This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The national celebration over the fact that Salt Lake City has cured its "chronic homelessness" problem never made a lot of sense to those of us who frequent the neighborhood around Pioneer Park.
There was, and is, documentation showing that the housing-first approach to helping people who had been homeless for long periods of time, particularly homeless veterans, off the street and into both shelter and services has made all the difference in the world for some really desperate individuals.
But looking at the lines outside The Road Home shelter and the many panhandlers around downtown — and understanding that the definition of "chronic" didn't include everyone in great need — led many people to realize that just leaving the matter to the few stalwart people who are devoted to helping homeless souls get through another day and night wasn't going to truly deal with the problem.
People at the top of the governments of both Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County appointed panels to look into the problem and come up with an approach that would really deal with those who are now homeless and work to prevent more people and families from becoming so in the future.
People could choose to be annoyed that our leaders were pushed into action by the fact that the Pioneer Park area was on the verge of becoming gentrified, and the homeless population suddenly an offense in the eyes of high-rolling property developers who were not known to have been concerned about the problem before. But that does not alter the fact that ideas were needed and that, now, ideas have been proposed.
Central to the proposals arrived at together by the city-appointed committee, headed by former mayor Palmer DePaulis and Utah Jazz owner Gail Miller, and the county effort, led by Mayor Ben McAdams, is the idea that the homeless problem needs to be divided in order to be conquered.
The Road Home need not be moved. (Nobody would want it.) But new facilities need to be created, mostly to keep women and children away from a rougher crowd that includes drug dealers, sex offenders and the mentally unstable.
The joint panel stresses the ongoing need for case management, constant monitoring of results and a willingness to change approaches whenever something doesn't work. Panel members also want to change rules that require people to actually be homeless, not just faced with eviction, before they can receive assistance.
They note that there will be a need for money, rightfully from the state, as homelessness is a statewide problem, to create the new facilities. Much of the program work can be paid for out of redirected money that already goes, if less efficiently, to the issue. They also express hope that, once new plans prove effective, more private money will be available.
Getting locked in a fight over whether, and where, to move the homeless shelter was never going to solve this problem.
The approach recommended by the two panels, to address the problem on as close to an individual level as possible, and not burden any city or neighborhood with the entire weight, is clearly the way to go.