson still has to get her legislation through the council. In a break from longstanding practice at City Hall, Wilson did not secure a City Council sponsor for her proposals, discuss the wording or sequencing of her legislation, or ensure that the legislation would get a committee hearing before announcing her legislation publicly. (She also left her own press conference shortly after she spoke without answering questions, prompting audible grumbling from reporters.)

This approach has raised some eyebrows in council offices. Ordinarily, the mayor and allies on the council work behind the scenes to draft legislation and secure support from council members before doing a public rollout; instead, the council has been left wondering who, exactly, is supposed to back Wilson’s bill and even which committee it’s supposed to go through.

“Now that the three bills have been transmitted to council, we need to determine which Councilmembers will sponsor each bill, whether they should move together or through separate committees, and which committee or committees are the right fit,” Council President Joy Hollingsworth told PubliCola Thursday. “We also need time for central staff analysis regarding the legislation and for the executive to answer initial questions as well. We will also invite and offer the executive an opportunity to come to a council briefing to discuss their legislation. Our goal as a body is to run a transparent and open legislative process.”