If Homeless Shelters Work, Why Force Them?
A Commentary on Sedgwick County and Wichita, KS
In the dead of Kansas winter it is not uncommon for homeless citizens to decline offers to stay in shelters. The natural response to this information should be - why? Instead, elected officials and city planners insist on resorting to force as a response.
In unincorporated areas of Sedgwick County Kansas, commissioners say they have been receiving complaints from businesses and residents regarding homeless encampments. Because of these complaints, some commissioners have openly been discussing anti-camping ordinances that would disband these camps. It appears the county intends to match existing City of Wichita policies that prioritize getting unhoused people into public services such as shelters and mental health facilities.
The last change Sedgwick County made to their camping ordinance lowered the number of days that any citizen is permitted to consecutively camp from 300 days to 56 days and Wichita’s most recent policy change states that officers no longer have to give notice before removing encampments. The ordinance also allows officers to issue tickets if citizens refuse to relocate. When discussing how to connect the homeless population with services meant to help them, Sedgwick County Commissioner Jim Howell said “Enforcement is really about love.”
In order to gain insight into the homeless population, Wichita will often conduct “Point In Time” counts where for 24 hours they engage with people living on the street and encourage them to move to the shelter. At the end of these counts officers, elected officials, and journalists often highlight the number of citizens who choose not to proceed to the shelter. Those in power often act as if the decision not to be admitted to the shelter is some sort of mystery, however on more than one occasion multiple unhoused persons have given public comment at city council meetings citing reappearing issues at the shelters such as security for their belongings, their physical safety, and acceptance of their pets.
This ongoing ignorance to these very clearly stated issues plaguing the homeless shelter shows a deep disregard for providing actual solutions and instead a focus merely on appearances. In a recent presentation City Manager Dennis Marstall cited “reduced visible homelessness” as a win. Marstall’s attitude plus well-meaning policies that actually do more harm than good to our homeless community will continue to produce empty results.
A tent is still a home and a rental property is still a home. What most people actually long for in their lives is not a mortgage, but community. The main homeless encampment that is the target of the latest policy change, which is lovingly referred to by those who live there as “Narnia,” is actually asking for formal recognition and management.
If homeless shelters are such good ideas, then citizens should not have to be forced to use them. It’s time for decision makers to start acknowledging homeless persons as full-fledged citizens and not second class citizens to homeowners. It’s also time to consider free market policies that actually help housing such as simplifying zoning laws, easing regulations to allow for ADUs or tiny homes, and not standing in the way of private businesses, churches, nonprofits, and community members who voluntarily want to help their neighbors.
