Under Bridge is Back On Table

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Saturday Morning Brunch in the ARCHES Parking Lot, 2/23/19

The second meeting of the Food and Sundries Distribution to the Homeless Community Task Force (Food Task Force) put the prospect of serving meals under the Marion Street Bridge back on the table -- but only if the area can be secured when not in use.

We're likely talking more than the chain link and gate proposed by  task force member Kevin Hogan.

Public Works Manager Mark Becktel said the City has a design drawing that calls for a vandalism-proof fence made with carbon steel pipes buried 2 to 3 feet in the ground, with a 12-14 foot gate (large enough to get equipment through).  That's likely what the City would require to consider the area able to be secured when not in use.

It's not clear what it would cost the City to install a vandalism-proof fencing system, or under what circumstances Public Works Director Peter Fernandez would direct/recommend installation under the Marion Street Bridge.  Regardless, he has stated that "[i]t is not the intent of this task force to allow, or find ways to allow, distributions in areas posted for no trespassing" (i.e., the area under the bridges, which is neither City park land, nor a right-of-way).

So, the task force still needs

(Someone also needs to proof Public Works memos.)

"Alternatives to the use of Parks" so far include existing, indoor, community meals (see chart below) and Dan Clem's statement that groups are welcome to serve meals from the kitchen of the Union Gospel Mission, and Jimmy Jones's permission to use the parking lot of 615 Commercial Street NE, which is owned by the Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA).  During the meeting, Ashley Hamilton, Program Director with The ARCHES Project, said that groups would be welcome to serve meals from its kitchen once renovations are completed, probably mid-summer.

Benevolent Meals, Feburary 2019

Notably, the task force has avoided discussing the question of need, which came first on the Task Force Work Plan Outline list of discussion topics.  That omission is yet another example of the City trying to solve a problem without first fully analyzing it.  And that makes reaching agreement on "solutions" unnecessarily difficult.

For example, the solutions offered by meal providers on the task force have tended to be justifications of past practice.  Rather than accept responsibility for the collective impact of the distributions and the need to change things up, their comments make it seem as though they just want to get back to how things were.  This is understandable, given the mixed messaging coming from the City about whether the distributions are, on the whole, a good and necessary thing.

Mark Becktel addressing the Food Task Force, 2/28/19

The point is, it's all very well for the task force to go around the room identifying "success factors" (which we did), but they will be of little use unless there's agreement that they are valid measures of task force success.  So far, the task force has largely avoided trying to come to agreement on anything of substance.  As a result, about half the proposed solutions focus on how to get back to how things were, and the other half on how things might be changed so as to mitigate the collective (negative) impact of the distributions.  In short, the task force is not yet working toward common goals.

Returning to the agenda, about half the room appeared taken aback to hear Marion County Environmental Health Program Supervisor Alisa Zastoupil inform the task force that the County did expect meal providers to comply with state laws and rules regarding food distributions (this information was covered at the first meeting, but didn't get the same response).

Long time meal provider, Dan Sheets, who was appointed to the task force after the first meeting, said at least twice that he'd known nothing about the requirements until very recently.  Kevin Hogan said he didn't object to "the paperwork", but the fact that the temporary restaurant application fee would cost his group $29 per meal (his group, River Church, serves one meal a month).        

However, ORS 694.490(3) provides that County (the local public health authority) may "exempt or reduce" the fee.  Zastoupil said that, as far as she was aware, the County had never had to enforce  benevolent meal distribution rules or issue temporary restaurant licenses under this provision, so she would have to go "up the chain" and return with more information on her authority to "exempt or reduce" the fee.  She also indicated that enforcement was complaint-driven (no inspection regime).

What's good about the requirement of City and County permits for benevolent distributions is its potential as a tool for communication and cooperation.  By permitting distributions, the City and County assume some interest in and responsibility for the distributions being orderly and maximally beneficial to the community.  And, by participating in the permit process, distributors demonstrate awareness of and respect for the needs and concerns of the wider community not directly involved in their activities.

The goal should be 1) to make the permitting process(es) clear, transparent, not unduly burdensome, appropriately flexible while the kinks are worked out, and widely known throughout the Salem community, and 2) to have permitting conditions relate directly to the potential impact of the distributions on the recipients and on the wider community, which includes the Salem police and Parks Department.  To illustrate what that might look like, taking into account the divergences:

The next meeting of the task force is 6p, Thursday, March 7, and will continue the discussion of proposed solutions.  Meanwhile, skaters enjoying Marion Square Park on a sunny Saturday afternoon (2 March 2019).

3/2/19 Update: revised Benevolent Meals chart per latest info from Pamella Watson, FCUCC.