Wilmington reporter Brianna Hill visits the podcast studio to talk about how she has been covering Christina Park, the location of the city-sanctioned encampment for unhoused people located on Wilmington’s East Side. She discusses the unique challenges of reporting at the park, how she has built contacts with residents, whether her coverage style differs if she knows other reporters are present, and more.
The podcast was hosted by Director of Community Engagement David Stradley.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
You started covering Christina Park once the city announced this was going to be their location for unhoused individuals in the city. For anybody who hasn’t read your recent reporting, can you let listeners know about the controversies surrounding the tent community in April?
In April there was a plan created by the city to establish a grid on which to put identical tents so that people could move from where they once were. At this point, people are scattered in the park, and they just decided to stay wherever they wanted to and set up their tents. Some people have multiple tents for storage and other things like that.
So what the city wanted to do was move people into this grid. They outlined a grid – 15 foot by 15 foot squares – and they put tents within them – tents the city bought – and wooden pallets to put the tents on top of.
The plan was to tell people to move into the grid, throw out what you don’t need. If you have a tent already up, wrap it up and you can put it in the tent the city’s giving you while you’re living there. Or you can find a way to put it into storage. But essentially you have to fit all your stuff into this new city-designated tent. You can have a bike and a chair outside of that tent, inside your 15 by 15 square, and that’s how things were supposed to go.
When the city made the announcement, a lot of residents at the park were opposed to it because one, the tents that they have, some of them are pretty expensive. Two is that, like I said earlier, some of them have multiple tents for food and storage, so that was an issue having to consolidate.
And there was another issue of the grid being in rows. People are pretty close to each other. There are, I would say, little communities within this park. So if there are two people that have tension with each other, if there’s someone who has mental health issues, which many of them do, and they essentially have an episode because they’re too close to someone, that can happen. So there was a worry or a concern over that, too.
That prompted advocates who are usually there, specifically from the organizations Food Not Bombs and Delaware Democratic Socialists of America. They had expressed some concerns the day before the city started putting pallets down and tents down about people not wanting to throw away their things or wanting to be spaced out throughout the park.
From what they told me the next day, their plan was to help set up these tents with the city, with Friendship House, which is under contract with the city currently to run the park and to manage the park. They essentially decided that there were too many changes happening with the plan. The grid had gotten a little bit smaller. Essentially it was supposed to be 20 feet by 20 feet in the contract with Friendship House, but it ended up being 15 feet by 15 feet. The tents that came out of the box were not durable and were not waterproof as they were described to be.
The advocates did not like how the plan was going, so the advocates ended up protesting by standing on the wooden pallets that had to go on the grids first to prevent them from putting down tents on top of it. They were also standing in front or blocking the construction vehicles from moving.
The city workers weren’t able to get much done, so [advocates] ended up making an agreement with the city and just leaving it alone. [City workers] gave tents to the few people that did want one and they left. So that’s what happened. That’s a summary of what happened on the first day.
And then there was a secondary protest about a week or so later when the city tried to do some fixes?
Yes. So the day after the initial protest, there was a heavy rainstorm and the rainstorm had blown away tents. Tents were dilapidated as a result of the rainstorm. The city essentially decided to buy newer tents that were a little bit more durable. A week later, the city brought over 20 new tents that were more durable, bigger, and residents seemed a little bit more optimistic about these tents.
But the advocates were still protesting because of the pallets. Their argument was the pallets were not safe because when it did rain, the rainwater was going into the pallets and making the wood rot. There was a concern about people getting splinters from the wood because it wasn’t sanded, and there were small nails protruding out of the wood. So there were concerns around the pallets.
Another agreement was facilitated between the police and the advocates that were there, and they basically said, “Okay, we’re just going to replace the old tents that are here, and we’re going to give a tent to anybody who wants a tent.”
And they agreed on that.
Your first article in April was co-reported with [Spotlight Delaware Deputy Editor] Karl Baker, and it covered those first protests when the tents and pallets were going to be originally installed. Take us through your reporting process on that day. Was this something that you just covered during a 30-60 minute visit to the park, or was it more involved?
It was definitely more involved.
I had gotten there early that morning and I was there for about maybe five, six hours. It was a hot day. Getting there, everyone was already there. Obviously the residents and police were there. Officials from the city’s office were there, and the advocates were there.
Most of that day was kind of a wait-and-see period to see how the city was going to fulfill this plan. I spent most of my time talking to residents, talking to the advocates, getting comments from city officials like [the mayor’s chief of staff] Cerron Cade, who came later in the day.
There were city council members that were there, talking to the Friendship House, trying to understand where the plan came from, because there were things that were developing during the day, like the size of the grid going from 20 by 20 to 15 by 15, or the city at first saying that people weren’t allowed to keep their personal tarps to cover what we now know were not durable tents that they first gave out, and then deciding they were going to let residents keep the tarps.
So there were things that were shifting throughout the day. The idea of the protest didn’t come up until maybe two, three hours in. We didn’t know a protest was going to happen. At first, it was waiting to see how city officials and law enforcement were going to interact with the residents who were there, because there was that threat of – or the rumored threat of – people being arrested. So if that happened, that probably would’ve been the main focus of the story – that police officers are arresting homeless people in the park.
So you were there to see, is that uprising going to happen? Is that conflict going to happen?
That was the intention when I first got there. That’s how I thought things were going to play out, and they ended up playing out a little bit differently.
There was maybe a good hour where people were just waiting because after the advocates decided they were going to protest, the first construction forklift left, and it just disappeared. And then when they decided they were going to try again, they brought another forklift in.
So it wasn’t as fast paced as maybe some people would’ve thought it was going to be. But it was a full day of just kind of wait and see, things changing one by one.
How, and perhaps why, did you decide to tag-team with Karl on the article?
Initially the story wasn’t going to be a tag-team. I went to the park first, and Karl came shortly after, just to check things out, and he was like, “Okay, just keep me updated.” And he went back to the office.
By like 2 o’clock, he came back and I’m looking at him in the distance – I’m like, “Oh my God, yes!” I was very happy for him to be there. The plan at that point in my head was – I’m happy someone else is here because there’s so much going on in this small park. Maybe he can talk to people over there and figure out what’s going on, and I can talk to people at the other end.
That’s when the protest started. I was able to take a few pictures and get a gist of why they were protesting and the conversations that were happening. Karl was essentially saying, “If you need to take a break, go ahead.” Which I very much appreciated. So I ended up leaving and the plan was to come back, but before I came back, he left and said I think we have everything we need.
So at that point it was just, let’s just work on this together because it was a lot.
You are reporting multiple stories a week, each of which takes time to write and report and research. Why spend the whole day at Christina Park? I’m sure in your mind you’re thinking, “I have two other articles I have to be writing.”
For me personally, homelessness is a big part of my coverage area. With the Carney administration, this was a very controversial plan of trying to figure out a way to address homelessness, but not doing it in the way that people would think – using a vacant building to create shelter, or maybe funding the nonprofits who do provide shelter and trying to expand on that to give people housing services.
It was – we have to get people out of Wilmington. Carney has said this, not verbatim but in his own words, explicitly, that we don’t want homeless people roaming the city. We want them in a designated place so we can figure out how to transition them to housing. Which is obviously the long term goal.
To follow the park is like understanding the system the administration created and how it’s unfolding. So I thought it was an important story because it’s relevant to the city policy.
Now the newsworthy pieces, if you condense the amount of time in which that happened, it probably happened over two hours, or less than half the time that I was actually out there. But you have to be there in order to see how things unfold.
There was one reporter who stayed and left and came back, and by the time he came back, there was already something else going on. It was one of those stories where you kind of just needed to be there.
Part of the reason you left and let Karl tag in was that you’d been out there for six hours. It was a hot day, you just needed a drink of water. Does the irony of that ever play on your mind when you’re reporting on an unhoused community? You’re going to leave to get a drink of water to go inside, whereas all these people are still out here?
Yes, definitely. With that specific day, I think that was one of the longest, if not the longest days, I had been outside covering something specific. Personally, that was one of the thoughts that kind of kept me going. I’m like, if the city residents who live in this park and have to deal with the elements every day can handle it, then I can handle it, and I’ll be okay.
You started covering Christina Park in late 2025. What’s been the process for you of getting residents of that community to be willing to speak to you?
So I had maybe an easier transition into meeting people because I was initially introduced to one of the residents who lives at the park by Steven Metraux, who is a professor at UD, for the homelessness series that we were working on at the time. He introduced me and Julia Merola, my colleague, to Ron “Philly” Simmons. We ended up speaking with him, and he ended up introducing me to other people.
But there were things that I had to keep in mind because there are people who go to the park to maybe do a service, give food, do a haircut. They often maybe will come with a camera on or they’ll come to take pictures of things. For many who live at the park, it can feel like an invasion of privacy, or that they are some type of spectacle, which is what I was trying to avoid.
So I’m trying to kind of build an understanding and let people know I’m different. It can be a hard thing to do, but many of the residents that I have spoken with have been pretty receptive. There are people there who want to speak up and give their two cents about what’s going on or tell their story because it is also a population that doesn’t really get that type of support too often.
It’s a demographic where you kind of have to be gentle with them and kind of let them know what you’re there for because they’re also always on guard. They don’t know what’s going to happen. And they can be skeptical, reasonably so. So just speaking with them and building that relationship over time. Obviously as many times as I have been to the park that has helped me get familiar with people, and they know me.
I would have to imagine even just the dynamics of the day that relate to that. The first day you were out there for that protest because the tension was high, maybe fewer people were willing to speak to you. But when you went back the week later, did you have more luck at that point getting residents to share their thoughts on the whole situation?
Yes. It was actually a much better experience in terms of getting people to talk to us. I think that, again, like you said, there was a lot going on the first day.
Also I think on the first day people were still trying to understand what their perspective was on the tent city. It was definitely easier to talk to people on the second day because I think tensions were down, but people also had an opportunity – because it had been a week by that point – to understand where they stood on the city’s plan, and if they agreed with it or didn’t.
There were more tents put out on that second day for people who did want them. And you had people coming – people who didn’t initially live in the park, or were only there for a short period, or came from the Sunday Breakfast Mission because they heard that people were giving out tents. So there were more people there to talk to on the side of, “I support what the city’s doing.”
But there were also more people to talk to on the side of, “I still don’t [support the city], and here’s why.” So I think it was just better energy going around that day to speak with people.
At Spotlight Delaware, we often talk about being part of the news and information ecosystem in the state. And this story, particularly covering the initial protest, I think is a time where that ecosystem functioned pretty well. The News Journal covered it. WDEL covered it. Delaware Public Media, WHYY they’ve been active in the follow-up coverage.
When you are covering a story and are aware that other reporters are present, does that change how you report in any way?
With this particular story, it did, in a sense. There will be other stories – usually these other stories are like city council press releases or the mayor’s budget address – which is easier because we’re just going around the table, and I hear what they ask and I get their answers and they hear what I ask. Everyone’s recording at the same time.
But when I got to the park, The News Journal and WHYY were already there. So part of me was a little anxious because I see them talking to people. In my head, I’m like, “I have to talk to them, too.”
I did feel a little bit more at ease because I knew I had been to the park previously, so I was a little bit more familiar with the environment. I wasn’t panicking, like, “Who do I talk to?” It was just like, I have to find these people to talk to.
My method at first was waiting for them to talk to someone, and then waiting til they finished their conversation, and going up to that person. At some point, we got to a point where I would talk to someone, they would come up next to me, the reporter, and kind of just whip their recorder out. And I was like, “Okay, fine. Let’s just do that because it’s too much going on anyway.” It’s a long day, so I wasn’t mad at it. So, we ended up talking to people at the same time. It wasn’t a crazy competitive environment, as one would think.
Do you read their reports after the fact? Kind of check it against how you reported it?
I do. I check to see what details they added that maybe we missed or maybe we had those details but didn’t really put them in. I personally appreciate – because who wants to see three different news outlets report the same angle of the same event – when everyone did it differently.
There were small pieces that I didn’t have in my story that other people had in theirs. WHYY, their angle on the story because there was a rainstorm the day after – which again, there was this controversy over these tents are not durable, they’re not going to hold up, they’re not safe. That was proven to be true in the rainstorm that happened that night. So, WHYY used that angle: This is what happened to the tents after this day of all this ruckus.
I think we all shared a pretty good perspective of how things went down.
So you never read someone else’s report and go, “I wish I had gotten that.”
Maybe small details. I think it was WDEL who added the cost of the tents, which for those who were critiquing how crappy the tents were, it’s nice to know how much the city spent on it. So I thought that was a good detail.
The easy instinct in a situation like this is to look for clearly delineated sides of this conflict. In this case, it seems like the conflict is the City of Wilmington versus the unhoused.
What are the complexities of the dynamics of this conflict that perhaps have surprised you and that you’ve been trying to capture in your reporting?
It’s very easy to get caught up in the binary controversy, which is the city wants to do this, advocates and residents don’t want it to happen, which isn’t the case.
For some, it is. The advocates obviously want things to be done a certain way, so that people aren’t losing their items or having to throw away their personal items, or they’re not being put in somewhere that’s safer than the tent that they used to be in. For some residents, they don’t want to get rid of their stuff.
But I think what has surprised me the most is that there are people who really do support this initiative, and there are people who are coming from the Sunday Breakfast Mission and other areas to the park specifically because they heard the city was giving out tents.
So I think that was a surprising thing I came across. It begs the question of what are these other places doing? There are people coming from the Sunday Breakfast Mission. They have opted out of that and have said to themselves that they’re going to go to this park and deal with the natural elements, and they would rather do that in their own tent than deal with the shelter that’s maybe one of the only shelters in the city.
So, I think that that was an interesting perspective to come by, that there are people who would rather live in whatever the city gives them as opposed to the alternative.
Thank you for covering all the nuances of this ongoing experiment in caring for the unhoused in Wilmington.
Yes, of course.