Sunday, February 23, 2020

Mayor Bennett Pushes Sit-Lie on KYKN

Chuck, Brent, Dave
Mayor Bennett appeared recently on KYKN to talk about the state of the City (See "No More Allowing Homelessness!" (16 February 2020.) 

The correspondence below was sent on the dates indicated.  To date, there has been no reply.

We do understand that the Mayor is very busy and gets a great deal of mail.  The only reason for stating that there has been no reply to date is that people keep asking.
 
---------------------




From: SARAH OWENS
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 2:30 PM
To: Chuck Bennett <cbennett@cityofsalem.net>
Cc: Michael Livingston
Subject: KYKN Interview

Dear Mayor Bennett,

Listened to your interview with Brent and Dave.  I'm trying to understand why it is you support sit-lie.  I understood your reason previously as being that Chief Moore had asked for it, and you simply wanted to give him what he needed.  But you now seem to be saying something more than that.  Maybe it's not a new message but different emphasis.

You told Brent and Dave that "if you don't have a sit-lie ordinance, you have no way to push people into those shelters."  You also told them sit-lie was needed in order "to get people to go take advantage of those [programs]."  But do you have any evidence that sit-lie ordinances "push people into shelters" or programs?  I've looked, and not been able to find any, anywhere.  I wondered if you had.  If you haven't, will you ask a true expert in the social work (not the City Manager or Police Chief) whether your belief has any scientific basis and take their advice?

I know you know that Council's been repeatedly advised by people like Jimmy Jones and Pamela Lyons-Nelson, as well as Chief Moore, that people have many and varied personal reasons for being on the streets.  You told Brent and Dave that "we can't meet the need for the folks down there [at Rite Aid, etc.] with the right kind of place for them to go", and that you "understand that a lot of this comes from trauma, and mental health issues, and serious addiction...and I don't disagree that that's that's the problem."  But if you understand that the City doesn't have the right kind of place for those folks to go, and that the reason they're on the streets is trauma, mental illness and serious addiction, why would you think a sit-lie ordinance would ever "push" them into shelters?  Or whatever other services you might have in mind?  It makes no sense.  

You also told Brent and Dave that, "We've had folks, and this is anecdotal, and I understand that, but I trust that people sharing the anecdote, they have gone down to the streets by Rite Aid and by Salem Center and offered 50 beds, and they've gotten 1, 2, 3, 5 takers.  People are just down there right now, seem completely unwilling to move into available space."  Was this someone from UGM?  A member of the public?  Who has 50 beds?

Finally, you told Brent and Dave about the assistant City Attorney being mugged "by a homeless person", and followed up by saying "There are behaviors beyond the pale, and we're seeing them down there now", heavily implying that the people outside Rite Aid, etc., are committing violent crimes.  But if that's true, existing laws allow police to arrest the perpetrators, do they not.  Is it fair to suggest sit-lie is needed to protect people from dangerous homeless people?  Do you not realize this adds to the considerable danger street homeless live with every day?  It's almost as if you don't consider the street homeless your constituents.  

Sorry, one last question.  Why aren't police enforcing the camping ban?  It's quite obvious there are structures on the sidewalks downtown.    

Sarah Owens

CANDO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SARAH OWENS <hlowens2@msn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:19 AM
To: Chuck Bennett <cbennett@cityofsalem.net>
Cc: Cara Kaser <CKASER@cityofsalem.net>; CanDo Board <candoboard@googlegroups.com>; Salem Homeless Coalition (not the "Homeless Coalition") <salem-homeless-coalition@googlegroups.com>; Michael Livingston <michaellivingston1@msn.com>
Subject: Fw: KYKN Interview

Mr. Mayor,

FYI, we have confirmed with other sources that your "50 beds" likely refers to UGM, only the offer was for a mat, not a bed, much less a living space (as the accommodation is only overnight and uncertain because it's overflow and first come, first served with sign ups in the late afternoon).  Plus, as you know very well, the Mission takes men only.  

While it might be true that the individuals outside Rite Aid and Salem Center have been contacted by local providers (UGM, SHA, MWVCAA and others) with offers of assistance, that fact doesn't justify sit-lie when, as you yourself have said "we can't meet the need for the folks down there with the right kind of place for them to go", and that you "understand that a lot of this comes from trauma, and mental health issues, and serious addiction...and I don't disagree that that's that's the problem."

For the reasons you cited, the situation outside Rite Aid and Salem Center is primarily a public health issue.  You might think it  makes political sense to adopt an enforcement strategy to deal with it, but such strategies always fail in the long term, and not necessarily because of lawsuits.  As with the camping ban -- which is being enforced very selectively -- you must understand that police are unlikely to enforce sit-lie to the extent needed to "clean the streets" downtown.

I believe you will find, if you succeed in passing sit-lie, that it will only inflame tensions and up the risk of a lawsuit.  It won't "clean the streets." It won't reduce the complaints or take the bull's eye off the City Manager, and it won't displace homelessness from its No. 1 position in the annual customer satisfaction survey.  It will however, very likely be the thing you will be remembered for most.  I doubt that's what you want.  

No comments:

Post a Comment