Imagine a father battling schizophrenia, homeless and vulnerable, finding solace in a tiny home built by his son-in-law in the woods—only to have it brutally torn down by the city. This is the heartbreaking reality for Robert Godin, a man who’s been left with nowhere to go. But here’s where it gets even more complicated: the city’s actions have sparked a fierce debate about compassion, legality, and the treatment of those struggling with mental illness.
For months, Godin had been living in this small, fully-insulated structure, a lifeline provided by his son-in-law, Jesse Damery. Built just before Christmas, the tiny home was meant to shield Godin from the harsh winter, as his schizophrenia made it impossible for him to stay with family or in shared shelters. And this is the part most people miss: Damery knew building on city property was illegal, but he hoped the structure could remain until winter ended, offering Godin a temporary sanctuary.
The situation gained media attention, and initially, there seemed to be a glimmer of hope. Local police expressed support, even connecting Godin with a mental health worker who promised to help him find housing. But then, without warning, the city intervened. On Tuesday, officials arrived, ordering Godin to leave the structure. When he resisted, police pulled a taser—though they claim it wasn’t deployed—and detained him, leaving Damery devastated and questioning the city’s approach.
Here’s the controversial part: While the city claims its actions were rooted in community safety, many argue that a more compassionate response was possible. Why not let Godin stay until winter ended? Why not involve a mental health professional to de-escalate the situation instead of resorting to force? These questions have ignited a heated discussion about how we treat the most vulnerable among us.
Now, Godin is temporarily housed in a hotel, paid for by the city until February 9. But after that? Damery fears they’re “back to square one.” “This isn’t a solution,” he says. “All we wanted was an option.” During the demolition, Godin’s belongings—food, clothing, personal items—were tossed into a steel bin, though the city claims they’re stored for retrieval. Adding insult to injury, Damery alleges that trees were destroyed to widen the pathway for machinery, though the city denies this.
But here’s the bigger question: What does this say about our society’s approach to homelessness and mental health? Godin had finally found stability in that tiny home. He was organizing his life, his demeanor had improved, and now it’s all been taken away. “He’s just another statistic swept under the rug,” Damery laments.
This story isn’t just about a torn-down structure—it’s about dignity, compassion, and the systemic failures that leave people like Godin without hope. What do you think? Was the city justified in its actions, or was there a better way to handle this situation? Let’s keep the conversation going in the comments.
