The experiences of the homeless in rural centres are inherently different from those in more urban places like Vancouver's Downtown East Side. In most cases, they fit in more with a definition of “hidden homeless,” those living in cars or motel rooms, and finding refuge on a friend's couch. This is perhaps the reason the rural homeless continue to be ignored: our pre-conceived notion that the homeless must exist in places that can be easily viewed by the non-homeless. This makes it difficult for those of us who are not homeless to accept that homelessness is able to take place on a multitude of levels. Adding to this hidden aspect of rural homelessness is the “problematic, contested and emotionally charged” difficulty of defining the homeless (Cloke & Milbourne, p. 262). The use of a broader definition of homelessness would be ideal in communicating the plight of the rural homeless. Meert and Bourgeois (2005) have defined the homeless as those who “lack adequate shelter in which they are entitled to live safely” (p.108). A definition such as this allows one to consider both homeless who are “sleeping rough” and those who “have a roof over their heads but their accommodation lacks safety, security, or basic amenities” (Meert & Bourgeois, p. 108). Greg notes that at the very heart of understanding is the need to broaden our understanding of how homelessness is defined. He goes further, saying that there is a need to embrace the concept of housing security.
"I'm not saying we need to go to the extent that you're homeless if you're not guaranteed a home for the next five years, but I think at least knowing your home is going to be there for the next few days is important."
In order to truly understand how policies and practices on homelessness can have the most significant positive impact on improving the lives of people who are homeless or homeless-at-risk, there is a real need to communicate with those who have experienced rural homelessness on a variety of levels, including absolute homelessness, hidden homelessness, and homeless-at-risk. For example, through stories told by both homeless and non-homeless participants it has become apparent that informal care networks, while useful, also lead to a lack of visibility when it comes to the often cyclical nature of rural homelessness (Cloke, Johnson, & May; Bruce). Yet, as Alex in particular shows, those networks are dependent on the relationships between families and friends, and can often end on a sour note, leaving the homeless individual with a lack of available options.
In recent years, Revelstoke has undergone a drastic change. David Harvey (2008) wrote: “The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights” (p.23). As Revelstoke and other rural centres begin to change and grow, there comes a greater need to communicate with all members of the community, including those who have no fixed address. Lottie holds a narrow view on the definition of homeless, yet she is upfront when noting that attitudes towards homelessness need to change. Her comparison of how the mentally ill were treated in the past sheds light on the situation.
"Revelstoke wasn't accepting of mentally ill for a very long time either. I think it has now because the adults, we call them by first name. That's taken a long time – many, many years to do that. And, I used to get angry with people because these people [mentally ill] are adults too … It [our view towards homeless] has to change. If you want to take those people [homeless] away and wherever you take them it's going to cost you money. So accept it for what it is. Accept those people for their differences, that's all."
While homelessness may have only become an issue of media and academic focus in the past 15 years (Cloke, Johnsen & May), the problem itself has existed for much longer. As such it would be useful to look at the historical context of homelessness. A June 29, 1940 edition of the Revelstoke Review makes mention of relief camps “established for single, homeless, and unemployed men” (as cited in the Revelstoke Museum & Archives, n.d.). Historical pieces such as these not only affirm that homelessness has existed in the past, but may also be a way to encourage dialogue regarding homelessness in the present.
Homelessness comes with a multitude of barriers. Those who are homeless may also struggle with addictions or have a mental health diagnosis. In rural centres where access to addictions treatment may be limited, it would be useful for communities to explore the idea of both housing-first and harm reduction practices. This would avoid barriers to housing created when homeless individuals with mental health problems and addictions are made to submit to treatment as a prerequisite to housing (Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004). The problem is that providing housing for the homeless – no matter what the barriers are – can become costly. Rick tells me that the City was offered a house to provide cold weather shelter for Revelstoke's homeless, but it was turned down because of the monetary resources needed to run it.
"Once you start adding up the cost you have to staff it, insurance, liability, it starts to take up a lot of money. Where are you going to find that money? If you wait to raise the capital, someone's still going to be sleeping outside for two or three winters while you raise the capital. Even if we found the money, where would we locate it? Probably most of the community wouldn't want it."
If it is fear of a “NIMBY” (not in my backyard) attitude that is the barrier to creating housing solutions for the city‟s homeless population, then maybe there is a need to have those without fear communicate as such. Sherry, a business owner located in downtown Revelstoke, is a prime example of a fearless spokesperson; she tells me she doesn‟t have “that NIMBY feeling.” She continues:
"If we want to put a place [shelter] downtown, then what's the problem? I don't get it. They're [homeless] entitled to live downtown. I think for the downtown the problem is the panhandling, but if they're not approaching people, what's the problem? We can't just hide these things and shove them under the carpet."
Part of the problem when it comes to having an open dialogue on rural homelessness, may be that the homeless are “less audible and less powerful than the developers, business leaders, and politicians arguing with them over city spaces” (Forte, 2002, p. 136), and that often the “cultural capital necessary for public speaking” is not readily available to many who suffer from homelessness (Stevensen, 2006, p. 387). In Revelstoke dialogue on homelessness appears to be a conversation between politicians and social service providers, rather than one which takes place directly with the homeless, who would better be able communicate their needs
