Talking Points & Questions: Bronson’s Plan for a Fenced Mass Homeless Shelter

"This is a list of arguments in opposition to the incoming Bronson administration's proposal for a mass shelter facility. The talking points and questions were compiled by Anchorage residents who want to protect people experiencing homelessness from a poorly thought out and potentially dangerous plan."

A similar shelter in Reno, Nevada, cost over 86 million dollars.

Smaller shelters have fewer neighborhood complaints; a mess shelter will make neighborhood complaints skyrocket.

In the last year at shelters and hotels around Anchorage with less than 200 neighbors, complaints are rare. In contrast, at the downtown shelter and around the Sullivan Mass Shelter, there was an increase in crime and neighborhood complaints. The proposed Bronson mass shelter is too big and will result in complaints similar to those of downtown and around the Sullivan Arena.

Where is the Municipality getting the estimated 15 million dollars to build the fenced mass shelter? Why is the Municipality spending this outrageous sum when there are two sites already built?

Where is the city getting the estimated $2 million per month to run the proposed shelter? It costs over $1 million per month to operate the Sullivan Arena with a smaller staff than has been recommended. The proposed Bronson mass shelter will reportedly have twice the capacity of the Sullivan Arena. Given that the primary cost for operating Sullivan is labor, where is the Bronson Administration going to find $2M per month to operate it?

Who will profit from the proposed mass shelter? Are the potential opportunities for private profit, and why is the city not going with the much less expensive and rational route of two smaller shelters in already constructed buildings?

The Bronson administration should disclose to the public all of the potential private partners, investors, lessors, and service providers who have been contacted regarding this process so the public can be made aware of who is attempting to 'cash in' on putting people experiencing homelessness in a mega camp.

Many people who are homeless have a mental illness. Why is the Bronson administration attempting to pass millions of dollars in costs along to Anchorage taxpayers with a plan that doesn’t even provide treatment for mental illness? The state is responsible for providing necessary treatment to our neighbors who are mentally ill and houseless. This plan is taking on huge costs that the state is actually responsible for covering.

A shelter is not and cannot lawfully be run like a jail. People experiencing homelessness are not held at shelters against their will. People experiencing homelessness are not tending to live in the proposed location. Since the proposed mass shelter area lacks nearby stores for food & supplies and isn’t well-known to the intended residents, people will need to leave and won't have the incentive to stay there. When hundreds of people leave to get food or seek familiar surroundings, there will be camping, fires, trash, public health hazards, and the proposed mass-shelter will not have achieved any purpose but to line the pockets of private business people and/or charities with an extraordinary amount of money.

This mass shelter will endanger residents of all types; Domestic violence victims, LGBTQ victims, human trafficking victims, minors, etc., are all at heightened risk in shelters. As soon as folks who are vulnerable step outside their little cell or partition there is no separation from their abusers and/or those targeting them.

A mass shelter will harm the recovery of residents. Those struggling with substance abuse disorders and trying to recover need an environment where they will not be approached to relapse. Why place this group in immediate proximity to drug dealers and others who will block their path out of substance abuse, which accounts for 38% of homelessness?

Why detract from proven services programs in favor of the mega tent camp? Why is the Bronson administration trying to detract from proven programs like Covenant House, Rescue Mission, AWAIC, etc., rather than find ways to support their success and enable them to grow? Placing individuals in a mass shelter does not lead individuals to find solutions to whatever rendered them homeless in the first place.

Instead, the mass shelter is just a holding tank for those with unresolved needs until more and more show up in the same situation, and the shelter needs to be expanded. The muni should find solutions toward treatment and permanent housing instead of a fenced mass tent shelter, which won’t help the underlying causes of homelessness.

Dr. Morris said Mayor-Elect Bronson agrees with housing first, but a fenced tent camp is not housing first. Greater emphasis on housing first would drive demand for affordable housing and construction, particularly multi-family units, growing the economy rather than focus on a mass shelter which does not create an economic driver.

The mass shelter will substantially increase fire risk to the public and nearby property owners. An unfortunate aspect of drawing unsheltered peh to a park area is an increase in fires. Given the fires in this area in undeveloped areas two years ago, it is obvious that a mass shelter drawing more people to this area will substantially increase the fire risk to the public and nearby property owners.

The mass shelter will subject the Municipality to a risk of liability for segregating the poor, disabled, and mentally ill in a fenced facility separate from the rest of the city. The recent denial of Los Angeles's motion to dismiss reflects that courts will likely hold the Municipality responsible for negligent operation of the shelter, violation of civil rights, or other claims. Like Los Angeles, the Bronson plan for a mass shelter is creating a city-caused catastrophe and in which the city long ago adopted a policy of physical containment, where the poor, disabled, and mentally ill would be contained inside the delineated borders of downtown.

This language and the complaint in that lawsuit could very well fit into a potential lawsuit filed here when this project moves forward and results in violations of civil rights, injuries, and damages, to residents, property owners, and other stakeholders.