The best solutions aren't always close to home

On Tuesday, May 3^rd, the city of Dallas officially closed the campsite for homeless individuals named Tent City.  Tent city was an open space underneath a major interstate highway where nearly 300 people hitched their tents and found community amongst those experiencing similar hardships.  For years, the very visible area represented Dallas’ inability to provide shelter and security for its homeless population, as many of its shelters were overflowing and many homeless individuals with housing vouchers were unable to find affordable housing.

Government officials claimed to be removing individuals from Tent City as an effort to reduce crime, however it was well known that this decision was a part of a cosmetic improvement initiative to attract more tourist activity.  The largest problem with the removal of tent city, was the lack of a solid plan to address the homelessness problem and to provide these now displaced residents with a home.

4 months later, the city has unveiled a new housing complex – The Cottages at Hickory Crossing -  consisting of 50 “tiny-houses” for the city’s “costliest” chronically homeless individuals.  These 400 square- foot cottages will be free for homeless Dallasites that are mentally-ill, involved in the criminal justice system, or other risk factors that increase their need for services and ultimately costs to tax-payers.  KERA news reports that the typical residents here would cost the city $40,000 a year, whereas these cottages only cost $15,000 a piece.

As a native of Dallas, I used to often drive past places like Tent city and wonder why the innovations implemented to solve issues abroad are not modified to solve the issues “in our own backyard.” Reading the article this week on the Ikea Foundation homes, I feel even more strongly about that idea.  From my research, I have not seen a legitimate connection between the tiny home Village of Dallas and the Ikea Foundation initiative being instituted in Ethiopia.  If the tiny home village was not inspired by the Ikea homes, this goes to show how much our local governments can learn from agencies like the UNCHR.  

While the Cottages address a long standing problem in Dallas, they only actually alleviate the issue for 50 people, where we know the number of homeless adults living in Tent City (and other similar areas) to be over 500. The Ikea Foundation homes provide a model for a sustainable and evolving solution to homelessness. For $5,000 less than the cottages, these locations fit families of 5 where the Dallas cottages are made for individuals.  Though they don’t provide electricity or running water, the ability for the Ikea homes to be assembled in hours eliminates the cost of labor that could be covered by willing volunteers. Additionally the incorporation of solar power takes off the burden of utility bills for those living in the structure.

While I do believe that both models serve very unique purposes, I also believe that a morphing of both ideas could create solutions that are sustainable and reach a broader number of those in need, at a low cost to the government and tax payers. My question this week is similar to that of last week: how can we influence government officials to learn from international innovations to more effectively solve the issues of our communities?

- Chelsea J.

Photos and data from http://keranews.org/post/50-tiny-homes-built-dallas-chronically-homeless-are-now-ready-move