 |
| Chuck, Brent, Dave |
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