.A complicated experiment

To the Editor:

Resiliency Village is neither good nor bad — it's a complicated experiment. It is not a brilliant concept or a national model for anything, but it's also not a ridiculous fantasy. It's somewhere in between. It's an experimental community that has a lot of support, but also a ton of problems.

On June 30, Mark Dyken announced that their first phase brings 12 homeless to Resiliency Village, the second phase around 40 more; they also plan to take 50 folks from Camp Hope — unclear if the 40 are part of the 50, or if it's an additional 50. This meeting was filmed, and this statement is correct. Why Resiliency Village refuses to disclose the final tally of homeless once all the “phases” are complete is disturbing. It is a troublesome sign when a project starts out with a policy of deception. Resiliency Village would be much better received if they were completely transparent.

Resiliency Village will help the homeless feel valued; this is a good thing. However, it's naïve to think the homeless will necessarily embrace trauma counseling, veggie gardening, or pottery. Many will struggle to overcome hopelessness and lack of motivation. Many will have mental, physical, emotional and dental problems that override everything.

If anything destroys Resiliency Village, it will be partisan politics. Democrats are lying when they insist it will be a utopian community, Republicans are lying that it will become a god-awful mess. In truth, it will be a lot of very hard physical and emotional work with both successes and failures. A business plan that depends on donations and volunteers is problematic.

A sensible plan is to start with a limited number of residents. See if the program works before allowing more. Give it a chance — but don't give it carte blanche. Jan Robinson

Sonora