'Progressive' Council Snuffs Affordable Hsg Project

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

So much for Salem's commitment to affordable housing.

The plan was to purchase Evergreen Presbyterian Church and turn it into 14 units of low-income housing with on-site management and support.  Project description in the 2020-2021 Action Plan at 15.  Salem Breakfast on Bikes wrote about the plan back in May.

The property sits on D Street, right at CANDO's edge, just inside the Grant neighborhood.

The Church has outgrown the space and is looking to move.  It's not the first time Grant has felt one of its church's growing pains.  See, e.g., Loew, T.  "A mega church is buying up a Salem neighborhood.  Here's why." (19 August 2019, Statesman Journal.) ("Salem Alliance Church owns 31 properties, worth $22.7 million, comprising part or all of eight blocks in the Grant neighborhood, north of downtown.")  

Staff recommendation to Council was for the City to underwrite the purchase of the property using about $400K in federal HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds.  The developer, DevNW, is Salem's only Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) (pronounced "choh-doh").  Federal regulations require that at least 15% of the City's HOME funds be set aside for eligible CHDO activities.  DevNW and the City spent many months looking for an appropriate project before deciding on the Evergreen Church location, and the project has been deemed eligible in all aspects.

With advice from City staff, DevNW is seeking to rezone the church property from RS (Single Family) to CO (Commercial Office), to allow it to use the manse as office space.  DevNW currently rents an office in CANDO at 437 Union Street NE.  The rezoning application is currently scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on July 21, 2020, but Council recent actions may change that.  

Notwithstanding all the above, in a June 17, 2020 letter to Council, and in public comments on June 22, the Grant Land Use Committee chair asked Council to withhold funding for the project in order to prevent DevNW from attempting to rezone the property, which the Grant neighborhood believes would constitute a further "chipping away at [the neighborhood's] character", according to the letter. 

During the public hearing on the Consolidated Plan/2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, DevNW CEO Emily Reiman gave a brief overview of the project and offered to answer questions. 

DevNW CEO Emily Reiman offers comment on June 22 while Mayor Bennett is away from his chair.

Council Deliberates Rezoning

As Councilor Nanke would later comment, the Grant neighborhood's request that Council withhold funding for the DevNW project because of the rezoning issue was "kind of weird, in that it's throwing a land-use decision before it's been done into a Consolidated Plan."    
      
Councilor Hoy asked Reiman about the need to convert the manse into an office, saying  "seems like a real waste" given Salem's need for housing.  Reiman responded that the exterior of the manse and grounds would be preserved, and that communities generally see on-site services and management "as a positive" because "we have eyes on the project, and the people living there have ready access to services", adding "that's our preference because that's what we think will provide the best experience for low-income families."        

Mayor Bennett asked Reiman if she had been "informed of Council's long-term neighborhood and Council policy relative to bringing commercial office into that sort of historic older neighborhood." Reiman responded that her director of development could speak to that, but she was on vacation, however, the decision to seek the CO rezone "was made in partnership with City staff."  Bennett shot back, saying, "I'm talking about the neighborhood. City staff is City staff.  They do their own thing.  I'm talking about the neighborhood...Did you understand how profoundly concerned they are about the changing character of that neighborhood?"

Reiman said, basically, yes, that's why DevNW was committed to preserving the manse exterior, but Bennett was dismissive, saying "The interior is an office and lobby center or something like that?"  Reiman told him that DevNW offered a range of financial literacy classes and counseling, home-ownership classes and counseling, and credit-building services.  Bennett asked, "Would you be entertaining legislators there, as part of a lobby effort?"  Reiman replied that DevNW does engage in housing advocacy, is occasionally called to offer expert testimony at the legislature, and participates in meetings at the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services, but those activities amount to <1% of what they do.

Bennett wanted to know if she had "researched alternative office locations nearby, in a commercial office area already."  Reiman replied that their office was about four blocks away, and reiterated that "most people feel more comfortable about an affordable housing development when the property management and the owner are on site."

Councilor Kaser also asked why DevNW wanted its office on site, "and not someplace else."  Reiman reiterated the importance of onsite management and services, and DevNW's commitment to encouraging property ownership, saying they'd been looking for several years for a housing project that would allow DevNW to own its own office, "and have deeper roots in the Salem community."

Kaser asked Reiman if DevNW had "pursued other zoning" like RM1 or RM2, and what the "long-term impacts" of a CO rezone "would be to the neighborhood, in terms of changing its character."  Kaser said she thought DevNW wasn't willing to compromise "because you need the office."  She said, "that's very concerning.  It's very concerning to be using this [HOME Investment Partnership] money to build a permanent office space for you."  (As noted above, the project was eligible in all aspects.) 

Council also heard from Eric Bradfield, who, along with Sam Skillern, co-chairs the Grant neighborhood association.  Bradfield said he lives at 934 Cottage Street NE, "just across the street from Evergreen Church and parsonage", and was "here to represent my household this evening."  "The most contentious part of the project is the need for a zone and Comprehensive Plan change", he said, before arguing that Council should withhold funding for the project in order to prevent the rezone. 

After a few more questions, Bennett moved to approve the Con Plan/2020-2021 Action Plan without the award to DevNW.  "This one needs to go back to the drawing board, clearly" because DevNW was "unwilling to walk away from having commercial office space and plans to proceed" with the rezoning.  "And I just don't want to start down that road, so I'm making the motion to just pull them out of this package.  Maybe they'll rethink it."  Kaser said she "completely agree[d]" with Bennett, and that DevNW needed to look for "an area that would be compatible." 

Councilor Ausec said he would not support removing the DevNW award because he thought the project was compatible with the neighborhood, comparable to the activities of the church, and noted that the Comprehensive plan had been amended numerous times.  See Comprehensive Plan  (adopted 1992, amended 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2x in 2009, 2x in 2013, 2015) and Grant Neighborhood Plan (adopted by Grant 1979, revised 1983, adopted by City Council with exceptions 1983).

Bennett's motion passed 7-1, with Ausec voting no.  Councilor Leung did not vote or participate in the discussion, having declared a conflict because she participates in a DevNW savings program.

Why Council Got it Wrong

There's a great deal not to like about this decision, but let's start with the result.  This is what Jimmy Jones, Executive Director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, had to say about Council's decision to eliminate the DevNW project from the 2020-2021 Action Plan:

It was unfortunate that DevNW’s project wasn’t approved.  The community is in desperate need of affordable housing.  Our limited rental stock and low vacancy rates, and high rental prices, are in large part the result of a lack of development in Salem and the surrounding communities going back to the recession of 2009.  We’ve struggled as a community to attract affordable housing development to this area, and we are close to $1 billion short in new development from meeting the affordable housing need.  So every single unit matters.  I hope that DevNW isn’t discouraged, and continues to pursue the project.  There’s a way to do this that makes sure the community gets the project, that the neighborhood wishes are respected, and the best practice model of having onsite property management in these low-income housing models is in place.  

More concerning was the apparent lack of understanding of the Urban Renewal federal housing programs. It appeared that the Council came to the conclusion that there was very little post-award public process and oversight by the City of Salem with any development project financed by federal dollars, which is simply not the case.  The City retains oversight over those dollars after they are awarded and has to sign off on project plans at critical junctures in the development process.  I have worked with the City very closely on these projects for several years, and they do a good job of making sure everyone is held to account.

Now let's turn to the process.  It wasn't just "kind of weird" for Council to decide a pending zoning (land-use) matter before it even went to the Planning Commission, it was wrong.

The issue before Council was whether or not to approve staff recommendation and adopt the Consolidated and 2020-2021 Action Plan.  Any decisions to withhold a federal grant for an eligible project for which there is adequate funding must be demonstrably unbiased and non-arbitrary.  This is especially true when the applicant is the area's only recognized CHDO and the award is within the federally mandated set-aside.  Council's decision fails this test.

First, at no point before, during, or after the public hearing did Councilor Kaser state for the record that she is married to Bradfield, and, with him, owns and occupies the house directly across from the property in question (see map below).

We asked her why she didn't disclose the information or declare a conflict.  This was her response:

Per City and State ethics rules, even though I own property across the street from this site, I don’t have an actual or potential conflict of interest for this specific legislative decision because a single pecuniary, or material, tangible “benefit” or “detriment” to myself or any family member is not known and speculative at best. 

But it's not at all clear that Council's decision was "legislative."  Decisions whether to grant or withhold HOME funds are governed by § 92.356 of the Code of Federal Regulations (among others).  Even if Kaser was correct that she wasn't bound to reveal her interests by Salem Revised Code, Title 1, Chapter 12 (City ethics rules), Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 244 (State ethics rules), she should have considered her obligations under the applicable Federal rules.  When she was asked whether she had, she declined to comment.  Bradfield, Kaser's husband, argued Council should not fund the DevNW project on behalf of "my household."  He did not declare Kaser to be a member of that household, and neither did Kaser.  At a minimum, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Second, Council's decision was in the nature of a land-use decision, rather than a legislative decision, as Councilor Kaser would have it.  Land-use decisions must be on the record in the land use proceeding, and untainted by ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest.  They also require that interested parties be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard.  Council's decision fails all aspects of this test.

City Councilors knew DevNW's rezone request would be at the Planning Commission July 21,  because City Attorney Dan Atchison told them so during the public hearing.  Council deliberately withheld funding for an eligible project in order to prevent the developer from pursuing the rezone -- a process it was legally entitled to pursue -- because they disapproved of the zoning change and wanted to circumvent the land use proceeding.  In essence, Council's decision was a land-use decision, even though it was not properly before them, was not free from the taint of ex parte contacts and conflicts of interest, and violated DevNW's right to due process before an impartial tribunal.  

Given the obvious impropriety of Council's actions and the prejudice to DevNW, one has to ask where was the City Attorney?  Was he taking advantage of the virtual meeting format to play Minecraft, or catch up on other work?  It is a mystery the answer to which may never be known, but one thing we do know.  He should have stopped Council at the very outset and informed them they could not withhold HOME funds for an eligible project except for a legitimate reason, which they didn't have.  He also  should have told them that DevNW had every right to seek the rezone, and, as it was a land-use matter, Council should keep their views to themselves and not discuss it unless and until the matter came before Council in due course. 

Fortunately for Salem, DevNW plans to appeal Council's daft decision.  This is not the first time the City's been in hot water over conflicts of interest in how it makes federal funding decisions.  See Brynelson, T. "City commission derailed over potential conflicts of interest." Salem Reporter, 16 November 2018; Bach, J. "Salem development commission may disband after feds raise ethics concerns", Statesman Journal, 20 December 2018.  And it probably won't be the last, given the astounding ignorance displayed during the public hearing.

And then there's the hypocrisy.  None of those Black Lives Matter speeches (Andersen, Nordyke, Hoy, Kaser) decrying the "crushing weight that 400 years of institutional, systemic, and personal racism has [had] on people of color" mean a damn thing when the same so-called "progressive voices" aren't willing to do more than advocate for change.  The first opportunity they had to actually vote against their privileged class interests in favor of housing and services for low-income families, what did they do?  They voted with the NIMBYs to maintain the status quo.  So predictable.  And so Salem.

6/29/20 update:  the July 21 hearing has been postponed at DevNW's request.  They will now be seeking a zone change to RH (multifamily high rise residential) with proposed conditions and submit  Site Plan Review and Design Review applications, to be consolidated with the zone change request.  The new design eliminates the onside management/services, adds 7 units (for a total of 21), and will require additional HOME funds.  DevNW will present details of the new plan at CANDO's virtual meeting on July 21st.  There will also be a presentation on the YMCA's veteran housing project.

7/8/20 update: see Harrell, S. "Why Salem City Council nixed an affordable housing development over an office space." (8 July 2020, Salem Reporter.)  In other developments, the City has agreed to reserve the funds set aside for the Evergreen Project pending approval of the new design plan or new project plan, obviating the need for an appeal.

8/6/20 update: the minutes of the May meeting of the Grant neighborhood association -- just published -- state with reference to the Evergreen Church project, "Cara [Kaser] stated that she will recuse herself from any involvement by City Council in this process and will assist the neighborhood in its response to the land use process."

 

9/15/20 update: Staff Report recommended approval of zoning change and new plans.  The September 21 hearing was postponed at DevNW's request.  "Grant NA Still Opposes Affordable Housing in Church Project" (14 September 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes) ("On the whole the Neighborhood's opposition to the proposal, framed as an "existential threat to the existing neighborhood," is exaggerated, and the result is a NIMBY move to preserve incumbency privilege.")  See also "Incumbency Privilege in the Historic Preservation Plan at Council Monday" (10 July 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes).

9/21/21 update:  Oregon Government Ethics Commission found probable cause to investigate Councilor Kaser's conduct in this matter as possible violation of ORS 244.120(2).

 

10/6/20 update:  Planning Commission unanimously approved staff recommendation as modified, except for condition 8 (trees).  See "Affordable Housing Project in 1928 German Baptist Church to Try Again at Postponed Hearing."  (4 October 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.) 

 

10/23/20 update.  Councilor Kaser entered into a stipulated final order with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission in which she agreed she'd violated ORS 244.120(2).  See November 6, 2020 Meeting Materials at page 123.

 

10/26/20 update:  Grant neighborhood association appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the DevNW project.  City Council to conduct a hearing November 23.  See "City Council, October 26th - German Baptist Church Decision."   (25 October 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.) 

 

11/2/20 update:  Councilor Kaser resigned two months before her term ended.

 

11/20/20 update:  Breakfast on Bikes slammed Kaser, City and Grant for their handling of the DevNW project.  See "City Council, November 23rd - Affordable Homes and German Baptist Church Project."   (20 November 2020, Salem Breakfast on Bikes.)   

 

11/24/20 update:  "Council OKs DevNW Project over Mayor/Grant Objection"  (24 November 2020.)  Harrell, S. "Former Salem city councilor faced ethics complaint for failing to disclose potential conflict of interest ." (23 November 2020, Salem Reporter.)

City Extends de facto Sit-Lie Ban to September

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Statesman Journal for Friday 19 June 2020

City Council voted Monday night to extend its March 17 C19 emergency declaration through August.  The declaration was initially set to expire at the end of April.  It was extended once to June 30.

Council's decision comes even as streets are closed downtown to allow more outdoor dining, and despite the City having entered  Phase 2 reopening. 

As Councilor Andersen noted last March, the declaration's prohibition on public gatherings amounts to a 24-7 sit-lie ban that's enforceable by arrest under SRC 95.550, doesn't require the City to provide alternative shelter, and isn't limited to business hours.  See "Sit-Lie meets COVID-19" and  Woodworth, W.  "Advocacy group: Salem violated Constitution, pushed homeless out using COVID-19 excuse"  (19 May 2020, Statesman Journal.) 

Councilor Nanke, who voted against the original declaration as well as City of Salem Resolution 2020-32, was the only one to question the continuing need to ban public gatherings.  

22 June 2020 City Council Meeting

"I know it [the emergency declaration] ties in with our sit-lie", Nanke said, turning to City Manager Steve Powers to ask what progress the City had made on the "accommodations" that need to be in place before the City can enforce the "sidewalk behavior" ordinance (aka "sit-lie", aka Ordinance Bill 6-20). 

Readers will recall that, by its terms, the City may not enforce its "sidewalk behavior" ordinance unless and until the City has made adequate shelter and toilet facilities available during the hours of enforcement.  Under the emergency declaration, the City is able to skirt those requirements -- and arrest violators -- in the name of public health.  

Powers' response indicated he either didn't understand what Nanke was asking, or preferred to talk about something else.   

The City continues to claim that the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency's ARCHES Project "recommended that groups camping on City sidewalks be required to disburse [sic] in order to protect the health of the individuals and help mitigate the spread of COVID-19."  See staff report in support of City of Salem Resolution 2020-32.  But, as discussed in  "Sit-Lie meets COVID-19",  that's not what MWVCAA's Director stated in his letter to the City.  His letter stated only that, "In this current public health crisis, the community should avoid large concentrations of the homeless population where they cannot hope to practice good hygiene."  Nanke's was the only "nay" vote.

In other news, Oregon continues to top the nation with the highest prevalence of adult mental illness, and the lowest rate of access to care.  See Mental Health in America, 2020 Adult Data.

51st - 2020
49th - 2019 
48th - 2018 
49th - 2017 
51st - 2016.

MWV Homeless Alliance Plan Needs Work

By Michael Livingston

The Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance (the Marion and Polk counties' Continuum of Care, or CoC) board adopted a strategic plan at its June 11 meeting.  The plan includes many elements outside the requirements of the federal CoC Program.  The discussion below outlines the CoC Program's core elements, identifies problems with the adopted plan, and explains how to align the two. 

HUD’s CoC Program

What a CoC is

HUD’s CoC Program is designed to provide services to help homeless individuals and families move into transitional and permanent housing, with the goal of long-term stability.
   

What is unique about the CoC Program -- and will be particularly challenging for the Alliance -- is that HUD expects a community participating in the CoC Program to think of its homeless services delivery system as a “continuum of care,” rather than an array of individual homeless assistance programs that operate independently from one another.

The model continuum of care includes all public and private programs in the continuum's geographic area that address homelessness, regardless whether the programs apply for HUD CoC funding, and CoC Program participation requires community-wide planning and the strategic use of all of those resources.

HUD expects that, in addition to analyzing the performance of individual projects and programs, CoC communities also measure their performance as a coordinated system.  For details, see CoC Program -- Introductory Guide.

Measuring a CoC's progress in housing the homeless

HUD assesses both the performance of individual projects funded with CoC Program dollars, and the performance of the continuum as a whole, by application of seven System Performance Measures (SPMs):

     (1) Length of time persons remain homeless; 

     (2) The extent to which persons who exit homelessness to permanent housing destinations return to homelessness; 

     (3) Number of homeless persons;

     (4) Jobs and income growth for homeless persons in CoC Program-funded projects;

     (5) Number of persons who become homeless for the first time; 

     (6) Homelessness prevention and housing placement of persons defined by Category 3 of HUD’s homeless definition in CoC Program-funded projects; and 

     (7) Successful housing placement.

For more information see CoC System Performance Measures in context 

NOTE:  HUD wants CoCs to focus strategically on housing those who are literally homeless, at imminent risk of homelessness, or fleeing domestic violence.  HUD therefore does not measure, and will not fund, programs aimed at prevention/Category 3 homeless (SPM #6) unless the CoC has applied for and received HUD approval. To date, no CoC has that approval. For more information see Introductory Guide to the SPMs​ and Determining "homeless" status of youth.

Where the System Performance Measure data comes from and how it is used

The SPM data --  for example, the "length of time persons remain homeless" --  comes from a CoC's Homeless Information Management System (HMIS), which is a computer software solution that complies with HUD’s data collection, management, and reporting standards. Oregon currently uses ServicePoint.  SPM data is the aggregate data derived from tracking the progress of individual clients through HMIS.  Example:  on 12/1/10, Salem Housing Authority moved client Z from the street to PSH (“permanent supportive housing”).  

Because SPMs are system-level measures, they reveal significant information about how well homelessness assistance programs are functioning and where improvements are necessary.  That's why HUD bases funding decisions on SPM data.  Communities can also use SPM data to evaluate and improve the performance of their homeless services delivery system.

Coordinated Assessment and Entry

Consistent with the expectation that CoCs engage in community-wide planning and ensure the strategic use of resources, HUD requires each CoC to establish a coordinated assessment and entry system.  The coordinated assessment and entry process uses a comprehensive, standardized assessment tool to prioritize the individuals who are most in need of assistance and then, based on the assessment results, refers them in a timely manner to appropriate housing and other services through a centralized, or coordinated, protocol.  Basically, it’s a “no wrong door” or “central waiting list” approach, in which a homeless person can go to any homeless services provider in the continuum and be assessed through the same tool and methodology so that referrals are consistently made and promptly completed across the community, and the most vulnerable move to the head of the line.   For more information see Coordinated Assessment and Entry.

The HUD CoC Program's 4-category definition of "homeless"

"Category 1" -- "Literally Homeless": An "[i]ndividual or family who lacks a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (i) Has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (ii) Is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living arrangements * * *; or (iii) Is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution."

"Category 2" -- "Imminent Risk of Homelessness": An "[i]ndividual or family who will imminently lose their primary nighttime residence, provided that: (i) Residence will be lost within 14 days of the date of application for homeless assistance; (ii) No subsequent residence has been identified; and (iii) The individual or family lacks the resources or support networks needed to obtain other permanent housing."

"Category 3" -- "Homeless under other Federal statutes":  Unaccompanied youth under 25 years of age, or families with children and youth, who do not otherwise qualify as homeless under this definition, but who: (i) Are defined as homeless under the other listed federal statutes; (ii) Have not had a lease, ownership interest or occupancy in permanent housing during the 60 days prior to the homeless assistance application; (iii) Have experienced persistent instability as measured by two moves or more in the preceding 60 days; and (iv) Can be expected to continue in such status for an extended period of time due to special needs or barriers."

"Category 4" -- "Fleeing [or] Attempting to Flee DV":  "Any individual or family who: (i) Is fleeing, or is attempting to flee domestic violence; (ii) Has no other residence; and (iii) Lacks the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing."

NOTE:  for the reason cited in the above note, the Alliance should strategically target those populations described in Categories 1, 2 and 4. 

  

The plan adopted by the Alliance

The opening sentence of the “PURPOSE” statement of the Alliance's Governance Charter commits the Alliance "to carry out the purposes of the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Continuum of Care program as defined 24 CFR Part 578."  The CoC Program requirements discussed above make it clear that the initial primary goal of a strategic plan for our new and untested CoC is to build an effective homeless services delivery system and a competitive CoC by: (a) establishing full geographic coverage; (b) rigorous application of the SPMs; (c) strict adherence to HUD’s definition of “homeless”; (d) continuum-wide participation in HMIS and Coordinated Assessment & Entry; and (e) a continuum-wide commitment to data quality.   It also follows from the PURPOSE statement that the Alliance’s priority endeavors should be those that directly align with both the SPM framework and HUD’s definition of “homeless.”  Application of these standards to the plan adopted by the board demonstrates that the plan is substantively deficient in a number of respects and that those deficiencies are not likely to be cured by any future "work plans" the Alliance's consultants may develop.

The plan's failure to align with the SPM framework and purpose 

Because HUD assesses the performance of a CoC's individual projects and the performance of the continuum as a whole by application of the System Performance Measures (SPMs), what can be measured and assessed by the SPM data determines, in effect, both the goals CoCs should pursue and the kind of programs and homeless services delivery system HUD expects CoCs to develop.  It is essentially for these reasons that, on May 20, Jimmy Jones (Executive Director of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency and a member of the Alliance's Board) sent an email to his fellow Board members, which began with the following observation:

The issue of our strategic plan came up at the Collaborative Committee meeting today.  I’m an ex-officio member of this Board, and I see my primary role as providing technical assistance to inform the Board on the choices in front of us.  I was deeply involved in ROCC planning, and I want us to avoid making the same mistakes that the ROCC made in previous years. Their biggest failure, in my view, was that they failed to take the single most important goal and work backward from that goal to create an action plan. 

In that email, he recommended that the Alliance "work backward" from the "priorities" in the NOFA that HUD issued in 2019, when our region was part of the Rural Oregon Continuum of Care (ROCC), and, "while taking a hard look at our systems," "create an improvement plan" that "becomes the heart of our strategic plan." (For more information, see 2019 NOFA , pages 50-67.)  The ROCC (“Your CoC”) scores on its 2019 NOFA application are set out and assessed in the HUD charts below.

The board did not consider the approach Jones recommended.  The board's plan takes a very broad approach, setting out a number of goals and "objectives" that do not align with the SPM framework, including: (a) “[s]ustain” the Marion County LEAD program;  (b) “[i]ncrease access and expand affordable housing units * * *”; and (c) “[s]upport * * * efforts to create a sobering center in the Salem area.” (Plan, pages 14, 21).  These goals and objectives may benefit the community and contribute indirectly to housing homeless individuals, but, their outcomes cannot be measured and assessed by SPM data.  For example, the CoC could never demonstrate by reference to aggregate SPM data from HMIS that those endeavors, in fact, had assisted identified individuals and families who are “homeless” under HUD’s definition to move into stable permanent housing.  Statements in the plan to the effect that they are “related” to one or more of the SPMs do not change that reality, and they are based primarily on unidentified and unsupported assumptions (e.g., Plan at pages 9, 21).  Indeed, the plan's use of the undefined term "related" is a tacit acknowledgment of that fact.  Instead of starting with goals and objectives that have been predetermined and then trying to make the SPMs fit them, the Alliance should have used SPMs to decide what the goals and objectives should be.

According to Jan Calvin, the consultant who seems to have done most of the work on the plan, the goal of increasing the number of affordable housing units is included in the plan in order to satisfy HUD's expectation that CoCs collaborate with public and private entities in the community, which -- unlike the Alliance -- do have the authority and capacity to develop affordable housing.  See CoC 101, pages 10, 11, 14.  If fulfilling that collaboration responsibility is the intent of the affordable housing goal, it is important to make that clear.  The plan simply states, "AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Increase access and expand affordable housing units to help fill the 15,000-household gap."  (Plan at page 5).  Other sections of the plan appear to confirm what that statement implies -- i.e., that the Alliance itself is taking on the task of developing affordable housing units.  (e.g., Plan at pages 8, 14, 15).   It is obvious that the problem with the framing and articulation of the affordable housing goal could be resolved by making it clear that the goal is to collaborate, and by assigning a priority to that goal that takes into account the more pressing tasks the Alliance must undertake in these early years.    
 

The plan's failure to align with the HUD CoC Program's definition of "homeless"

The Alliance's target populations are effectively limited to those described in Categories 1, 2 and 4 of the HUD CoC Program’s definition of “homeless.”  The target population references and descriptions in the Alliance’s strategic plan should both express and be consistent with that limitation.  As consultant Jan Calvin admitted in response to a question from board member Dan Clem during the June 11 meeting, the plan does not do that.  (e.g., Plan at pages 8, 12, 14, 15, 21, 22).  

Corrective Action

Many of the problems with the plan the board has adopted stem from the fact that it is based on a plan that was developed several years ago in a different context and for another purpose.  They could have been avoided by developing a new strategic plan, the framework for which is built from the ground up based on the HUD CoC Program’s requirements and the System Performance Measures.  The board still could do that, using the approach Jones recommended.   

   

An alternative, albeit less desirable, solution is to restructure the plan by creating two categories for the plan's goals and endeavors.  One category would include all the goals and endeavors that are aligned with the core requirements and expectations of HUD’s CoC Program, particularly the SPM framework and HUD's definition of "homeless."  The other category would include the remaining goals and objectives the Alliance wished to pursue that are authorized by the Governance Charter -- for example, collaborating with programs in the community that have the capacity and authority to develop affordable housing. Such a restructuring would serve to organize and prioritize the Alliance’s goals and to focus the Alliance's attention and limited resources on essential tasks.​

News from the Continuum

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

 

Outreach workers from The ARCHES Project set up tents in a Salem park.  Photo courtesy The ARCHES Project. 

This week, as protests against police brutality and systemic racism continued for a third week and the number of COVID-19 infections surged in Marion County, the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA) began shutting down its program isolating more than 100 medically vulnerable homeless in hotel/motels, and the MWV Homeless Alliance adopted a strategic plan.

As discussed in a recent post (see "MWV Homeless Alliance Launches in Pandemic"), the Alliance plan is the latest version of a plan adopted in 2017 by the Mid-Willamette Homeless Initiative Task Force.  Staff say it is intended to be "a living document", whatever that means.  Board members have  expressed concern that the forty-page plan is overly ambitious, or worse, "boiling the ocean", and doubts about the connection between plan goals and HUD's "System Performance Measures" (SPMs).  (SPMs are based on narrowly-defined, client-specific data collected in ServicePoint, Oregon's Homeless Management Information System or HMIS.)  As with the 2017 plan, it's unclear who or what will be responsible for execution, if anyone.  For complete plan analysis, see "MWV Homeless Alliance Plan Needs Work."

The week began with the same City Council that enacted bans on camping, sitting and lying on sidewalks and public rights of way issuing a proclamation claiming that the City "at all times strives for justice, freedom and equity" and "does not tolerate any violation of anyone's civil and human rights."  Notwithstanding that declaration, three councilors (all of whom proudly voted for the bans), called for "a systematic review of [police] policies and training that facilitate fairness, justice and accountability."  A fourth called for the police, future councils and department heads to undergo  anti-(racial)bias training.  Council did not, however, join city and county councils across the U.S. and officially recognize systemic racism as a public health emergency (see Singh, M. "'Long Overdue': lawmakers declare racism a public health emergency."  (12 June 2020, Guardian.))   

Remember six months ago, how "amazed" Mayor Bennett was that Councilor Leung could suggest anyone on the Salem police force might have "some sort of inappropriate relationship with the public they serve", because he himself had never heard such a complaint, despite having just been informed by Leung, the sole person of color on the Council, that she had received such complaints and found them credible?  See "Too Long...Don't Get It."     

Tom Andersen, Ward 2, at the End White Silence rally on June 13.  Photo courtesy @Clypian.

As we write this, Councilor Andersen is at the Capitol telling the crowd, “I am a privileged white male. Racism is my problem. Racism is a city council problem.”  He says he wants to make changes at Council.  Maybe he should start by repealing sit-lie, which was opposed by Councilor Leung (only) and by Latinos Unidos Siempre, Mano a Mano, PCUN, RJOC, American Friends Service Committee, Planned Parenthood, Safe Routes Partnership, Oregon Law Center and Disability Rights Oregon, among others.

Disability Rights Oregon hasn't let the issue go.  In May, the group expressed concern about the City's "misguided" approach to dealing with street homelessness by enacting camping and sit-lie bans and their "detrimental impact to persons with disabilities, particularly unsheltered individuals with serious mental illness."  See Woodworth, W.  "Advocacy group: Salem violated Constitution, pushed homeless out using COVID-19 excuse"  (19 May 2020, Statesman Journal.)  The City's self-serving reply claimed Council was "compelled to take action to slow the spread of COVID-19 and protect the health of all in our community."

Protecting something more important is the consummate, perennial excuse: I have nothing against multi-family housing, I just want to preserve neighborhood property values.  Councilor Ausec told Chief Moore and the Council Monday night that he thinks the community values life and liberty more than property, so police should, too.  Councilor Ausec was absent when Council enacted sit-lie.  He did not seek reelection.