Don't let Supreme Court homeless ruling undermine Longview's Hope Village

Salvation Army major: 'Where would we be without Hope Village?'

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that it’s OK to jail or fine homeless people who sleep in public places, finding that doing so is not “cruel and unusual punishment” outlawed by the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the ruling should not let communities off the hook for caring and rehabilitating the homeless — or tempt officials here to discontinue or undercut Longview’s Hope Village pallet home project.

I’m ambivalent about the decision, which was issued the week that Longview Salvation Army officials presented the Longview City Council a report about progress at the city-sponsored homeless rehab community.

On the one hand, municipal authorities have had their hands tied by lower court rulings that limited their authority to clear the homeless from public places, regardless of whether there is enough affordable housing or available shelter. This is why homeless camps circled Longview City Hall and took over the picnic shelter at Lake Sacajawea Park several years ago.

On the other hand, homeless advocates across the country fear the high court’s ruling will trigger a “race to the bottom,” where cities adopt harsh policies to drive homeless people to adjoining municipalities. Washington’s own — apparently more strict — constitutional projections against cruel and unusual punishment may thwart the hard-hearted. But we all know there are people in this community and around the nation who will want to use the ruling as a scourge to chase the homeless away with draconian measures.

How heartless — and counter to the public good. Helping the homeless is a humane, Christian, wise, self-interested and tax-wise thing to do.

A chronically homeless person cost taxpayers an average of $35,578 per year, a cost reduced by 50% by sheltering those folks in supportive housing, according to a 2017 study by the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

Homeless people strain the medical, social service, police and justice systems and blight the community and the environment. Sheltering the homeless and directing them to reform and recovery opportunities makes good fiscal sense.

Jailing them — which costs close to $100 a day in Cowlitz County — does not. Doing so is like operating a debtors’ prison, punishing people who are homeless due to a lack of affordable housing and shortages of mental health and drug treatment and lack of economic opportunity.

Jailing interferes with jobs, treatment and other efforts at reform. Incarceration is not a plan. It’s punishment with no up side. It’s easy to blame the victims, but it’s not often justified.

Hope Village is working, despite the extreme right's attacks on it. As of May 31, 62 residents have found permanent housing since the pallet home community opened on Dec. 19, 2022, according to the Salvation Army, which operates the project under a city contract.

Another 49 are housed there at any given time, and 130 homeless people are on the wait list. A total of 251 individuals have lived there. As of last week, no original resident was still there.

Many residents who have been expelled — most of them for violating rules against on-site drug and alcohol possession —  want to return, and 63 have been allowed to do so . None of these has found permanent housing, though.

To be re-admitted, anyone “exited” from Hope Village for drug violations must complete substance abuse and mental health evaluations and remain in compliance with a drug treatment program.

Only adults with provable Cowlitz County residency are allowed to stay at Hope Village. They must adhere to a long list of rules, such as no guests, no late entry, no chronic night absences, no drugs or alcohol, no taking meals off site. They must be open to getting counseling and case management and express a wish to move into permanent housing. Financial management counseling also is offered through Bank of America.

Residents perform neighborhood cleanup,. There were only eight police calls there over the last six months (in contrast to hundreds when the site was an unsupervised, festering tent camp). Residents are starting a garden.

The project’s 2024 budget is just short of $1.5 million, which was funded by the state Legislature with the support of state Sen. Jeff Wilson, R-Longview, who earlier had been a critic of the project. Spending so far this year is well under budget, in part because residents have taken on housekeeping chores and share security responsibilities, according to Salvation Army officials.

After some initial skepticism, (I believe) the public has come to accept Hope Village. Residents see the difference it is making around the community. Salvation Army representatives received a cordial reception from the council Thursday night, though some members did ask pointed questions, mostly about security concerns. It was refreshing contrast to earlier controversy over the project, which was a flashpoint in last November’s City Council elections.

The project is not cheap, and there are elements of the community opposed to spending taxpayers dollars on people whom they consider unfit and the cause of their own troubles.

However, I’m not sure there are better alternatives, because Hope Village tries to heal the clients, not just find them shelter. Certainly churches and social service organizations do not have the money to operate programs on a scale to meaningfully address the area’s homeless problem.

Still, the community should have a continual conversation about how to make Hope Village even more effective. One area of concern for some council members, for example, is the lack of criminal background checks. Besides checking for outstanding warrants and protection orders, The Salvation Army does not check criminal histories of applicants.

Hope Village is designed to give as much access as possible to the chronically homeless, Salvation Amy Major Phil Smith explained to the council. It is uncommon for shelters to do criminal background checks, he added, contrasting Hope Village with residential programs like Community House on Broadway.

Smith welcomed continued discussion about the program. But some of his other words resonate here, and they are a reminder of how challenging it is to repair broken lives.

“We walk with (the Hope Village residents). There are no quick fixes, no long-lasting outcomes that lead to reintegration without a healthy support system,” Smith said. He wished that the progress the Hope Village has made so far would give council members “a stronger sense of hope.”

“Where would we be without Hope Village?” Smith asked.

There’s still much to be done to solve the local homeless crisis, but this is not the time to let a Supreme Court decision undermine the progress the community is making through Hope Village.