Under Bridge Off the Table (Final)

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Mark Becktel opens 3d/final Food Task Force Meeting

The City Manager and "Key Department Directors" have nixed the idea that the area under the Marion Street Bridge might be made available for meal distribution, much to the disappointment of some members of The Food and Sundries Distribution to the Homeless Community Task Force (Food Task Force), who learned of the decision Thursday evening, at the opening of the task force's third and likely final meeting.

Public Works Operations Manager Mark Becktel had said a week earlier, in answer to questions, that the area might be used, if it were secured with a vandalism-proof fence and gate.  When he asked upper management if they would support a recommendation along these lines, the answer was, basically, no.  There was, therefore, no point in the task force giving the matter further consideration.   

Management concerns included the inconsistency of allowing meals in an area posted "No Trespassing", poor optics, construction cost (~$100K), maintenance costs, the fence being used to secure tents and tarps and proximity to the Union Gospel Mission and The ARCHES Project, both of which serve daily meals.  Pretty predictable.  See "News from the Continuum" (5 March 2019).

The announcement that the bridge(s) solution was again "off the table" should not have come as a surprise, given the Task Force Work Plan Outline stated specifically that "It is not the intent of this process to allow -- or find ways to allow -- distribution in areas posted for no trespassing."  Nonetheless, at least one task force member said she felt "blind-sided" by the decision. 

Saying that the City and County "are not getting along very well because of some recent decisions" (see Brynelson, T.  "Salem votes down third bridge."  (11 February 2019, Salem Reporter.)), Becktel let the task force know the City would not be asking Marion County to "exempt or reduce" the statutory license fees for "restaurants operated by benevolent organizations", but individuals and their organizations could certainly do so.  (State law requires anyone providing meals to the public to obtain a restaurant license.)  See "Under Bridge Back On Table."  

The renewed prospect of having to pay $29/day or $118/mo in order to comply with state laws and rules regarding food distributions further upset several members of the task force, and heated cross-talk ensued.  Wresting the floor back with assurances that the task force was looking for a "win-win" result that "fairly balanced everyone's needs", the facilitator outlined the remaining options and split the task force members into two groups to fine-tune the new City permitting process.

While it's up to the City, ultimately, to determine the terms and conditions of the new Benevolent Meal and Sundries Distribution Permit, this is what came out of the small-group discussion:

1. City should have discretion to waive a reasonable permit/application fee.
2. Applicants must request a specific park/facility or right-of-way for the distribution, as well as specific dates/times. 
3. For the first few months at least, permits will be short term (one day, week, month, quarter), depending on location and other demand.
4. City has discretion to limit the number of permits issued for a particular location over a given period, to dis-incentivize camping and prevent over use.  
5. Permittees must obtain required County permits and comply with state laws and rules regarding food distributions.
6. "Park Rules" signage will be required in distribution areas (City to provide).
7. Litter must be picked up and all trash packed out.
8. Permittees must report violations to City-designated POC.

The above outline for new permit process satisfies the first part of the task force's charge "to develop a policy and procedure that permits distributions [of food and sundries] to the homeless community in Salem Parks while significantly minimizing its impacts."

The second part of the charge, to "identify alternatives to the use of Parks for these programs", is just a matter of listing existing programs and plans for expansion.  The final recommendations going to City Council on March 25 might look something like this:

If there is anything remarkable about the task force recommendations, it's that the City needed a task force to develop them and that the City waited so long to undertake addressing the situation in Marion Square Park.  It's obvious why.  As one City staffer put it, City leadership "doesn't want to appear to lack compassion."

It's doubtful that the folks who were serving meals under the bridge feel the task force achieved a "win-win" result that "fairly balanced everyone's needs."  The fact is, Meals Under the Bridge has been completely disrupted and will not be allowed to resume, ever.  The City should just admit that, rather than pretend that nothing's been lost.  This is not to say the City's intervention wasn't necessary or appropriate, only that we should be honest about what has happened.
  
Aside from ending Meals Under the Bridge, it's unclear how the new rules will affect food and sundries distributions to the homeless in Salem.  That's mostly because it's unclear whether, or to what extent, the City intends to enforce them, once the code is amended and the new rules are in place.  It's also unclear whether, or to what extent, the County intends to enforce state laws and rules regarding food distributions.  Currently, unlicensed groups not following the rules are serving meals in the parking lot of the ARCHES building at 615 Commercial Street NE.  Other unlicensed groups not following the rules also are serving meals at Cascade Gateway Park, Wallace Marine Park and various private and publicly-owned locations throughout the City.

Groups wishing to follow the rules are likely to have difficulty with the cost of complying with the statutory restaurant license requirement and with the rules regarding food distributions.  Based on what was said at the last task force meeting, the City does not intend to require permittees to demonstrate that they have the requisite license(s) but will let the County know when permits are issued.  Using that information to conduct random inspections of meal sites probably would be sufficient to ensure compliance by groups wishing to follow the rules.  As a practical matter, this means that unless they're exempted from restaurant licensing fees, most groups wishing to follow the rules will either move indoors, or cease regular distributions.  From a policy standpoint, that would not be a bad outcome.

As for groups and individuals not interested in following the rules and not engaged in distributions on any consistent basis, not much can be done.  However, these groups have not had as big an impact on City parks and rights-of-way as, say, Meals Under the Bridge had on Marion Square Park.