An open letter to the Warfield City Commission

BY BUGS DIXON

In a recent meeting, the Warfield City Commission discussed the formulation of an ordinance aimed at prohibiting homeless encampments and will be discussing the ordinance this Thursday. While the concerns of the commissioners and the community are understandable, it’s crucial to consider the unintended consequences such a move could have on both the town and the individuals it aims to “help.”

Warfield is a small town, and like many small towns, it has its own unique set of challenges and opportunities. The close-knit community and limited resources mean that any decision made by the City Commission will have a more immediate and noticeable impact on the residents.

Adding another layer to this complex issue is the fact that many of the homeless individuals in Warfield are former patients of Addiction Recovery Care (ARC), which opened a new facility, White Oak Hill, in Martin County last year. This connection raises questions about the effectiveness of local addiction recovery programs and their role in the homelessness issue.

Prohibiting homeless encampments may seem like a quick fix, but it is a Band-Aid solution that does not address the root causes of homelessness or addiction. Instead, it pushes the problem out of sight, making it easier for the community to ignore. This could lead to a host of other issues, such as increased crime rates and public health concerns, as individuals are forced into even more precarious living situations.

Warfield’s small size also means limited public services. By dispersing homeless populations, the town will likely see an increase in the use of these already strained services like ambulances, the county jail and food banks—places not equipped to provide long-term solutions to homelessness or addiction. This would not only strain these services but would also cost taxpayers more in the long run.

In a small town where everyone knows everyone, the stigmatization of homelessness and addiction can be even more damaging. Criminalizing homelessness through the prohibition of encampments further marginalizes an already vulnerable population, many of whom are struggling with the aftermath of inadequate addiction treatment. This could make it even more challenging for these individuals to find employment or housing, trapping them in a cycle of poverty and homelessness.

Such an ordinance could also divide our community in Warfield. On one side, there would be those who feel that the prohibition is necessary for public safety and aesthetics. On the other hand, those who argue that it lacks compassion and fails to address the underlying issues would oppose it. This division could lead to increased tension and animosity within the community, undermining the social fabric of the town.

Further confusing the issue, most of the homeless encampments folks are complaining about are on private land, which should be of no concern to the city. Family reunions who rely on backyard camping would find it difficult or even impossible to legally accommodate everyone.

A call for comprehensive solutions

Instead of focusing on prohibitive measures, the Warfield City Commission should consider more comprehensive solutions. These could include increased funding for mental health services, job training programs, and affordable housing initiatives. Partnering with local nonprofits and community organizations could also provide more holistic solutions to this complex issue, including better support for those exiting addiction recovery programs or otherwise affected by substance abuse disorder.

In conclusion, while the concerns that led to the discussion of this ordinance are valid, the unintended consequences could be detrimental to both the individuals involved and the community at large. Given Warfield’s small size and close-knit community, it is even more crucial for the City Commission to consider these factors and focus on more sustainable, compassionate solutions to address the issue of homelessness in the town.