City Scrambling to Save Son of Sit-Lie

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Email announcing Son of Sit-Lie on CC 7/22 agenda

Ever since the news of the City's stealth campaign to pass a new sit-lie ordinance leaked prematurely, City staff have been on their back foot.

Last Thursday afternoon -- after we published "Son of Sit-Lie to Return" -- the City sent out an email announcing that a new sit-lie ordinance would be going before City Council at its next meeting.  The email targeted those who'd been invited to, or had attended, the "recent collaboration conversations" and/or "contacted the City regarding behavioral issues."  On the list were six (6) homeless services providers and seventeen (17) downtown business people, about half of whom had served on the Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force.

The email stated, "In 2018, a task force looked at specific impacts of homelessness in downtown Salem including perceptions of safety, trash, health and hygiene", which are still "being seen throughout our community along our streets and sidewalks."

The email did not state that the City had received increased complaints or reports of vandalism in recent months, nor did it make any reference to the establishment of a Downtown Good Neighbor Partnership.  (See DHSTF Rec #3 here.)

Two hours later, Salem Reporter published a story on the ordinance proposal.  See Brynelson, T. "Salem considers banning daytime sleeping on sidewalks."  (11 July 2019, Salem Reporter.)

On Friday, The Statesman Journal published a similar story.  See Bach, J. "Salem considers sit-lie ordinance to limit sidewalk camping -- again."  (12 July 2019, The Statesman Journal.)

Friday, four hours after The Statesman Journal article was published, the City sent out another email over the subject line "Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force update" to blind-copied (unknown) recipients.  Attached to the email was a five-page, untitled, document outlining recent "steps" taken to implement the DHSTF's recommendations.  The email stated:

Over the last several months, concerns and complaints from business owners have increased as have reports of vandalism. In response to these growing concerns and demands that the City take action to address behaviors, on July 22, the City Council will be considering an ordinance relating to activities within the public right of way. 

No other information about the alleged rise in "concerns and complaints" and vandalism.  Accordingly, many are questioning the accuracy of this claim -- which was not made in the City's initial back-footed email announcement of July 11.

The attached document stated:
 

The City has initiated collaboration meetings between staff, Salem Police Department, service providers, and downtown business and property representatives to provide updates on efforts and improve communication between parties. This informal group is...intended to function as the good-neighbor partnership described in Recommendation [3].

Under Recommendation [3], the document stated:

The City has initiated good-neighbor partnership meetings to support communication among stakeholders. It is expected that this partnership will evolve over time as will the make-up of up of those participating. After it is fully established and meetings have occurred for a few months, the City will invite participants to rotate the role of host and convener to help assure that this is truly a community-driven partnership.

As discussed in "Son of Sit-Lie to Return", this is the first time that the City has claimed to have created the Good Neighbor Partnership recommended by the DHSTF.  Previously, the City consistently referred to the work group as the "Follow Up Homeless Task Force Meeting" or "the collaboration" group.  The City made no mention of either the Good Neighbor Partnership or Recommendation 3 in any of the emails setting up the group, and most notably, Christy Wood, owner of Runaway Art Studios and member of the DHSTF, who said repeatedly that she was interested in forming a GNP, was not invited to join. 

For a deeper appreciation of these bizarre developments, see our account of the City Council's last work session on implementing the DHSTF recommendations:  "Bureaucratic BS Burying Good Nbr Pship" (27 February 2019). 

There are a couple of ways to interpret the City's actions.  One, the City sincerely, but imperfectly, implemented Recommendation #3, by creating a work group, holding one meeting, and, a month later, proposing a code revision.  But, even if you believe that the City's actions were sincere, they did not satisfy the DHSTF's recommendation, which was that City staff assess the need for code revisions "in conjunction with the establishment of" the Good Neighbor Partnership.  Plainly, the GNP has not been "established" within the meaning and intent of Recommendation #3.  Not after one meeting. 

Another interpretation is that the City was pathetically repeating its 2017 strategy, ignoring or disregarding Recommendation #3 because they feared an established Good Neighbor Partnership would never approve it.  And, when it began to look as if the 2017 strategy wasn't going to work, the City began trying to manipulate the facts to make it appear that they had faithfully executed Recommendation #3, and that Sit-Lie Jr. was its legitimate offspring. 

Whichever interpretation you like, the remedy is the same:  City Council should table the proposed sit-lie ordinance until the GNP has been well and truly established, and has assessed the need for it in conjunction with City staff.  (To read more about what the DHSTF envisioned for the GNP, see "DHSTF Calls for 'Ongoing Conversation'.") 

Contrary to what the City seems to believe, the public are not idiots and are not indifferent.   

Contrary to the City Manager's belief, Salem's homeless are the City's obligation, and it's not an obligation somehow to be counterbalanced by the "rights" of downtown business owners not to be "impacted."

Contrary to the Police Chief's belief, our empathy is not properly 50% with our neighbors experiencing homelessness, and 50% with business owners who prefer enforcement tools to relationship tools as a means of addressing conflicts.

Contrary to the Mayor's belief, the Good Neighbor Partnership is not to be dismissed as some kind of "can't we all just get along" sentiment.        

The City has made a dog's breakfast of policy in this area.  They've made some good decisions, but this fixation with enforcement options shows they don't really know or understand the territory, what's important, what's not, and least of all, how to handle conflict.  The Council should first, do no harm.  Table the proposed ordinance (the text of which has still not been released) until a functioning Good Neighbor Partnership has assessed the need for it in conjunction with City staff -- just as the DHSTF's recommended a year ago.