Designated encampments are a poor solution

The overall shrinking of public space and degradation of the policy environment on use of public space is contributing to people experiencing homelessness being less safe — and contributing to interest in ideas like designated encampments. Unfortunately, this direction fails to centre the interests of people living unhoused. Further, we forget too easily that any consideration of land use on Treaty 1 land needs to start with historic claims and ancestral rights.

Among people experiencing homelessness, Indigenous people are overrepresented. Many people are living unsheltered on their own ancestral territories. Having endured intergenerational theft that started with land (transferred to settlers whose descendants now enjoy generational wealth), and continued with limits on movement, ability to make money, access to education and more, they are now actively surviving homelessness. Yet, the limits on their person continue.

Recent years have seen the closure and limits on use of public space throughout the downtown and broader city. These include Portage Place mall, the Millennium Library and Winnipeg Transit, and previously through the closure of downtown single-room occupancy hotels and their barrooms.

For some time, the city has been telegraphing an intention to limit access to outdoor public space according to housing status. At every opportunity, those cautioning against this move have raised the problem of limiting those with ancestral rights, and further limiting free movement of citizens on public land. The latter has been decided through B.C. legal process, and suggests the City of Winnipeg’s exposure to risk as it moves forward.

Cumulatively these trends have made people living unsheltered and those who are very poor more unsafe, and increased stigma. Service providers have heard about experiences of aggression and assault on people living unsheltered from everyday citizens and those in professional positions — emboldened by an increasingly hostile policy environment.

Critical in understanding the points to follow is that one of the only ways people living unsheltered have to keep safe is freedom of movement — the ability to move away from situations and people that are or appear to be unsafe, and towards contexts of more safety. For example, some people who live unsheltered have previously experienced a lack of safety at Winnipeg shelters. They are exercising their skills of survival in choosing otherwise.

While designated encampments tend not to be mandatory for people living unsheltered, as the policy environment signals that those living unsheltered should not be in other spaces, pressure increases on unsheltered people to locate solely in designated spaces. Those living unsheltered come to expect more negative interactions with members of the public and professionals who prefer them to be in designated spaces and designated spaces only.

We need to be clear that designated encampments:

• Don’t make more housing available. The key barrier to getting housed right now is simply whether the housing exists.

• Aren’t safer. When women, queer folks, young people and elders’ ability to move is limited, it makes them more vulnerable to exploitation, violence and abuse from people with whom they are forced to share space. Those who find designated encampments unsafe will make the best choice available to them and are more likely to choose unsafe indoor sleeping arrangements, for example, or increasingly hidden outdoor spaces — difficult for outreach groups, paramedics and others to find and offer support. It is important to avoid underemphasizing this point as we continue to observe threats to the safety of Indigenous women, girls, two spirit, queer and other marginalized people.

• Are subject to neighbourhood approval. Designated encampments in other cities have been forced to move, sometimes multiple times, because housed neighbours were unhappy with their presence. This degrades service to unsheltered people as they are forced to move, re-orient to services, etc.

• Require investment (and reinvestment when forced to move) — investment that could go towards expediting housing provision.

The establishment of designated encampments often coincides with the defunding of outreach groups.

Disappointingly, managed encampments are also too often underfunded and short on supplies. Yet, their establishment often increases the importance of outreach services in keeping people safe who cannot use the managed encampment because of safety issues, and are forced to move regularly because of restrictions on the use of public spaces. In their disconnection from reliable supports, these relatives have decreased access to basic needs, harm reduction supplies, and ultimately access to safe housing. Note that the most effective outreach work in supporting people successfully into long-term housing is grounded in consent and moves at the speed of trust.

To end, I return to the matter of our collective access to public space. Increasingly, Winnipeg’s public discourse is permissive towards classifying people according to housing status and limiting freedom of movement accordingly.

I’m alarmed at the backsliding of a conversation that at one time was grounded in human rights and analysis of colonialism. Designated encampments are more likely to seem like a good idea in policy environments where human rights are failing and have failed.

Kate Sjoberg is executive director at Resource Assistance for Youth.