The Politics of Tent Cities in the U.S

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.

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

2 Burge, Boston Globe

3 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 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

3 Haimerl, Westword

4 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 permanence, the fact that similar problems confront the larger community should be noted.

5 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.

This second strand of thinking on the problem of homelessness relies on the differentiation of the conception of the homeless into discrete categories. This

6 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 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

7 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.

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

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 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 city, a Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Homeless Encampments (which notably included no homeless individuals), after two public hearings and several private

5 Arendt (1958) pp. 29-30, note 17 6 Ibid. p. 64 7 Ibid. p. 67, note 70 8 Ibid. p. 49 9 Ibid. p. 30 10 Ibid. p. 69

9 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 issue of homelessness, they are often perceived in this way by journalists or community

10 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 tent city. She noted, “I could have left the church unlocked and we’d have no problem. If

11 Ervin, Seattle Times 12 Burge, Boston Globe 13 Fulbright, July 2004.

11 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 favor of the church to allow the homeless to sleep on the steps and raised entryway to the

14 Bloom, Real Change 15 Fox, Hartford Courant

12 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 operate twenty-four hours a day. The Springfield Mayor, Charles Ryan, argued that a

16 Bloom, Real Change 17 Chang, Seattle Times 18 Gorlick, Associated Press

13 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 rail colonies and favelas, whose inhabitants immigrated from rural areas or other cities,

19 Gorlick, Associated Press

14 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 the different governmental approaches that are taken to address homelessness. The

20 Chatterjee, p. 131. 21 Chatterjee, p. 131.

15 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 points, was an attempt to gain a semblance of stability. Its members saw having a place to

16 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 prompting certain changes in the way the members of Dignity Village present their goals.

22 Dignity Village (2003) Why a Campground? 23 Communique

17 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 will still be constantly present, the proposal notes that dwellings will be easily portable.27

24 Communique 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Dignity Village (2003) Proposal

18 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 self- regulating 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 semi- permanence, 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 fitting for the tent city is the idea that action itself is what gives mankind their humanity and forms the terrain of the political.

28 Ibid.

19 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