Why Should Delaware Care?
With the upcoming closure of Wilmington’s only sanctioned homeless encampment, advocates are asking where unhoused people will live after its shutdown. City officials are currently considering sponsoring a pallet village initiative to be built by Springboard Delaware, but the plan is already facing pushback from communities.
Wilmington’s proposal to build a village of tiny homes for the homeless is facing growing opposition from neighbors, just as city officials race to secure a site before a deadline passes that would cause the project to forfeit $1.6 million in federal funding.
The challenge was clear during a community meeting in Wilmington’s Eastside neighborhood on Tuesday when residents quickly rejected the proposal to build the village near them.
They said it didn’t make sense to put the project in a community that is underserved.
“Put them in your neighborhood!” one resident shouted at presenters during the meeting.
Homelessness has been at the center of Wilmington politics and community concern over the past year, especially after last fall when Mayor John Carney designated Christina Park in the Eastside as the city’s only sanctioned encampment.
With Carney set to close the encampment on Monday, city officials are weighing their next steps to support the unhoused population. One option is to partner with the nonprofit, Springboard Delaware, to build and operate a tiny-home village. The group currently runs a similar community in Georgetown known as the “Pallet Village.”
But time is limited as the City Council has been directed to pick a location before July 1, to prevent Springboard from losing $1.6 million in COVID-era federal dollars that will no longer be available after this year.
The three locations suggested by the mayor’s office for the village are in the Eastside and Southbridge. Neighbors in both communities have expressed their disapproval of the plans.
Now, the City Council and the mayor are at odds over how to move forward. Some council members insist the decision about where to place the village is not theirs to make. Others have said the timeline to make a decision is too short.
Councilwoman Michelle Harlee, who represents Southbridge and part of the Eastside, called the Carney administration’s recent assertion that the City Council was responsible for selecting the location “misleading.”
“I have not been in a meeting with anyone that shared that information — that it is in City Council’s purview to decide on the location,” she said.
Councilwoman Shané Darby, who recently passed a resolution opposing the closure of Christina Park, said the council was being “rushed” through the process.
Daniel Walker, Carney’s deputy chief of staff, said City Council members were briefed in April about the project and its three proposed locations.
“This is not new, this is not news,” Walker said. “It’s in their court.”
He also said that a letter sent to state officials last month about the Springboard initiative was intended to be jointly signed by council members and the Carney administration. But, he said, the council’s representatives countered that the letter should come from the administration alone.
“Despite this, we are excited to see Council is now supporting this initiative,” Walker said.
Councilman Coby Owens, who sat on Carney’s homelessness task force last year, said he was not aware that the decision would fall on the council.
But he said the next step is to schedule a city council meeting to discuss the matter, “just to make sure that we have the proper timing.”
Where to build a tiny-home village?
Caroline Klinger, Carney’s spokeswoman, previously told Spotlight Delaware that the mayor’s office has been in talks with Springboard Delaware for more than a year.
Those discussions picked up after the organization’s plans to build a pallet village in Dover fell through, she said.
Since then, the Carney administration identified three potential sites. Those include 211 North Church St., which sits right across the street from Christina Park; 900 S. Claymont St., a small street lined by industrial land in Southbridge; and a parcel that faces the Christina River along the south side of the 7th Street peninsula.
Walker said the 7th Street site would carry an additional site-readiness cost of about $1.6 million.
The council could select another location, Walker said, but the identified sites were chosen because they meet three criteria. They are controlled by the city, a community partner or a private owner supportive of the Springboard project; they are large enough for the buildings Springboard says are needed; and they can be prepared quickly.
Councilwoman Zanthia Oliver, who represents the Eastside, said she is against putting the project in her district. An area, such as Riverfront East, would be more suitable for the tiny homes, she said.
Klinger said Oliver had suggested that location to the mayor’s office, but never followed back up about it.
“She has not followed up with a proposal or path forward for that location, but she is welcome to do so at any time,” Klinger said in an email.
Last month, Springboard Delaware Executive Director Judson Malone presented the idea of building tiny homes to the Southbridge Civic Association, but residents there argued their community is lacking too many public resources.
They also expressed a fear that a pallet village could cause loitering, panhandling, and safety risks to spill into the neighborhood.
Similar concerns were raised on Tuesday when Malone presented to residents of the Eastside.
“It almost feels as if … the city is dumping all its problems on us,” said Miketia Edmond, who recounted a recent experience in which she said her delivered groceries were stolen by an unhoused resident.
What would the village look like?
If the city ultimately approves a site, Springboard Delaware plans to use the $1.6 million in federal COVID relief dollars for the construction. But only if they can get it done before the funding expires at the end of this year.
The nonprofit also plans to request an additional $1 million from the state government for operational costs for year one, Malone said.
The site would operate as a fenced housing village for roughly 40 to 60 people on about half an acre of land. The average stay would range between four and five months, but Malone noted that some people could stay longer depending on their needs.
Rather than using individual tiny homes, as it does at the Georgetown location, Springboard proposes using trailers divided into four small sleeping units. Each resident would have a lockable room of about 85 square feet.
Among the amenities, Springboard would offer bathrooms, showers. meals or a place to warm food, a tele-health room, and a welcome center where residents would be screened before moving in.
Residents could be admitted even if they are actively using drugs, but drug use or sales would not be allowed on site.
Malone says safety is a major part of the model, with twice-daily wellness checks and some residents helping monitor the village overnight.
“It can be something that you embrace, because now you’ve got new people in your community who are having hope and want to make something themselves,” Malone said during the Tuesday meeting.
