DATE: October 18, 2020
FROM: ShelterOak.org
TO: Life Enrichment Committee Chair Loren Taylor
Re: Proposed Encampment Management Policy
Dear Chair Taylor,
We urge that the Encampment Management Policy go back to the administration and Life
Enrichment Committee for reworking. The plan should only be considered after review by the
currently forming Commission on Homelessness and after completion of a racial equity analysis.
1. No homeless encampment management policy should contain discriminatory elements
that criminalize homeless residents, as the proposed policy does. An appropriate policy must
be supported by input from homeless residents and should reduce the City’s dependence on
policing associated with homeless encampments.
2. We urge the City Council to carefully review the legal issues raised in the October 16,
2020 letters from Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) and the Homeless Action Center
(“HAC”). The proposed policy shows that the City’s intent is to evade the Boise decision
and, as HAC points out, “invites expensive legal challenges.”
BayLegal’s letter emphasizes that the proposed policy “will actually increase the suffering of
those hardest hit by this crisis by attempting to ban people from simply existing in a
substantial portion of the City, despite the fact that people have nowhere else safe to go.”
Similarly, HAC’s letter outlines the ways in which the proposed policy would have
disproportionate impacts on individuals with mobility impairments, mental health conditions,
and chronic health conditions.
Boise directs the City to keep public spaces open for people who do not have real options for
alternative shelter. Accelerating closures at a time when homelessness is increasing and
options for shelter are dwindling flies in the face of the Ninth Circuit’s instruction.
The City Council should have no appetite for continuing to spend time and resources on
lawsuits for illegal closures, unconstitutional seizures of personal property, and unnecessary
exacerbation of the Covid-19 public health crisis.
3. Any policy must acknowledge: Housing for homeless residents is essential to eliminating
encampments. Without housing, encampment removal only moves homeless residents
elsewhere. The City is failing to provide housing.
When faced with removal, homeless residents must be offered long-term housing or a
sanctioned encampment site. An offer of a cot for 72 hours or temporary shelter for 6 months
cannot be considered an offer of housing; such overnight shelter amounts to a temporary
relocation, not housing, and people simply go back onto the streets. In March the City
Council passed a resolution which states in part, “That the City Council requests the City
Administrator to follow the Center for Disease Control interim guidelines on homelessness
and COVID-19 to only clear homeless encampments if individual housing units or alternative
shelter is provided.”
4. Sanitation and hygiene facilities, trash collection and fresh water are essential to
eliminating public health risks associated with homeless encampments, and must be provided
to all encampments.
We appreciate the concern of neighborhood advocates, of the Council, Mayor, and City staff. If
the policy is to be workable and fair, it requires further work and attention to the rights and
responsibilities we all hold as values.
The members of ShelterOak.org
Janny Castillo
Jennie Gerard
John Claassen
Judy Elkan
Talya Husbands-Hankin
John Kirkmire
Kathryn Kasch
Mary Ellen Navas
Ravi Patel
Lou Rigali
Ben Schiff
Naomi Schiff
Angela Shannon
James Vann
cc:
Council President Kaplan
City Council Members Kalb, Fortunato-Bas, McElheney, Thao, Gallo, Reid
Mayor Schaaf and Office of the Mayor Officials
City Administrator Ed Reiskin and City Administration Officials
FROM: ShelterOak.org
TO: Life Enrichment Committee Chair Loren Taylor
Re: Proposed Encampment Management Policy
Dear Chair Taylor,
We urge that the Encampment Management Policy go back to the administration and Life
Enrichment Committee for reworking. The plan should only be considered after review by the
currently forming Commission on Homelessness and after completion of a racial equity analysis.
1. No homeless encampment management policy should contain discriminatory elements
that criminalize homeless residents, as the proposed policy does. An appropriate policy must
be supported by input from homeless residents and should reduce the City’s dependence on
policing associated with homeless encampments.
2. We urge the City Council to carefully review the legal issues raised in the October 16,
2020 letters from Bay Area Legal Aid (“BayLegal”) and the Homeless Action Center
(“HAC”). The proposed policy shows that the City’s intent is to evade the Boise decision
and, as HAC points out, “invites expensive legal challenges.”
BayLegal’s letter emphasizes that the proposed policy “will actually increase the suffering of
those hardest hit by this crisis by attempting to ban people from simply existing in a
substantial portion of the City, despite the fact that people have nowhere else safe to go.”
Similarly, HAC’s letter outlines the ways in which the proposed policy would have
disproportionate impacts on individuals with mobility impairments, mental health conditions,
and chronic health conditions.
Boise directs the City to keep public spaces open for people who do not have real options for
alternative shelter. Accelerating closures at a time when homelessness is increasing and
options for shelter are dwindling flies in the face of the Ninth Circuit’s instruction.
The City Council should have no appetite for continuing to spend time and resources on
lawsuits for illegal closures, unconstitutional seizures of personal property, and unnecessary
exacerbation of the Covid-19 public health crisis.
3. Any policy must acknowledge: Housing for homeless residents is essential to eliminating
encampments. Without housing, encampment removal only moves homeless residents
elsewhere. The City is failing to provide housing.
When faced with removal, homeless residents must be offered long-term housing or a
sanctioned encampment site. An offer of a cot for 72 hours or temporary shelter for 6 months
cannot be considered an offer of housing; such overnight shelter amounts to a temporary
relocation, not housing, and people simply go back onto the streets. In March the City
Council passed a resolution which states in part, “That the City Council requests the City
Administrator to follow the Center for Disease Control interim guidelines on homelessness
and COVID-19 to only clear homeless encampments if individual housing units or alternative
shelter is provided.”
4. Sanitation and hygiene facilities, trash collection and fresh water are essential to
eliminating public health risks associated with homeless encampments, and must be provided
to all encampments.
We appreciate the concern of neighborhood advocates, of the Council, Mayor, and City staff. If
the policy is to be workable and fair, it requires further work and attention to the rights and
responsibilities we all hold as values.
The members of ShelterOak.org
Janny Castillo
Jennie Gerard
John Claassen
Judy Elkan
Talya Husbands-Hankin
John Kirkmire
Kathryn Kasch
Mary Ellen Navas
Ravi Patel
Lou Rigali
Ben Schiff
Naomi Schiff
Angela Shannon
James Vann
cc:
Council President Kaplan
City Council Members Kalb, Fortunato-Bas, McElheney, Thao, Gallo, Reid
Mayor Schaaf and Office of the Mayor Officials
City Administrator Ed Reiskin and City Administration Officials
|
|
September 20, 2020
To: Life Enrichment Committee of the Oakland City Council
From: ShelterOak.org
Re: Encampment Management Policy proposals on agenda for September 21, 2020
Dear Chair Taylor and members of the Life Enrichment Committee:
ShelterOak appreciates the City’s efforts to replace an otherwise amorphous process for intervening in encampments with a clear process that can provide predictability for homeless residents and the community of advocates that supports them. However, we write to express our disappointment that the Life Enrichment Committee is considering the very flawed proposed “Encampment Management Policy.” We urge you to reject this proposal and direct staff to develop a workable approach to managing encampments, one without the discriminatory elements and tone of this proposal.
As written, the proposed policy would impose impossible standards on homeless residents. One of many examples: any homeless residents who lack access to plumbing, own cooking equipment, require more than 144 square feet of living space, or who cannot maintain six feet of distance from neighboring residents will be subject to “intervention.”
The Committee must not recommend that the City Council cede such broad authority to the Encampment Management Team.
Among other issues, the proposed policy would label any of the following as justifications for intervention, including forced removal:
The proposed policy is littered with discriminatory presumptions about homelessness and criminality. Despite the fact that the Encampment Management Team does not handle criminal matters, the proposed policy goes out of its way to include a section of “Law Enforcement Response.” That section lists numerous serious crimes justifying law enforcement intervention, implying that the homeless are responsible for such crimes more often than the housed.
The proposed policy also repeatedly faults homeless residents for living in proximity to human and drug trafficking, implying that they are responsible for the organized criminal operations that take advantage of the lawlessness of many of the City’s encampments. Homeless residents are not the source of the City’s crime, and frequently they are the primary victims. Displacing blame onto them is irresponsible and plays into stereotypes about the people who have most often been forced into homelessness in Oakland.
By emphasizing criminality and ceding general authority to the Encampment Management Team to force removal, the proposed policy would add to the City’s dependence on policing. For months, housed and unhoused residents have demanded substantial defunding of the Oakland Police Department, and called for social workers rather than police to contact homeless residents. But this proposed policy would invest in police. It would invest in police monitoring of encampments. It would invest in police overtime to manage closing and cleanings. Most perniciously, it would invest in the false idea that police stand between the “law abiding” housed and “criminal” unhoused.
The proposed policy concludes by claiming that the rights of homeless residents stand in conflict with public health and safety. Just the opposite is true. Although we recognize that the legal rights of the unhoused pursuant to Boise have practical implications for City policy, affirming the human rights of the unhoused to live in dignity, with proper sanitation, living space, and access to food, will enhance public health and safety. To that end, and as we have done repeatedly in the past, we call for the City to invest in sanitation facilities, trash collection, and fresh water supplies at all encampments. We also encourage the addition of at least two knowledgeable community members with experience living or working on the street to the Encampment Management Team.
An updated policy should be stripped of discriminatory elements, should be supported by input from homeless residents, and should include a true racial equity analysis. We are aware that the current proposed policy sought input based on a public and unscientific survey. But that survey was primarily answered by homeowners, who are primarily white and have a different set of interests from people living unsheltered. The Council should not adopt a policy without first hearing from the people whom it will actually govern. Despite alluding to the need to conduct a racial equity analysis, none was actually included. The Committee must not allow a proposed policy to advance to the Council until a racial analysis has been completed.
The proposed policy will not achieve the goals of a clear process that provides predictability for homeless residents. It will only affirm the Encampment Management Team’s authority to force the homeless to relocate anytime their existence becomes inconvenient for their neighbors. Shoving homeless residents from place to place has not and will not work. There is no “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” solution.
We urge you to reject this proposed policy and call for a policy that addresses the needs of predictability for homeless residents. With the City’s long-awaited Homeless Commission also set to be seated in November, we also ask whether this policy should be delayed until that group can provide critical input? Take the time to develop a policy that prioritizes the needs of those living unsheltered.
We appreciate your consideration, and urge that you keep this item in committee for further staff work and deliberation.
Sincerely,
The members of ShelterOak.org
To: Life Enrichment Committee of the Oakland City Council
From: ShelterOak.org
Re: Encampment Management Policy proposals on agenda for September 21, 2020
Dear Chair Taylor and members of the Life Enrichment Committee:
ShelterOak appreciates the City’s efforts to replace an otherwise amorphous process for intervening in encampments with a clear process that can provide predictability for homeless residents and the community of advocates that supports them. However, we write to express our disappointment that the Life Enrichment Committee is considering the very flawed proposed “Encampment Management Policy.” We urge you to reject this proposal and direct staff to develop a workable approach to managing encampments, one without the discriminatory elements and tone of this proposal.
As written, the proposed policy would impose impossible standards on homeless residents. One of many examples: any homeless residents who lack access to plumbing, own cooking equipment, require more than 144 square feet of living space, or who cannot maintain six feet of distance from neighboring residents will be subject to “intervention.”
The Committee must not recommend that the City Council cede such broad authority to the Encampment Management Team.
Among other issues, the proposed policy would label any of the following as justifications for intervention, including forced removal:
- Living in proximity to public resources such as schools, businesses, parks;
- Living away from public resources, but in proximity to a right-of-way, lane of traffic, bike lane, or ADA access point;
- Living in an encampment that allocates any more than 144 square feet of living space per resident;
- Living in an encampment that lacks access to proper human waste disposal;
- Using “combustible materials” to prepare food;
- Keeping tents or other housing structures within 6 feet of neighbors;
- Lacking resources to control animals and vermin;
- Living in—or being perceived to live in—an area where human and drug traffickers choose to conduct illegal business.
The proposed policy is littered with discriminatory presumptions about homelessness and criminality. Despite the fact that the Encampment Management Team does not handle criminal matters, the proposed policy goes out of its way to include a section of “Law Enforcement Response.” That section lists numerous serious crimes justifying law enforcement intervention, implying that the homeless are responsible for such crimes more often than the housed.
The proposed policy also repeatedly faults homeless residents for living in proximity to human and drug trafficking, implying that they are responsible for the organized criminal operations that take advantage of the lawlessness of many of the City’s encampments. Homeless residents are not the source of the City’s crime, and frequently they are the primary victims. Displacing blame onto them is irresponsible and plays into stereotypes about the people who have most often been forced into homelessness in Oakland.
By emphasizing criminality and ceding general authority to the Encampment Management Team to force removal, the proposed policy would add to the City’s dependence on policing. For months, housed and unhoused residents have demanded substantial defunding of the Oakland Police Department, and called for social workers rather than police to contact homeless residents. But this proposed policy would invest in police. It would invest in police monitoring of encampments. It would invest in police overtime to manage closing and cleanings. Most perniciously, it would invest in the false idea that police stand between the “law abiding” housed and “criminal” unhoused.
The proposed policy concludes by claiming that the rights of homeless residents stand in conflict with public health and safety. Just the opposite is true. Although we recognize that the legal rights of the unhoused pursuant to Boise have practical implications for City policy, affirming the human rights of the unhoused to live in dignity, with proper sanitation, living space, and access to food, will enhance public health and safety. To that end, and as we have done repeatedly in the past, we call for the City to invest in sanitation facilities, trash collection, and fresh water supplies at all encampments. We also encourage the addition of at least two knowledgeable community members with experience living or working on the street to the Encampment Management Team.
An updated policy should be stripped of discriminatory elements, should be supported by input from homeless residents, and should include a true racial equity analysis. We are aware that the current proposed policy sought input based on a public and unscientific survey. But that survey was primarily answered by homeowners, who are primarily white and have a different set of interests from people living unsheltered. The Council should not adopt a policy without first hearing from the people whom it will actually govern. Despite alluding to the need to conduct a racial equity analysis, none was actually included. The Committee must not allow a proposed policy to advance to the Council until a racial analysis has been completed.
The proposed policy will not achieve the goals of a clear process that provides predictability for homeless residents. It will only affirm the Encampment Management Team’s authority to force the homeless to relocate anytime their existence becomes inconvenient for their neighbors. Shoving homeless residents from place to place has not and will not work. There is no “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” solution.
We urge you to reject this proposed policy and call for a policy that addresses the needs of predictability for homeless residents. With the City’s long-awaited Homeless Commission also set to be seated in November, we also ask whether this policy should be delayed until that group can provide critical input? Take the time to develop a policy that prioritizes the needs of those living unsheltered.
We appreciate your consideration, and urge that you keep this item in committee for further staff work and deliberation.
Sincerely,
The members of ShelterOak.org
