Everyone loves our nation’s veterans and what they symbolize: freedom, courage, and honor. So why have several communities recently opposed the building of veteran homeless shelters in their proximity?
In 2010 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) released a five-year plan to eliminate veteran homelessness. Unfortunately, while every single American citizen would profess their interest in ending veteran homelessness, this doesn’t mean that they’ll support the building of a shelter in their neighborhood. As succinctly put by John Driscoll, president and CEO of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, the goal of constructing shelters, support centers, and other homeless veteran resources is a ” ‘NIMBY’ problem – a colorful acronym standing for ” ‘not in my backyard,’ the term politicians use for worthwhile projects they’d prefer to go somewhere else.”
Local communities are currently voicing their NIMBY opinion – sure, they’d like to end veteran homelessness, but they’d prefer the problem be taken care of elsewhere. For example, an Auburn, New York neighborhood initially blocked a proposal to convert an 81-year-old mansion into a homeless shelter. And in Gainesville, Georgia, opponents hotly opposed the conversion of a hotel into a veterans homeless shelter.
San Francisco, home to a particularly large number of veterans due to its Navy base for the Pacific Fleet and the Marine Corp Recruit Depot, now experiences similar backlash. The VA has already sunk $30 million into converting a building in San Francisco’s Mission Hills-Old Town section into a 40-bed shelter and treatment center for post-9/11 vets suffering from PTSD (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). In response, parents of the children attending Old Town Academy, located near the shelter-in-progress, have threatened to pull their children out of school if the shelter is granted a permit.
These communities aren’t protesting veteran shelters to be heartless. They’re protesting because they worry about how the presence of a homeless shelter might increase the local crime rate, how it might negatively affect local business, and how it might impact their sense of safety and security. Many of the veterans may be being treated for mental health or drug problems, and a community has the right to be cautious.
At the same time, these communities need to acknowledge that this is the cost of being free. Many veterans are homeless because of their experiences in fighting for us abroad. They won’t stand a chance at rising above their situations if they aren’t provided food and shelter, therapy, mental health services, and job counseling. And it has to happen somewhere.
A middle ground must be found between the important interests of combatting veteran homelessness and protecting community safety. Measures should be taken to make these communities feel comfortable about the construction of veteran homeless shelters. The VA needs to educate them on the need for such services for our veterans, as well as causes of their problems such as PTSD and TBI. And the shelters will need to enforce rules restricting loitering, panhandling, and other activities. Local police should be cognizant of the areas around shelters. This would respect communities’ rights while still fulfilling veterans’ needs.
Although the VA has a better chance of capturing a unicorn than eliminating veteran homelessness, concerted efforts could put a dent in the problem. For further reading on what the VA’s five-year plan entails, visit: http://www.oregon.gov/ODVA/TASKFORCE/reintegration/FiveYearPlan-PPT.pdf?ga=t.
