Questions Asked, Few
Answers
Mount Vernon’s Community
Dialogue on Homelessness attracts passionate and diverse crowd.
By John
Teschner/Gazette
June 7, 2006
 Photo by
John Teschner For-profit affordable housing
developer Michael Milliner led one
discussion.
 Pam Michell
moderates the dialogue attended by almost 100 concerned
citizens.

| | |
Nearly 100 people gathered at Bethlehem
Baptist Church on May 30 for Fairfax County’s first of four Community Dialogues
in response to the April 7 Community Summit to End Homelessness. According to a
2006 point in time survey of homelessness,” in Fairfax there are 2,077 homeless
people in the county. 934 are single. 1,143 are members of 333 families. 724 are
children, all but 25 younger than 18.
Larry Brown was one of the first
speakers to address the crowd. Like many in the room that night, he was
homeless. New Hope Housing director Pam Michell introduced Brown as a success
story, a “graduate of New Hope” who had defeated “the stereotype of a single man
who is down and out and some people think he will always be down and out.” But
Brown’s description of his life also exemplified the challenges the Planning
Committee to End Homelessness faces in its stated vision: “By 2015, every person
in Fairfax County has a safe, affordable home.”
Larry Brown grew up in Mount
Vernon. His father owned a bar at a time when “there used to be a bar every five
foot on the Richmond Highway,” in Brown’s words. “I grew up drinking.” He was
also using illegal drugs, and when he reached adulthood he was trapped in a
cycle of addiction and prison time. Brown estimated he’d spent 75 percent of his
adult life in prison. But in 1993 he beat his addictions. “I quit while I was in
the system,” Brown said. “Which is a hard thing to do.” Brown was released from
prison three years ago, “And when I got out I had nowhere to go … I’d never been
in a predicament where I never had nothing.”
Brown was willing to take
advantage of the homeless services available in the county, and spent four or
five months in the Kennedy shelter. But he chafed to get out of the communal
environment. “I wanted my own place,” he said. “That was my number one goal.”
Brown worked a succession of jobs, and finally moved into his own home with
the help of Good Shepherd Housing. But he will have to move out of that home in
December, and he doubts he can afford to pay unsubsidized rents on a solo
apartment. As a roofer, Brown said, “I make fair money, but I don’t make really
good money yet.”
Brown said he has three goals right now, “a house, a new
car and a motorcycle.” He has already accomplished the three goals he set
himself upon leaving prison: to have his own place, be economically
self-sufficient and earn more than $15 an hour, though he had to tweak that list
a bit, “I had the motorcycle on there,” he explained, “[now] that’s more of a
long-term goal.” Brown said he’s been encouraged to leave his home county and
move to North Carolina, where he’s been told houses are cheaper. But he is on
parole until 2008, and the paperwork required for a move is a disincentive.
WHEN ASKED what had changed to allow him to break the cycle of drug
addiction and alcoholism, and imprisonment as the only alternative to
homelessness, Brown said, “Me. I have faced reality more than I did before. I
care whether I live or die.” This statement is an insight into one of the
challenges faced by the people who gathered to help end homelessness. How does a
community save someone who does not want to be saved?
The causes of
homelessness are complex, many of them are structural, such as high housing
costs, but others cannot be solved with simple economics. According to the 2006
survey 87 percent of single homeless people in Fairfax are seriously mentally
ill and/or substance abusers. However, only four percent of the members of
Fairfax's homeless families fall into that category. Many at the dialogue
pointed out these differences, but few voiced solutions.
The myriad voices,
including county officials like Supervisor Gerry Hyland and police captain
Michael Kline, non-profit directors, social workers, government employees,
members of faith communities, business owners and homeless people, spoke to the
subtleties of the homeless problem, and the impossibility of solving it in a
monolithic way. Much of the meeting was spent in two sub-groups, housing and
prevention.
IN THE PREVENTION subgroup, facilitated by Community Council
on Homelessness chairman Linda Wimpey, people discussed the challenges faced by
individuals in society and in the county’s care system. Cheri Zeman, director of
United Community Ministries cited the large number of non-English speakers in
the area. Mattie Palmore, Good Shepherd’s Director of Homelessness Transition,
brought up people unwillingness to seek help until the last minute. “If you are
about to be homeless, it’s a very humbling experience. And a lot of people wait
until the eleventh hour. [Help] is not going to happen overnight.
Susan
Samuels, a social worker at Emberly Rucker Community shelter in Reston said the
county’s window of only 30 to 45 days to provide services forced many clients to
take the first job available, probably a minimum wage job with a salary
unsustainable in Fairfax, meaning the person would soon be back at another
shelter.
Some of the people in this group seemed frustrated by the
outsiders-looking-in perspective that was prevalent at the meeting. Several
stood and articulated the complexity, desperation and inescapability of
homelessness, particularly for working mothers. “When you get laid off
everything hits at one time,” said Cassie Gainey, “and you go straight to the
ground.” She said she was frustrated by what she saw as the group’s avoidance of
the problems at the root of homelessness, “You don’t want to hear it and you got
to hear it,” she said repeatedly.
But the discussion of the causes of
homelessness finally had to be cut off, to the displeasure of some, in order to
begin a discussion of solutions. But in light of the raised and unraised
problems, the solutions were not wholly convincing. The five solutions the group
listed were: for the community to be a “serious partner,” grants to allow
faith-based groups to take on small numbers of clients, separate solutions for
chronic and temporary homelessness, change in the shelter time-frame and job
training and long term support.
THE DISCUSSION of housing was led by
Michael Milliner, of Building Partnership, a for-profit company that specializes
in affordable housing, and Herb Cooper-Levy, with the non-profit affordable
housing builder RPJ Housing.
Cooper-Levy emphasized public advocacy to sway
government leaders, “It’s not okay that this resource – this valuable, rare
resource – publicly owned land, gets used for parks … We want roofs. We want
heating systems. We want plumbing,” Cooper-Levy said.
When asked why
governments zoned land to make it difficult to build affordable housing,
Cooper-Levy said it was a matter of whose voice was loudest at planning
committees and Board of Supervisor meetings. “It’s the number of people that
show up and what they ask for. We’ve got to get better at showing up,” he said.
When Laura Derby called for thinking “outside the box” on the homelessness
problem, Cooper-Levy suggested “Instead of thinking outside the box we need to
set it down here [he mimicked stepping on top of a box] and say ‘We need
funding’ … The next time I go to a public hearing, I want you all
there.”
Milliner also stressed the need for public advocacy, particularly at
the community input meetings that precede county approval of developers’ plans.
He said most development deals have a 45-day window, and if there is no
“ready-to-mobilize” community base, a few loud voices in opposition to
affordable housing can puncture plans to invest millions.
But Milliner also
said that people should “take the moral responsibility out of it.” There are
sound economic reasons for developers to build affordable housing and for
counties to encourage it, because it is ultimately cheaper than keeping people
in shelters.
The Housing group presented these themes to the larger meeting:
zoning issues that discouraged affordable housing, lack of citizen involvement
and the need for creative solutions and direct involvement by elected officials.
THE MULTITUDE of voices and the enthusiasm to combat homelessness
excited many of the events’ attendees and organizers. They passed an email list
so that those involved could mobilize together, continue the dialogue and
transform it into action. But as the list went around, one participant spoke out
angrily, “It’s hard to be on [the email list] when you’re homeless.”
Michell, who was leading the group, had no ready answer. She acknowledged
“the need for us to stop and make sure the homeless have a voice” at the
planning level of the region’s effort to end homelessness.
The meeting
offered a chance for many of the area’s non-profits to talk to one another about
the common goals they were combating. The Rev. Keary Kincannon of Rising Hope
Methodist Mission Church, took a break from chatting with an employee of another
non-profit to say he was encouraged by the meeting. “It all comes down to ‘How
do we create the political will?’ not just the politicians but the political
will within the community … and I think something like this is a big step.”
Kincannon added that the effort needed a “vision,” of “what Martin Luther King
called ‘the beloved community.’”