City's Community Forum Plan Falters

By Sarah Owens

 

Homeless services providers are "always happy to talk about the good things" they're doing, but they're concerned that their participation in a community forum with Sit-Lie, Jr. on the program might be seen as a tacit endorsement of it.  See  "City to Market Sit-Lie at Community Forum."  Consequently, they are unwilling to participate in a forum if Sit-Lie, Jr. is on the program.

The forum was planned for September 4, with the sit-lie ordinance going to City Council on September 23. 

For some providers, the concern to avoid tacit endorsement of Sit-Lie, Jr. extends to  participation in meetings of the work group that the City is now calling the "Good Neighbor Partnership."  The group's first meeting took place June 25, one month before Sit-Lie, Jr. was originally scheduled to go before the City Council -- although that was not generally known at the time.  See "Son of Sit-Lie to Return."

A couple of hours before the meeting, Michael Livingston and I asked if we might attend, and were told no, that the work group needed one meeting without an audience to be able to speak freely about goals and so forth.  The impression we were given was that there was no agenda, other than to set group goals and expectations.  

However, according to the City, that night the group also "talked about the importance of accountability" and was asked whether "a behavior-related ordinance" was a good example of what was meant by "accountability."  When "some [business reps] said yes", the group was asked about "daytime vs. all the time, warnings vs. citations, how many warnings before someone would be trespassed from the downtown, if they were trespassed and then excluded from the downtown what kind of service barrier would this be, what if people were trespassed or excluded from the public right of way, but could still visit service providers and enter an exclusion zone for the purpose of seeking shelter, meals, or other services from a provider?"  According to several participants, the group was not informed that a sit-lie ordinance was going to the City Council in July.  

It was not until after we published "Son of Sit-Lie to Return" on July 11, and called the City out for bringing back a sit-lie ordinance without having formed and consulted a Good Neighbor Partnership (see Downtown Homeless Solutions Task Force Recommendation #3) that the City renamed the work group the Good Neighbor Partnership.  See "City Scrambling to Save Son of Sit-Lie."

The work group's second meeting on August 14 focused on the City's plan to hold a "community forum to share information on services, initiatives, and issues surrounding homelessness." See "City to Market Sit-Lie at Community Forum."  The City's proposed sit-lie ordinance was also on the agenda.  (For those who might not know, "Issues surrounding homelessness" here means stories intended to make the case for a sit-lie ordinance.)

Only two of the group's seven business reps showed up for the second meeting, Hazel Patton and the Chamber's Communications Manager, Gabby Garrido.  They didn't have any stories, so the it fell to  Urban Development Director and group facilitator Kristin Retherford to try and make the case for sit-lie.  At least twice, she related stories of business encounters with people engaging in problem behaviors downtown, none of which involved sitting or lying on sidewalks.  The stories always end with, "but if it happens outside, the police can't do anything."

Several of us pointed out that, in fact, the police can and do often "do something" in such situations.  But, what Retherford meant to convey was that the behavior outside on the sidewalk isn't an offense, so police can't cite/exclude the "unwanted person" from the area, they can only ask the person to leave.  Therefore, the behavior should be deemed criminal (an offense, infraction).  Trouble is, a sit-lie ordinance would  not prohibit the behavior Retherford related to the work group.

Providers say they want a "bright line" between them and Sit-Lie, Jr.  They would rather be seen to be investing in "successful models" (e.g., trainings on resources and de-escalation techniques) and building trusting relationships.  "What's sit-lie got to do with trust?", asked one provider put it during the meeting on August 14.

According to the City's plan for the forum, panelists would take questions from a moderator (no questions from the audience), to avoid putting anyone "on the spot."  But not everyone agrees with that approach.  "We can't support sit-lie consistent with mission and purpose.  Why not just put it the whole thing out there?"  At the same time, no one wants to be the business community's punching bag.  As Dan Clem put it, "I'm not interested in having another slapfest [referring to accusations made by business reps at the first meeting].  It's the business community that want this, let the Chamber put something together."  (The Chamber has since offered to host a forum.)

As it happens, what the business community want is not a forum on resources, but a one-page "who to call" guide, according to Salem Main Street Association officials.  That's what they wanted back in 2017, when CANDO reached out to the Chamber/Nick Williams and downtown businesses right after the first sit-lie ordinance failed.  CANDO talked with the Mayor, and met with Urban Development Department staff, and offered to help craft such a guide (see, e.g., Clark County, WA's "Business Toolkit").  But no, the City had to convene another task force.

Now, two years later, despite providers' outreach efforts, businesses are apparently no better connected to resources, and it's Salem Main Street Association, instead of the Chamber, asking for the "who to call" guide on the grounds that businesses still don't know whom to call, when, or for what.  So, they call the police, despite "understanding that calling the police is not the right answer in every situation."

Given community agreement that calling the police is not the right answer in every situation, then the solution isn't to expand the number of situations where "calling the police is...the right answer."  Yet that's exactly what a sit-lie ordinance would do.  If all you have is a hammer... 

Photo courtesy CAHOOTS

We need to rethink our first response.  Salem police do not need to have their areas of responsibilities expanded so that they must police even more nuisance behavior.  They have much more serious problems to solve.  See Harrell, S. "Salem Police Chief reacts to community concern over recent street violence."  (Salem Reporter, August 12, 2019.)  The City should table its latest plan to pass a sit-lie ordinance and instead work with the so-called Good Neighbor Partnership to coordinate services, identify concrete, reliable alternatives to calling police, share those alternatives with business community.  That's what works.  That's what the community really want.

8/27/19 Update:  the City plans to hold a "Downtown Homeless Initiatives Forum" in the chapel of the UGM Men's Mission from 5:30 to 7 on Wednesday, September 4.  The forum will include a draft copy of a downtown "tool kit" (based on the one used in Clark County, WA), provide shelter and housing updates, and market Sit-Lie, Jr.  UGM says it's not taking a position on Sit-Lie, Jr.  The City's stated goal for the forum "is to bring the community together to discuss ways to help people on the streets/sidewalks, offer downtown businesses practical advice, and discuss Sit-Lie, Jr.  Panelists to  include representatives from the City’s Urban Development Department, the UGM, Salem Housing Authority, Salem Police Department, and the City Attorney’s Office.