Governing Homelessness:
The Politics of Tent Cities in the U.S.
Katherine A. Longley
Paper Prepared for:
The John W. McCormack Graduate School of Policy Studies
Student Research Conference, April 2006:
“Social Inequalities in a New Century”
Throughout the U.S., efforts to deal with a lack of affordable housing in many
cities have coalesced around the formation of “tent cities,” or homeless encampments. I
first introduce the tent city movement in the U.S. and separate out the multiple layers of
discourse that surround it. This includes an examination of both the legal decisions that
impact tent cities and the competing solutions advanced to address the problem of
sheltering the homeless. I seek to expose any inconsistencies in this problematization of
sheltering the homeless, and throw into question the traditional solutions that are
advanced to deal with the lack of adequate shelter.
I then map the intersections of permanence, community and politics through the
lens of the tent city. Politics itself, or action in the political realm, forms the propulsion
that makes the tent city unstable, impermanent and its location continually transitory, but
does this necessarily constrain the possibilities for action in the political realm by
members of the tent city, or does this action take place outside the political realm, in
political society?1 Strict conceptions of the political realm and the preconditions for
action in this realm serve to keep the tent city always at bay, outside its borders. The tent
city occupies a space that bridges the private and the public realms. It is a place of
dwelling, but also the location of political struggle.
The resistance embodied in the formation of tent cities by homeless individuals,
as well as the resistance to their formation and to their location in certain areas, and the
attempts made by governmental institutions to regulate and oversee their functioning,
bring to light the salience of the issue of shelter and its location in the realm of the
political. The act of forming tent cities is a visible dissent to current modes of
1
Here I use the conception of “political society” employed by Partha Chatterjee (2004).
2
governmental practice in the U.S., particularly the shelter system and the attendant social
services.
The formation of tent cities on private and public land in urban areas in the U.S.
will be analyzed in relation to shantytowns in Brazil and India. This comparison
illuminates the possible similarities and differences between the governance of the tent
city in the U.S. and urban shantytowns and in these nations, uncovering potential avenues
for political action by members of the tent city.
Providing a stable definition of the tent city, or homeless encampment, is difficult.
I should note that my main focus here will be on autonomously formed encampments.
The tent city as a sphere of autonomy and of protest is a terrain where the members of the
encampment are bound together, either by stated goals, collective decision-making,
leadership, rules, or shared duties and chores. In the case of a tent city in Springfield,
Massachusetts, the members of the tent city, according to Kathleen Burge (2004),
“…started to think of themselves as a community. Everyone was required to take shifts
guarding the tents, so there was round-the-clock security. They took turns…cleaning up
the common area…”2
The members of the tent city are drawn together by the nature of the space they
share, though this space should not be conflated with the space shared in the shelter
system. The two can be differentiated because the space shared by the members of the
tent city, although generally conceived as temporary, has a semblance of permanence and
autonomy from day to day, except during times of relocation or closure.
2
Burge, Boston Globe
3
My focus on autonomous tent cities should be differentiated from tent cities
erected by city governments as well as tent cities erected by activists as part of actions
aimed at ends that are for the most part unrelated to housing. Though the outdoor shelters
created by city governments, such as in Los Angeles, California (in 1988) and in Key
West, Florida (at the present time) would be interesting grounds for exploration, I do not
delve into this here. To illuminate why I choose not to fold the city-instituted
encampments into my focus, the case of the Key West tent city is exemplary. This tent
city is operated much like a traditional shelter thus there is no autonomous organization
or politics enacted by its members, who are dealt with on an individual basis as in the
shelter system.
The city of Key West facilitated the erection of a tent city on the property of a
county detention center. The city paid $70,000 to construct the tent city, $118,000 for
security, and will pay $70,000 a year in maintenance costs, while the county will add
$50,000.3 All this expenditure was granted so that the downtown area of Key West would
become a panhandling-free zone -- where homeless individuals violating this statute
could be banished to either the city’s outdoor shelter or the county detention center,
conveniently located next to one another. It should be noted that because city-instituted
tent cities such as the one in Key West operate in such similar ways to the regular shelter
system, they do not in themselves provide the alternative that tent cities started by the
homeless and homeless activists do.
When preparing to discuss the possible intersections between permanence,
community and politics in relation to the tent city, it is important to consider the
3
Haimerl, Westword
4
traditional uses of the tent as a temporary shelter and how this figures in the debate over
whether they constitute adequate shelter. While the operation of the tent city varies
depending upon the group responsible for its formation, in the cases I focus on homeless
activists and individuals form the tent city as a collective unit with its own political
structure and guidelines. That the tent city constitutes a community in these cases is not
questionable, but the permanence of these communities is always in question. What does
this mean for the potential of action in the political realm for the members of these
communities?
The tent city is a community, operating in the face of always impending crisis.
This situation of the crisis or emergency of homelessness is one factor that leads to the
impermanence of the tent city. But acting to compound this impermanence are the
continual attempts made by the larger community or city to negate the potential for
permanence on the part of the tent city. These attempts at negation in some respects act
through the inability to see the tent as a viable permanent dwelling, but also the inability
to accept the visibility of poverty within the boundaries of the larger community, where
the tent acts as a symbol of poverty and homelessness. The tent city then becomes a
threat to the stability of the larger city or community, at the same time that the negation
of its permanence ensures that the threat posed by its instability will continue to exist.
But perhaps we should see the tent city as just a more glaring representation of the
lack of permanence and continuity in the contemporary world noted by Hannah Arendt?
As the members of the tent city strive for a semblance of permanence from day to day, so
the larger surrounding community is engaged in a similar and perhaps similarly
unwinnable battle. Though I focus on the tent city in its struggle for community and
5
permanence, the fact that similar problems confront the larger community should be
noted.
Where the problem of permanence becomes most acute in regard to the tent city
can be seen in the conceptions of politics articulated by authors such as Arendt, who
argue that the continuous or permanent is necessary for the existence of the political
realm. Sheldon Wolin’s conception of the political as ‘what all have in common’
provides the most likely assurance of the potential for participation in the political realm
on the part of the tent city. However, the question of permanence still remains. And does
the larger community necessarily share “in common” the housing concerns of the
members of the tent city?
Two interlocking strands of thought frame the debate over the sheltering of the
homeless. First, the perpetual understanding of the provision of shelter for the homeless
as an emergency, and thus as always temporary, serves to keep debate at a level that will
constantly require interim solutions. This understanding of the sheltering problem frames
and directs a continuous cycle of proposed short-term solutions, which most commonly
take the form of the ubiquitous shelter system. This understanding of the problem of
homelessness is more closely associated with the conception of “the homeless” as a
homogeneous entity to be dealt with using a basic overarching strategy of solving the
emergency of shelter on a nightly basis. An alternate understanding of the homeless
problem, which serves to inform and build upon the previous one, is based on the belief
that long-term solutions to the problem of sheltering the homeless should be pursued,
including the provision of transitional, supportive housing, and ultimately, if possible,
permanent housing.
6
This second strand of thinking on the problem of homelessness relies on the
differentiation of the conception of the homeless into discrete categories. This
differentiation allows for the use of those practices of governance seen as most suited to a
particular individual’s or family’s situation. The homeless are divided into those that can
be rehabilitated or reintegrated into society as “productive” citizens, and those that will
remain in supportive housing. These governmental practices are not separate from the
shelter system, and in fact branch directly from the provision of nightly shelter services.
Nightly shelters require those seeking shelter to agree to guidelines and often provide
referral services to transitional housing opportunities. When the homeless individual or
family seeks out or accepts the opportunity to participate in transitional housing
programs, they enter into a relation of power. As in the shelter system, they agree to help
themselves and take responsibility for their actions as a condition of their being housed.
Transitional programs allow social service “professionals” to monitor the daily activities
of their “clients”, offer counseling, and steer them toward employment and permanent
housing. To succeed in the program, and reach the ultimate goal of permanent housing,
the “client” must generally be willing to work with the social service providers as an
active participant in their transformation from homeless to housed.
These two strands of thought, taken together, prevent the possibility of the tent
city being viewed as a viable long-term option, especially by governmental actors.
The difficulty in procuring sufficient permanent sheltering solutions -- or where these are
available, their rejection by the homeless for alternatives including the street or tent city - to deal with the sheltering problem as it is perceived, has hamstrung the actors involved.
Although what have been understood as adequate permanent housing solutions are not
7
readily available in the foreseeable future (if by adequate is also meant that permanent
housing is available to all those in need), the tent city itself cannot be seen or treated by
responsible governmental actors as either an adequate or permanent solution. In fact, it is
this continual situation of crisis attendant in addressing the problem of shelter for the
homeless that both ensures and denotes that under this framework there will be no
permanent solution.4
The tent city has not always been intended by its members to originate or exist
simply as an impermanent community. The actions of city government on the tent city
have been instrumental in driving its continual relocation. That the city government is
propelled in this treatment of the tent city often by residents of the neighborhoods where
tent cities are located should not be ignored. Politics itself, or action in the political realm,
forms the propulsion that makes the tent city unstable, impermanent and its location
continually changeable. In fact, it is the desire of the ‘proper’ community to maintain its
symbolic hold on space and legitimize itself as permanent that creates the perceived need
to push out all that is unstable and disorganized. That the instability of the tent city is
created through this process is ironic on its face but can be explained by the reification of
stability and ownership as a precondition for action in the political realm.
Property figures largely in the political struggles over the existence and legality of
tent cities in the U.S. Although tent cities in the U.S. are often temporarily located on
property legally owned by a church or even on city property, this can only usually be
seen as temporary, and the action of governance embodied in the law often finds their
existence, even on legally owned property, untenable.
4
As Giorgio Agamben warns us, it is the permanent state of crisis that allows the state of exception, and
the denial of political rights, p. 133.
8
The historical importance of the bond between property (as land) and citizenship,
or action in the political realm, has only recently been broken down. Hannah Arendt
notes that in ancient Greek society, man could not participate in the affairs of the world
unless he owned a house.5 Owning a private space one could retreat to in ancient times
endowed one with humanity.6 Additionally, it is important to note that laborers lived
outside communities in ancient times.7 Arendt carries this problematic into the
contemporary situation, arguing that the public realm must be occupied by adult equals
free from necessity.8 That this poses a contradiction for the members of the tent city need
not be stated. But the importance of property and stability is illustrated well by the Greek
context. It was this ownership and inviolability of property that meant the government
could not intervene in the freedom of its citizens.
In modern times, Arendt argues, when the boundary of the household sphere of
necessity and the public realm’s sphere of freedom have been violated, and freedom is
located in the social sphere, the methods of despotic rule escapes from the private realm
and can be used by government.9 The elimination of property in a tangible, ‘place of
one’s own’ sense means the elimination of the private realm. This ‘dissolution’ of the
private realm into the social realm, according to Arendt, was coeval with the
transformation of property as land to property as wealth.10
A tension is evident between the quantity of housing needed and the desire that
the housing in question meet a specific standard. In the case of a suburban Seattle tent
5
Arendt (1958) pp. 29-30, note 17
Ibid. p. 64
7
Ibid. p. 67, note 70
8
Ibid. p. 49
9
Ibid. p. 30
10
Ibid. p. 69
6
9
city, a Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Homeless Encampments (which notably
included no homeless individuals), after two public hearings and several private
meetings, came to the conclusion that tent cities did not represent a proper permanent
solution, and then ordered that the tent city in question should not be allowed to stay in
one location for longer than three to six months out of any given year. The definition of
the tent city as inadequate as a permanent solution to the problem of homelessness was,
in this case, both deployed and reinforced. Though the tent city provides its residents with
a day-to-day sense of permanence that is not available within the shelter system, through
forced closures or relocations this permanence is continually negated. It should be noted
that there are exceptions to this such as the case of the Portland, Oregon tent city that has
been permanently located on public land, and will be discussed further.
In the case of cities like Seattle that lack adequate shelter space, the need for tent
cities is generally not questioned, but their desirability and feasibility as solutions are
placed under heavy scrutiny. However, in cities where temporary nightly shelter is
available, or becomes available during the winter months, community support for tent
cities dissolves easily. It is this fact that draws into question the motivations underlying
the formation of tent cities. Tent cities are often mobilized by activists and the homeless
as a protest against the conditions of shelters, the dangers of the street, and to combat the
seeming invisibility of homelessness as an issue. Yet this protest, in many respects, itself
becomes a call for what is seen as an insufficiently active or inactive city government to
put into place more programs to serve the homeless. The protest of the tent city, in those
cases, is itself a call for the city to intervene in and govern the lives of the homeless more
effectively. Even where tent cities are not an overt call for more government action on the
10
issue of homelessness, they are often perceived in this way by journalists or community
members who note the plight of the homeless who occupy them and see them as
justification for increased or altered governmental involvement.
Other debates that factor into the conflict surrounding tent cities are those
regarding public safety, the use of public land, such as parks or parking lots, and the use
of private land, such as churches that are centrally located in neighborhoods as locations
for tent cities. Tellingly, public testimony by residents of a Seattle suburb where a tent
city was located, voiced doubts about the legitimacy of city government involvement in
“enabling homelessness” and expressed worry that Seattle would “become known as the
gravy train for the homeless.”11 These statements reflect fear that the tent city might
potentially exist as an ungovernable zone. However, contravening this notion, many tent
cities have instituted guidelines to govern the space within the tent city. Burge notes that,
“The residents of Sanctuary City [the Springfield tent city] ask anyone who wants to
move in to fill out an ‘admittance agreement,’ which requires them to vow to abide by the
rules and refrain from violence, alcohol, and drugs. Potential residents must agree to
attend one meeting of the residents each week and promise to contribute to ‘the upkeep
and welfare of the community.’”12
Conceptions of safety are employed both by opponents and advocates of tent
cities. Tent city residents and advocates argue that tent cities provide a place of safety off
the streets, while officials and residents worry about the implications of unsupervised tent
cities.13 One minister of a Seattle church actually noted the security benefits of hosting a
11
Ervin, Seattle Times
Burge, Boston Globe
13
Fulbright, July 2004.
12
11
tent city. She noted, “I could have left the church unlocked and we’d have no problem. If
a church wants a good security system, they can’t beat Tent City.”14 The question of
safety has been used in some instances as justification for cities to dismantle tent cities,
even when no other alternative was available. In the case of a Willimantic, Connecticut
tent city, which was dismantled when its neighbors noticed illicit activity such as
hypodermic needles and prostitution around the camp, a resident noted, “We didn’t
bother anyone down there. You couldn’t even see the campsite.”15 So the issue of
visibility and safety are not mutually exclusive. In the case of the Willimantic tent city, it
was located on public land out of sight. But where tent cities are highly visible and
erected as a protest, the worries over safety still abound.
First Avenue Presbyterian Church v. The City of New York is a particularly
interesting case to explore in the context of looking at tent cities and their location on
private property. In this case the city of New York argued that their police force should
be able to remove homeless individuals sleeping on the steps and the periphery of the
church. The city argued that the church was operating a shelter without a license and that
it constituted a public nuisance. In an appeal of the case the city further argued that
allowing public sleeping in this way was unacceptable in a “civilized society”. The
church argued that they considered the space to be a sanctuary for the “service-resistant”
homeless, and that it was an integral part of their ministry.
The church’s policy was to give homeless individuals who wanted to stay on their
property a list of guidelines that must be followed. Thus, not all governance is evaded by
accepting the invitation to make use of private property. In this case the court ruled in
14
15
Bloom, Real Change
Fox, Hartford Courant
12
favor of the church to allow the homeless to sleep on the steps and raised entryway to the
church, upholding first amendment rights. It is important to note however, that the court
ruled in favor of the city on one aspect, forcing the church to disallow the homeless from
sleeping in tents and other structures on part of their property that was in close proximity
to the street. In this case we see several facets of the debate over tent cities highlighted.
The conflict between public and private property is shown in the decision to disallow the
public sleeping in the private property nearest to public space. In the case of a Seattle
church that hosted a tent city, land use fines were threatened by the city.16 Also, a church
in suburban Seattle that hosted a tent city was brought to court by the city, which wanted
to exact a $1 million bond or proof of liability-insurance to cover the cost of extra police
patrols around the premises.17 The first amendment rights that protect religious activity
have been shown to be integral to the survival of many tent cities that rely on churches as
hosts.
Often, as in the case of the Springfield tent city, homeless encampments are
dismantled by the city when there are other sheltering options available. For instance, a
tent city that existed in Springfield during the summer and fall of 2004 and has been
reopened in the spring of 2005, was dismantled in November when the city began
funding cold weather shelters. The same social service agency, Open Pantry, that owned
the land where the tent city was located, also provides the new winter season services that
are funded by the city.18 This slippage evident between funded shelter and shelter that is
free but contingent on the legality of property heightens the struggle over the question of
permanence. The winter shelter in Springfield, unlike the tent city it replaced, does not
16
Bloom, Real Change
Chang, Seattle Times
18
Gorlick, Associated Press
17
13
operate twenty-four hours a day. The Springfield Mayor, Charles Ryan, argued that a
twenty-four hour facility would not be affordable. 19 It is interesting that cities such as
Springfield that closed such a tent city due to the availability of more “adequate” forms
of shelter, seem to be using the tent city as a form of acceptable shelter in the summer
months. This use of tents as affordable remedies to the problem of lack of shelter seems
to present an attractive solution to the problem faced by city governments in dealing with
the continual emergency of homelessness.
Janice Perlman, (1976) in her discussion of Brazilian favelas, or shanty-towns,
argues that it is the illegality of their occupation of the land that defines them. This
illegality in their occupation of space also characterizes the Indian “rail colonies”
discussed by Partha Chatterjee (2004). In the case of many tent cities in the U.S., the land
is occupied legally, often by consent of city government, charitable organizations or
churches. Although the space of the tent city may become temporarily legal, its visibility
often transcends the boundaries of the private in terms of property so that the law can act
to remove it as a legal area for residing, as in First Avenue Presbyterian Church v. The
City of New York.
This complication of the conception of legal inhabitance of property between the
rail colonies in India, the favelas in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil, and in the tent
cities in the U.S. is an interesting grounds for interrogation. Though the rail colonies and
the favelas occupy the land upon which they are constructed illegally, they have often
had enormous staying power when compared to the transient nature of tent cities in the
U.S. Perhaps much of this difference can be attributed to the shelter system in the U.S.,
where homelessness is more or less governed on an individual basis. In the case of the
19
Gorlick, Associated Press
14
rail colonies and favelas, whose inhabitants immigrated from rural areas or other cities,
the land was often occupied quite suddenly or before a regularized course of
governmental action could be instated to prevent their occupation. This is not to say that
organized resistance has not been necessary in the Brazilian and Indian cases to deter
government efforts at relocation.
While Chatterjee identifies the operation of the residents of the rail colonies and
other traditionally politically excluded groups as outside of the regular realm of politics,
negotiating new legal relations, Perlman notes the successful action favela inhabitants
took in the realm of popular politics. However, the resistance to resettlement that has
been successfully mobilized by many of those in the rail colonies appears to be coming
up against a new problem. This is the reclaiming of public space by the “proper citizens”,
those that truly inhabit civil society, rather than political society, in India.20 A similar
phenomenon can be seen in neighborhood reactions to tent cities in the U.S. It appears
that the already existing desire by “proper citizens” in the U.S. to maintain public spaces
for their own use, or at least the exclusion of visible poverty, have served to keep the tent
city always transient.
Chatterjee notes that the general understanding by Indian governmental actors in
the 1970s and 1980s was that, “Given the available resources, it was unrealistic that they
[the squatters] first mend their ways and turn into proper citizens before they became
eligible for benefits.”21 Cities could not deny the existence of the squatters, although they
did not grant them or their illegal inhabitation of land legitimacy. Though Chatterjee
notes that there is evidence that this is changing, this understanding serves to highlight
20
21
Chatterjee, p. 131.
Chatterjee, p. 131.
15
the different governmental approaches that are taken to address homelessness. The
dominant approach in the U.S. is that which requires the active participation of the
homeless in their own negation and reintegration into what Chatterjee would term the
sanitized sphere of civil society. The occupation of land entailed in the U.S. tent city, and
the refusal to participate in the traditional social services provided in the shelter system,
circumvent this governmental approach and require the tent city to be dealt with on its
own terms. However, the tenuousness of the tent city, due to the discourses of law that
legitimize actions taken by governmental authorities to dismantle them or provide what
they see as suitable alternatives, make the tent city a locus for the struggle over who will
determine the terrain upon which governmental action can be taken.
Dignity Village – Semi-permanence and legality
When we look to the case of a Portland tent city – Dignity Village – we see an
example of the tent city itself becoming stable, semi-permanent and offering the
continuity necessary for a long-term community to become a viable possibility. What
allowed this difference in treatment of the tent city to occur? Does it have to do with the
location of the Portland tent city in a non-residential area, or the goals – such as urban
revitalization -- of the city government officials as well as their constituents and their
conceptions of the best way to deal with homelessness?
Dignity Village originated as a way to protest the impossibility of living with the
anti-camping ordinance in Portland – which made it illegal to sleep outdoors. The number
of homeless in Portland far exceeds the available shelter spaces administered by the city
and charity organizations. The tent city, which counted as many as 80 members at some
16
points, was an attempt to gain a semblance of stability. Its members saw having a place to
store belongings, a safe place to sleep, as well as sanitation facilities as important to their
survival.22
When it was first brought into being, the Portland tent city, like tent cities in
Seattle and Springfield, was constantly pushed from location to location. However,
Dignity Village was finally granted access to city-owned land in Sunderland Yard,
Portland’s leaf composting facility. At this location, nestled – literally – between mounds
of compost, Dignity Village was given a year-long lease by the city. They paid $2,000 a
month in rent – provided by an anonymous donor. In July of 2003 their lease was ending,
prompting new negotiations to begin with the city government. During this time Dignity
Village drew up a proposal to present to the city council, which outlined a plan to turn the
community into a legal ‘campground’. In February of 2004 the city council voted 4-1 to
support the extension of Dignity Village’s tenure on the land – providing a ten-year lease
– as well as the designation of the location as a campground.23 This change represents the
effects of much negotiation with and outreach to the members of the council and the
larger community.
The experience in Dignity Village is different than that seen in city-instituted tent
cities, such as the Key West, Florida tent city, the Los Angeles, California tent city,
where the tent city has operated in the same fashion as the regular shelter system. Yet an
interesting prospect arises that allows us to draw some correlations between them. As the
Portland tent city becomes ever-more permanent – as its tenure on the city land it
occupies lengthens and its bonds to the outside community solidify – these changes are
22
23
Dignity Village (2003) Why a Campground?
Communique
17
prompting certain changes in the way the members of Dignity Village present their goals.
The idea of creating a legal, permanent community in the form of Dignity Village has
necessitated increasing levels of support from the outside community, and especially
from city government.
For instance, Commissioner Leonard noted that after visiting Dignity Village, his
views on the viability of the proposal changed.24 Leonard further noted his support by
saying that the proposal should be taken seriously, “…at a time when we’re trying to
figure out how to provide basic services to people.”25 He noted that the tent city was a
good deal for Portland, even taking into account the money that would be spent on water
and sewer costs. The other commissioners echoed his sentiments, although Commissioner
Saltzman declined to support funding for the tent city’s utilities and Commissioner
Francesconi voted against the resolution, arguing that, “lowering the standards for
housing for the poor is not the right direction.”26 Mayor Vera Katz voted for the
resolution, noting the lack of shelter space and the anti-camping ordinance that would not
be overturned.
The proposal for the campground model adopted by Dignity Village should be
examined. Though the proposal clearly maintains the goals stated earlier – of providing
stability, community, permanence, etc -- it has made some changes that should be
addressed. For instance, in the proposal the dwellings are identified as private temporary
dwellings – which appears to reinforce the impermanence that the tent city had been
attempting to escape from. Additionally, to deal with the potential of relocation, which
24
Communique
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
25
18
will still be constantly present, the proposal notes that dwellings will be easily portable.27
Though the dwellings will now be converted from tents to more substantial structures –
eco-designs made of straw-bales and cobb (a mud, clay and straw mixture), the transitory
nature of the community will not be overcome.
These changes represent the process of entering into a legal relationship with the
outside community. The members of the tent city, although now inhabiting more
permanent dwellings, are termed as ‘transitioning’ out of homelessness and the stated
goal of Dignity Village will be this process. Yet the language with which the Dignity
Village describes its new incarnation remains focused on the imagery of permanence and
stability. Dignity Village will provide, “A cultural place of self-stabilizing and selfregulating patterns,” and its physical form will provide, “…a sense of boundary.”28
The legal relationship and thus some aspects of Dignity Village’s interaction with
the surrounding community has shifted, but the possibility for a more permanent
community remains tenuous. The tent city remains only temporarily or provisionally
legal, and always impermanent or semi-permanent in location. And the politics of semipermanence, let alone impermanence, remain illegitimate under a political theory that
reifies the permanence and continuity of community as necessary preconditions for action
in the political realm. Hannah Arendt, though she valorizes permanence and stability,
freedom from necessity, and clear distinctions between the private and public realms as
preconditions for political action, does provide some helpful understandings that can be
applied to the situation of the tent city. A strand of Arendt’s thought that is particularly
27
28
Dignity Village (2003) Proposal
Ibid.
19
fitting for the tent city is the idea that action itself is what gives mankind their humanity
and forms the terrain of the political.
Still, Chatterjee’s argument that members of political society can act in the
political realm, though their standing is formally illegal, should be retained. And as the
legality of the tent city’s use of land appears to come under the heaviest scrutiny when
tied to the question of permanence, we must focus here. The problem of permanence is at
the heart of the tent city debate as it relates to relations with the larger community and its
lack must form the “ground” upon which political action is taken by the members of the
tent city. The enforcement of impermanence on the tent city by the larger community
appears as a negation not only of the tent city as a permanent community, but it is this
very enforced impermanence that is a negation of the potential for members of the tent
city to claim membership in the larger community and act “legitimately” in the political
realm. The tent city, however, is a site of conflict and negotiation between tent city
members and activists, the members of the larger community, and city officials. As such
it provides a terrain for political action that may subvert the traditional structures
governing the homeless.
20
Bibliography
Agamben, Giorgio. 2000. Means Without End. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bloom, David C. 2002. “An Open Door, an Opened Heart: Churches Say Hosting Tent
City Gave Them Life.” Real Change, April.
Burge, Kathleen. 2004. “Springfield Aims to Close Homeless Camp by Nov. 1.” The
Boston Globe, October.
Chang, Young. 2004. “Ruling Lets Bothell’s Tent City Stay But Judge Says City Can
Regulate Site.” Seattle Times, June.
Chatterjee, Partha. 2004. the Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in
Most of the World. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dignity Village. 2003. “Why a Campground?” http://www.outofthedoorways.org/about/
why.html.
------------------. 2003. “Proposal.” http://www.outofthedoorways.org.proposal2003.html
Communique. 2004. “(Updated) City Council Designates Dignity Village Site As a
Campground.” http://communique.portland.or.us/04/02/city_council_designates_
dignity_village_site_as_a_campground.html
Ervin, Keith. 2004. “Private Land Isn’t Place for Tent City, Some Backers Say.” Seattle
Times, July.
Fox, Tracy Gordon. 2004. “Homeless Evicted from Willimantic ‘Tent City.’” The
Hartford Courant, September.
Fulbright, Leslie. 2004. “Tent Cities Termed Good Temporary Fix: Commission Hears
Comments, Critics Express Safety Concerns.” Seattle Times, July.
Gorlick, Adam. 2004. “With Tents Gone and Cold Settling in, Homeless Look for
Shelter.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, November.
Haimerl, Amy. 2004. “Gimme Shelter; Going Camping Across the Country.” Westword,
April.
Perlman, Janice E. 1976. The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de
Janeiro. Berkely: University of California Press.
21
University of California Extension Media Center. “Los Angeles: The Story of a Tent
City.” Documentary, 1988.
Wolin, Sheldon S. 2004. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western
Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Legal Case
First Avenue Presbyterian Church v. The City of New York, 293 F.3d 570; 2002 U.S.
App. LEXIS 11390
22