local government

Cities have much greater autonomy in establishing service policies versus status policies, so service-oriented initiatives can be more pragmatic. They can also be expensive, but faster access to support and integration into the economic system of a local area can certainly pay off.

Four Spanish cities have taken an inclusive approach to recognising the status and needs of irregular migrants. The initiative creates a local census that doesn’t exclude irregular migrants, and once registered a person becomes eligible for public services, including opening a bank account or obtaining a library card. The scheme also facilitates regularisation by counting as proof of residence. The Padrón Municipal effectively simplifies access to city services in the short term, while aiding cases for permanent settlement in the longer term.

In 2005, the City of Sanctuary UK launched as an umbrella organisation that provides a focus for the coordination and development of a network contributing to building a sanctuary movement across the UK and Ireland, using action to target services rather than status. More than 100 areas, towns or cities are signed up and they provide useful advice on what councils or community groups can do to become a City of Sanctuary.

One of the biggest difficulties with integration is something local government does not possess the power to fix – uncertainty about whether asylum seekers will be allowed to stay or not, and for how long. But whether it’s through service provision, coordination, partnership, networks, lobbying, or finding loopholes to support asylum seekers and create a culture of sanctuary, local government can undoubtedly have a massive impact on supporting effective and empathetic resettlement – even in the face of national hostility.

Vera Dodic, Manager of the City of Toronto’s Newcomer Office

It’s not hard to understand the growing mainstream appeal of ‘tiny homes’ with their cool spacesaving tricks, sustainability and minimalist-yet-cosy interiors. Interestingly, some charities and local authorities are now using them to alleviate homelessness – but is this really a solution?

In Seattle, where homelessness is a major problem, tiny homes have had success in relieving rough sleeping.

Sharon Lee, executive director of Seattle’s Low Income Housing Institute, started the project after finding a loophole where structures smaller than 120 feet were not considered permanent dwellings, making them exempt from restrictive regulations on residential buildings. Seattle’s city council backed the initiative, giving permission for clusters of cabins and over a million dollars in funding. The fully electrified, heated and decorated houses can be put up in around 3 days (thanks to no shortage of volunteer support) and cost around $2,500 for materials. With around 300 houses built, the villages have proven to be one of Seattle’s most successful harm reduction supports for people facing homelessness, sparking international interest in similar projects.

Lee stressed that these homes are not meant to be permanent, but rather are a stopgap between homelessness and permanent accommodation.

Compared to 15% across all shelter types in the same county, 27-65% of the tiny house residents move into permanent housing – however, it takes far longer than the regional goal of 90 days, with many living in the houses for months or even years.

What else, if not tiny homes?

The risk of tiny houses is that they can create something akin to a ‘better than nothing’ slum-like settlement while, allowing communities to put the problem out of their mind. But perhaps ‘nothing’ doesn’t have to be the alternative to which we compare them. While no nation has ended homelessness entirely, there are cities and countries that have come close, for example, Finland, Japan, Singapore and Austria. While not all places with favourable homelessness rates use the same methods, a form of ‘Housing First’ policy does accompany a high number of the success stories. Rather than conditional housing support, Housing First sees housing as a basic right and holds that solving health and social problems is much easier with a permanent home. In a US study, permanent supportive housing has been proven to be about 90% effective at preventing someone from ever returning to homelessness.

However, it’s not that simple. The same lack of affordable or available housing contributing to homelessness in the first place can make it difficult to move households off the street or out of temporary accommodation, making this approach easier said than done and potentially costly – especially for local or regional governments lacking the significant up-front funding needed.

In addition to increasing the supply of permanent and affordable housing, ending homelessness also requires an integrated strategy and concerted effort (with funding to match) across levels of governance. In Finland, Housing First services are just one part of an overall strategy that largely involves preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place through health and social care support and safety nets.

Largely, the argument for tiny houses is that they are one of the nicer forms of temporary housing, especially when well-built. Referring to the release of their Cambridge, UK report on tiny houses for the homeless, co-author Dr Johannes Lenhard said, “There is a huge sense of wellbeing tied to simply having your own front door… We can see the effect this has in the lifestyle changes of people who have previously struggled in hostels”. The study on the modular homes in Cambridge found that they did help restore the health, wellbeing and financial security of occupants when combined with wraparound support. Costing £36,000 each, placed on land leased by a church (designed to be moveable to another free or inexpensive location if needed) the mini-homes cost less than a person rough sleeping for two years.

It is notable that in areas with expensive land, like coastal regions or urban centres, the cost provides a significant barrier to development. In these situations, density might have an advantage in value for money, whether that be more dense versions of tiny houses such as shipping container stacks (as in Los Angeles, USA) or local/regional government purchases of hotels or dormitory-style buildings.

All in all, tiny houses have some advantages over shelters when it comes to privacy, community and a more fixed sense of place. They could be a viable and cost-effective option, but may only be so for local governments with an available or cheap lot of land to lease. While they shouldn’t be used as a permanent solution to homelessness, tiny houses can have a place as a stepping stone to permanent accommodation – but let’s keep trying to ensure people have somewhere to step to.

The Global Local Executive Panel Events bring together local government professionals from across the globe for a series of discussions on topics that challenge us all.

From achieving meaningful engagement with our communities to addressing housing shortages, we explore ideas, share insights and inspire lightbulb moments.

LGIU members from across the UK, Ireland and Australia and premium Global Local subscribers all enjoy free places at Global Local Executive Panel events as part of their membership.

Edinburgh, Scotland

Edinburgh was one of the most profitable cities for landlords engaging in short-term rentals because they were exempt from paying the local property and residency tax. This, combined with the lack of new and affordable housing caused a particularly severe housing crisis in the city.

To address the situation, Edinburgh City Council turned the entire city into a short-term lets control area. This requires owners to apply for a change of activity licence which gives councils the ability to notify owners of any ‘adjoining land’ and have oversight on whether it complies with local development plans.

These measures have been opposed by platforms including Airbnb, who have circulated reports warning of huge losses for the tourism sector. However, the experience of other European capitals suggests tourism benefits can be maintained without converting every available room into a tourist rental.