re "Assessing Codes and Ordinances"

June 13 Mtg Agenda

Motion:  (Sarah Owens) to oppose recommending that the City Council "assess codes and ordinances" as a "solution" to the problems of homelessness downtown (item 4.f. on the Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force June 13 Meeting Agenda)

Discussion:  On June 13, the Task Force is scheduled to receive public comment on seven "proposed solutions" to the problems associated with homelessness downtown, one of which is to "assess codes and ordinances."

First, it must be understood that "assess codes and ordinances" is an indirect/politic way of saying the Council should revisit failed Ordinance Bill 22-17, aka the "sit-lie" ordinance, which they rejected last September 2017.  See here, here and here.   

Second, while there was general agreement among the Task Force members about the need for the other six "solutions" (all of which are intended to aid and assist people experiencing homelessness), there was not general agreement about the need for a "sit-lie" ordinance, although it was made clear to the Task Force that the Salem Police Department wants one, as does the Mayor.

Third, the "sit-lie" ordinance is not intended primarily to aid and assist people experiencing homelessness, but to be an "enforcement" mechanism -- a last resort -- in the event the other six "solutions" are insufficient to address the problems of homelessness downtown.  However, the other solutions will take time and trust for them to begin to make a difference.  If an enforcement tool is made available too early, it will be tempting to resort to enforcement too quickly, especially given how long the problems of homelessness downtown have been neglected, and that patience is, for some, in very short supply.  If that happens, it will likely undermine the trust-building strategy the Task Force seems to prefer.

Fourth, even if you think "assess codes and ordinances" is not meant to refer to revisiting failed Ordinance Bill 22-17, the City Attorney, Chief of Police and other city staff and elected officials have already assessed the code, and the result was Ordinance Bill 22-17, which failed to pass.  Unless the Task Force has something specific to recommend, there's no point.  Council can direct staff to "assess codes and ordinances" anytime they choose. 

Draft April 4 Minutes

Finally, the seven "proposed solutions" listed in the June 13 agenda were selected from a wide range  of "solutions" put before the Task Force during the course of four meetings and through "homework assignments."  However, we do not know who made the selection, or how.

At the Task Force's last meeting, it was agreed that staff were to "take solutions developed from prior meetings and homework assignments", do some research, and then bring that research back to the Task Force, who would then "formulate recommendations to City Council."  (See draft minutes of the April 4 meeting here.)

Since that meeting in April, the Task Force has not met, and so could not have selected the seven "proposed solutions" listed on the June 13 meeting agenda. 

Why does it matter who chose the seven, if they are only listed for purposes of facilitating public comment, and not the Task Force's final say on the matter?  It matters precisely because the list gives  the false impression that the Task Force believes there's a need to "assess codes and ordinances", thereby influencing public discussion and providing political cover for revisiting controversial  Ordinance Bill 22-17 when the "assessment" is completed.    

In sum, CANDO should oppose this "proposed solution" because it doesn't come from the Task Force, it isn't specific or straightforward in its purpose, and it's premature.  If and when the preferred strategy of relationship- and trust-building has been given a chance to make a difference, there appears to be a good faith need for a code enforcement mechanism, that will be the time for the City Council to "assess codes and ordinances."

For all the reasons discussed above, CANDO should oppose recommending that the City Council "assess codes and ordinances" as a "solution" to the problems of homelessness downtown (item 4.f. on the Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force June 13 Meeting Agenda).

[6/22/18 Update: as shown by the minutes of CANDO's 6/19 meeting, this agenda item was postponed to the July meeting due to the absence of a quorum by the time the item was reached.  At the sixth meeting of the DHSTF, which as of this writing has not been scheduled, the DHSTF is supposed to develop its specific recommendations.  Based on the opposition to enforcement action expressed at the public hearing on June 13, it appears the task force might be unable to agree on a specific enforcement recommendation, in which case there would be no need for CANDO to take a position on the matter.]