Dear Friends (Tacoma City Councilmembers and Others):

          I understand that First Christian Church has offered the City the temporary use of part of its property at 6^th and Orchard for the establishment of a managed “tiny house village” for persons experiencing homelessness.  I also understand that, by this proposal, the Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) would manage the village.  Some people have asked THA for its views about the proposal.  They thought that THA’s views might help inform the discussion since, earlier this year, we too offered the City part of our property at 60^th and McKinley for a similar village for the same purpose, also managed by LIHI.  The City accepted our offer.  We signed a contract for that purpose on May 20, 2020.  I attach a copy of that contract.  That village has been in operation now for several months.  Perhaps knowing our experience will help the civic discussion of the important questions the 6^th and Orchard proposal raises.  That is why I write, to share our experience with the tiny house village on our property on the Eastside:

●        I do not offer any views about the purposes of the 6^th and Orchard proposal.  However, I can certainly explain why THA offered its land on the Eastside for a tiny house village.  Section 1 of the attached contract recites our reasons.  They include the following:

“1.1   The City of Tacoma, as elsewhere in the state and nation, faces a homelessness crisis.

“1.2   The homelessness crisis is compounded by the separate crisis arising from the pandemic of the COVID-19 virus, a respiratory contagion.

“1.3   Micro shelter villages are an effective crisis response to homelessness and have proven to be a rapid and cost-effective alternative to traditional homeless shelters. These villages can also help persons experiencing homelessness achieve a measure of social distancing, sanitation, and stability that is necessary to protect themselves and the community from further spread of the virus.

“1.4   A micro shelter village requires a certain amount of open or vacant land. THA owns vacant land at 623 and 628 E. 60th St. in Tacoma that is suitable for use as a micro shelter village.

“1.5   THA wishes to help the City address these crises by providing the City with the temporary use of a portion of THA’s property for a micro shelter village.”

I assume no one in this discussion needs much convincing that the twin challenges our City faces from widespread homelessness and a pandemic are gravely serious. 

●        As important as these reasons are, they would not have been enough to allow THA to offer its land unless we had adequate confidence in the City and LIHI about the proper and safe management of the village.  I read the comments sent to the City Council last night by email, raising many concerns.  Many of these concerns closely resemble the concerns and questions that THA and its neighbors had about the 60^th and McKinley proposal.  We sought answers and assurances.  We wrote some of the answers and assurances into our attached contract.  Here are the main ones:

“3.     CITY USE: THE “VILLAGE”

“3.1   Micro shelter Village

The City will use the Property only to establish and manage a micro shelter village for persons experiencing homelessness (the “Village”). The Village and associated activities shall be limited to the Property. The City shall not use the Property for any other purpose. Only micro shelter structures will be allowed on the Property, along with hygiene and other necessary support facilities. The City shall not permit any tents in the Village. The City may perform grading and other site work that it deems necessary to establish the micro shelter village with advance written permission from THA.

“3.2   Limited Number of Micro shelters

The City shall not place more than fifty-five (55) micro shelters on the Property.

          . . .

“5.     CITY OBLIGATIONS

The City shall have the sole responsibility for financing, establishing, managing, and dismantling the Village, and then clearing and cleaning the Property. To ensure that the Village is well-run and effective, the City shall contract with a reputable organization experienced in the establishment and management of micro shelter villages, such as the Low Income Housing Institute.

“6.     REQUIRED FEATURES OF USE

“The City must incorporate the following features into its management of the Village and care of the Property:

“●      The only residential structures allowed on the Property shall be micro shelters of good construction and attractive appearance. No tents for residential use shall be allowed anywhere on the Property.

“●      a fence around the Village for security, privacy, curb appeal, and screening;

“●      adequate hygiene facilities (toilets, showers, garbage collection and disposal);

“●      adequate storage spaces for personal items of residents such that no personal items, other than bicycles used for transportation, are stored outside of micro shelter structures;

“●      adequate site security;

“●      health and behavioral health services;

“●      case management services to assist people to move out of the Village to more permanent housing;

“●      rules regarding the safe behavior of residents, including rules recommended by public health authorities for safety during the pandemic, e.g, social distancing, no social visiting;

“●      effective management/governance of the site, including enforcement of the rules;

“●      respectful treatment of all residents;

“●      no unlawful discrimination in the provision of services or management of the Village;

“●      effective community outreach/communications regarding site planning and operations.”

●        I can report that our experience so far has been very positive.  Our concerns did not happen.  This has also been the experience of our neighbors whom we have relied upon for a judgment that can only come from someone who lives nearby.  To write this email to you, I consulted with one of our neighbors at 60^th and McKinley.  His name is Mr. Stephen Hagberg.  He has been intimately involved in the discussion of the 60^th and McKinley proposal.  From the start, he fully shared all of our questions and concerns about the proposal, and many of his own.  He contributed to the discussion a well-informed and alert concern for the welfare of his neighborhood and a sharp eye for what it requires.  He also walks the area and effectively keeps an eye on it for us.  I append my exchange of emails with Mr. Hagberg today.  I wrote him asking for an update on his views about his experience with the village at 60^th and McKinley.  I explained that his views would help me fashion my own comments to you about the 6^th and Orchard proposal.  I append his reply.  I have his permission to share his reply with you, and his name and email address.

          As you can read from Mr. Hagberg’s email, his experience with the 60^th and McKinley site matches THA’s.  I attribute this positive experience to four things:

(i)             shared expectations about management and performance among THA, the City, and LIHI;

(ii)           the City’s vigilance;

(iii)         LIHI’s competence;

(iv)         good communication with neighbors.

●        With our initial concerns in mind, and our positive experience to date, I can recall another reason why THA was interested in offering its land for this purpose.  The one village at 60^th and McKinley is not enough.  The City needs more of them.  And it needs more of them in other parts of the City.  We hoped that a positive experience with our land would elicit the willingness of other land owners in the City to offer their land for additional tiny house villages and to do so in other neighborhoods.  The willingness of First Christian Church to do this on 6^th Avenue seems like a good step forward in that way.

I hope THA’s experience is helpful for you to consider.  I know proposals like the one for 6^th and Orchard elicit strong feelings and views on all sides of the questions.  The puzzles are harder still as our City leaders try to face down not only widespread homelessness, but also widespread homelessness in the middle of a pandemic.  My main wish for the civic discussion is for us all to remember that all viewpoints can be understood to reflect a love of city and a concern for all our neighbors.  Perhaps remembering that will help lead the discussion to a resolution that is a reasonable, balanced, and just.

If THA can be helpful in this discussion in some way, please let me know.

Thank you all.

          Michael