How to Shed a City Manager*

 *for the low, low price of $256,000.

The shambolic firing of Salem City Manager Keith Stahley by Mayor Julie Hoy. 

To her backers, Julie Hoy's name and civic ignorance made her the ideal candidate to replace Ward 6 City Councilor Chris Hoy after he elected Mayor.  She was elected by a narrow margin in 2022.  As a Councilor, her stubborn and vocal disbelief in the City's General Fund deficit and refusal to support any revenue measures were instrumental in forcing the City to make painful cuts to services, and made her an attractive candidate to beat Chris Hoy in the 2024 Mayoral race.

Hoy's particular antipathy for Stahley can be traced to April 2024, just after she beat Chris Hoy in the race for Mayor, when Stahley failed to respond in the proper spirit to her efforts to promote a Salem tire shop for a city contract.  See McDonald, A. "Julie Hoy's efforts to promote tire business prompted city ethics warning." (11 April 2024, Salem Reporter.)  That episode no doubt informed the subsequent decision to audit of the City Manager's office, which resulted in an unfavorable audit report.  See Alexander, R and Siess, J. "Report faults Salem city manager's leadership, urges changes." (19 December 2024, Salem Reporter.)  In the weeks that followed the report, Hoy engaged in questionable communications about Stahley's leadership with Councilors Gwyn, Matthews, Nishioka and Varney (a majority of council).  These communications are now before the Oregon Ethics Commission, which has yet to make a probable cause determination.  As a result of said communications, Nishioka, who happens to be Council President, paid Stahley a visit to let him know that the Mayor had told her she had a majority of Council ready to ask for his resignation.  Stahley submitted his letter of resignation a couple of days later.  

News of the resignation broke the next day during the lunch hour.  See Siess, J. "Stahley out as Salem city manager." (10 February 2025, Salem Reporter.)  That evening, in executive session, the City Council voted to accept Stahley's resignation.  On the third day, the issue rose again.  See Siess, J. "Mayor Julie Hoy set in motion events that led to Keith Stahley's abrupt resignation." (13 February 2025, Salem Reporter.)  Our first post on this story, soon to be deleted, followed "Councilor Micki Varney breaks the silence about city manager's resignation", and the February 15 press release from the City Attorney's office:

 City Attorney's Office Statement

Questions have been raised concerning potential public meeting violations relating to the events leading up to the resignation of former Salem City Manager Keith Stahley. Those concerns are based on an inaccurate understanding of those events.  As City Attorney I was asked for guidance from members of Council concerning this matter. Based on my knowledge of this matter and 18 years advising the City concerning Oregon public records law, I am confident that no public meetings laws were violated and all members of City Council acted consistent with advice from the City Attorney concerning Oregon public meeting laws:

• Mayor Julie Hoy had individual communications with different members of City Council concerning Keith Stahley's performance and potential separation from the City.
• Prior to those communications, Mayor Julie Hoy consulted with me, as City Attorney. I advised the Mayor that one-on-one conversations with other members of Council did not violate public meeting law or constitute "serial meetings." It is my understanding that the Mayor did not attempt to coordinate a collective decision among members of council through her individual discussions with councilors.
• As part of her effort to communicate with members of City Council concerning this issue, Mayor Julie Hoy spoke on the phone with Councilor Nishioka.
• After meeting with Mayor Julie Hoy, Councilor Nishioka decided to discuss this subject with Keith Stahley.
• At that meeting, Councilor Nishioka asked Keith Stahley if he would consider resigning.
• Councilor Nishioka never said that she was City Council's "duly authorized representative" or implied she was speaking on behalf of City Council.
• Keith Stahley emailed his resignation letter to the City Attorney on Sunday evening, February 9, 2025. By Monday morning the 10th, he had removed his personal effects from his office, including removing his nameplate from the door and left his City-issued mobile phone and key on his desk. He informed staff he would not be in the office on Monday.
• Keith Stahley was only eligible for severance benefits if the Council asked him to resign or terminated him.
• Stahley's resignation letter stated that Nishioka said she was "the duly authorized representative of City Council" acting on Council's behalf. That language is straight from Stahley's employment agreement concerning severance benefits. Stahley used that exact language apparently because it was consistent with the language in his employment agreement concerning his eligibility for severance, not because Nishioka ever uttered those words.
• Prior to the City Council meeting on Monday, February 10, 2025, Council conducted an executive session to consider Keith Stahley's resignation. The discussion that occurred at that executive session is confidential and may not be disclosed, even by members of Council. That executive session was the first instance where Council collectively discussed Mr. Stahley's resignation.
• At the City Council meeting, Council accepted Stahley's resignation and deemed his resignation to be at the request of Council. City Council took that action, in that manner, to allow Stahley to receive severance benefits, in recognition of his service to the City and the circumstances of his resignation.

Our comment was not posted here, but directly to the CANDO Archive FB page, which has since been repossessed by the neighborhood association.  (See here.)

Go Joe Siess and Salem Reporter--we sure aren't going to get the whole truth on Mayor Julie Hoy's shambolic firing of the City Manager without their continued pressure. It is now clear that Hoy either violated Oregon Public Meeting Law in determining that a majority of Council secretly agreed he should be axed (the latest statement from City Attorney Dan Atchison* notwithstanding), or she lied to or misled Councilor Nishioka to that effect. Councilor "who will rid me of this terrible priest" Nishioka should have put the public interest over her own long before now and said what she knows. Councilor Nishioka, we are WAITING. 

 

*Atchison wants us to believe Stahley lied in his resignation letter, that Nishioka did NOT represent to him that a majority of Council wanted him out, and by implication that resigning was his own idea (voluntary), which would mean he was NOT entitled to a quarter million severance under the Contract! So, Mr. City Attorney, are you saying, in effect, that Council GAVE AWAY a quarter million tax payer General Fund dollars to a former employee who was FRAUDED into resigning because they felt--what, generous? guilty? And without ANY PUBLIC INPUT in the middle of a General Fund BUDGET CRISIS?

These people. Anyway, thanks Joe and Salem Reporter. [15 February 2025]

Our next post on FB: 

We had all better hope and pray we don't have a situation that calls for City Leadership any time soon--because we obviously ain't got any right now. (Sorry, Dan) You fired the paid guy, Mayor and City Council, it's past time to step into the void you created and face your constituents! We need answers! And if we lose the Salem Public Library (Salem, OR) or Center 50+ or Parks because of a failure of confidence in your obviously amateurish judgment, you have only yourselves to blame! [16 February 2026]

Then, along with Nishioka's "press release" on February 16, in which she denied telling Stahley she represented the City Council, we posted to FB:

Among the many observations to be made about this self-contradictory statement [of Nishioka's] is that if I, the President of the City Council, go to speak to the City Manager and "communicate" that "Mayor Julie Hoy told me that a majority of councilors believed [he] should consider resigning", I can't credibly claim I did not "tell [City Manager] I represented the City Council", now can I?

The next day, Salem Reporter published, "City reverses course, saying councilor never asked city manager to resign" and we posted:

What's on our mind? Direction via indirection. How powerful people let it be known what the answer wants to be. So the City is crawling all over itself to craft a version of events that explains how the City Manager Keith Stahley voluntarily resigned in the utterly mistaken belief he had been told to do so, after the Council President came to him and told him that "Mayor Julie Hoy had told me that a majority of councilors believed he should consider resigning" (President's very own words, not City Attorney's crafty interpretation). This, friends, is called direction via indirection. The classic example is Henry II, who let it be known he was unhappy with a certain "turbulent" or "meddlesome" priest. In that case also, no one could agree just what was said. A contemporary account has it that his minions understood the priest was to be dispatched 12th century style after he said, "What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?" More recent examples of direction via indirection abound, ref. the First Reign of King Donald. We all know this is how people with power operate, what's galling is that City Leadership (Mayor, City Attorney, Council President) try to pretend otherwise. 18 February 2025

After six weeks waiting for the City to respond to public records requests and for Joe Siess to sift through it and gather official comment, as much as is likely ever to be shared with the peasants public was shared.  See Seiss, J. "Records reveal Nishioka wanted to sue Hoy after Stahley resigned." (25 March 2025, Salem Reporter).  The consensus over on Reddit was that Julie Hoy, who has been utterly silent on the matter, should resign. See r/SALEM, City Council Beef.  But that is not something that people like Julie Hoy do, certainly not before it is known whether this affair will be what kills the livability levy in May.  If it does fail, and there are drastic cuts to library, Center 50+ and parks services, she might  take some responsibility, but she probably won't, and she certainly won't resign.   

Whatever Happened to CANDO?

When Michael announced last summer that we were planning to retire from the (let's face it) moribund "development organization" called CANDO, Councilor Nishioka was the only one who seemed surprised.  I mean, anyone paying attention had to have known it was coming, but of course few were.  If you're a neighborhood association, this is what it means to be moribund.  

The City of course knows that monthly in-person and video-conferenced public meetings that are the raison d'etre of neighborhood associations are an inefficient and unnecessary medium for routine communications, but the neighborhood association structure is not there for communication.  It's there for one reason only:  to give a platform to single family homeowners seeking to thwart unwanted development in their neighborhood.  CANDO, consisting as it mostly does of renters, workers, homeless and businesses (including churches, GOs, NGOs and for-profits), mostly lacks this essential constituency.  Moreover, its businesses have their own quango groups, like the Downtown Advisory Board (DAB), Main Street Salem and the Chamber.  You'd better believe that when City Council wants to hear from central area constituents, that's who they listen to.  We know this because we've attended hundreds of City Council and Budget Committee meetings and because we worked for CANDO for 10+ years.  

Leading any group, and by leading is meant scheduling meetings, planning agendas, running meetings, taking and publishing minutes, executing decisions (writing letters), responding to complaints, filing reports, administering funds, applying for grants, all that takes a certain amount time and effort, depending on your standards.  There's often someone willing to take the chair,  but few volunteer to do the scut work.  That's what we did--the scut work.  We started the CANDO Archive not because we wanted more to do, but because we kept getting the same questions, over and over, about CANDO's homeless residents and why wasn't the City "doing anything about it."  People read what we wrote.  Some disapproved, of course, but there was more interest in CANDO's FB page after we started posting pieces from the Archive, and it attracted >800 followers.  By 2015 it was clear to us that "the issue" for central area residents wasn't preventing unwanted development, but homelessness. 

Today, of all our work, the only thing worth saving is the Archive.  We had planned to continue publishing through FB page, which was repurposed to CANDO Archive last fall after no one wanted to take it over, but--things change.  

 

The repurposed CANDO FB page

"CANDO, Salem Oregon is now CANDO Archive. There are no plans to change the content or administration of the page, but the semi-official connection with City-sponsored development organization has ceased. Like other City-sponsored neighborhood groups, CANDO has long been, to quote Mayor Bennett, moribund.  At CANDO’s Annual Meeting on October 15, two board members retired and two were reelected to the Board. No other individuals were nominated. There were no nominations for office at the regular meeting that followed. Given the absence of duly elected officers willing and able to shoulder the responsibility for routine administration, the regular meeting of the Board is suspended until further notice. Contact Irma Coleman, Neighborhood Program Manager at icoleman@cityofsalem.net with questions or to volunteer."  [31 October 2024 FB post]

 

Neighborhood Program Manager (liaison to the City's 17 neighborhood associations who  enforces rules, doles out funds, etc.) Irma Coleman apparently decided to put CANDO on life support.  In January, she held a meeting at the library where a whopping 19 people showed up (really, 19 is a huge meeting for most NAs).  In subsequent meetings, state Rep. Nancy Nathanson (Dist. 13, Eugene)'s legislative assistant Spencer Rosenau was elected to be the new chair (those polisci majors do need to pad their resumes) and longtime CANDO resident, SKSD teacher and former CANDO chair and board member Rebekah Engle came out of retirement to vice the helm and repossess the FB page for CANDO.  From the absence of minutes of those meetings, it would appear that Irma was unable to snag anyone to fill the labor-intensive position of secretary/treasurer, which should come as no surprise.  If CANDO had any quality of life that was worth sustaining, we would wish them luck, but life support in this case is really just a waste of City resources and citizens' time.  We know.  

When is a shed = shelter?

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

 

"Ambiguous Sleeping Locations"

Why, when Janet Carlson says it is!

Janet Carlson is the paid Board Administrator for the Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance and its weird twin, the ORS 190 Entity.  Let's call them the Alliance.  See "MWV Homeless Alliance Launches in Pandemic."  (25 May 2020)

In addition to being the Alliance's Board Administrator, Carlson is also a former Marion County Commissioner.  She lives in Idaho.  

Last week, Carlson authorized Jan Calvin, a paid Alliance consultant/contractor who lives in Salem, to reverse the decision of the Alliance's Point-in-Time Count (PIT) Workgroup co-chairs that those sleeping in Salem's "micro-shelters" on Portland Road NE should be counted as "unsheltered" for purposes of the PIT Count.  This blog will explore the reasons for and implications of the reversal.

The Alliance is a "Continuum of Care" organized in 2020 to carry out the purposes of HUD's CoC Program, described in 24 CFR Part 578.  Conducting the PIT Count is one if its responsibilities.  However, the Alliance assigned that responsibility to the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA), which happens to be the Alliance's duly designated "Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) Coordination Entity."  

One of the PIT Workgroup co-chairs works for Church at the Park, which operates Salem's "micro-shelter" program, and the other works for MWVCAA/The Arches Project.  Their decision was based on HUD guidance and an inspection.  First the guidance:  HUD allows persons sleeping in "ambiguous sleeping locations" such as Salem's "micro-shelters" to be counted as sheltered when they are:

...[O]n a campus maintained by an organization, such as a governmental entity, nonprofit, or religious organization, where toilets, showers, and communal food preparation or food service areas are provided.  CPD Notice 21-12, 15 November 2021 at page 29.

However, "special considerations" apply, namely, "the campus must have enough toilets and showers per capita for the resident population within a reasonable distance from the units to count the residents as sheltered", and, because Salem's "regular seasonal patterns fall below 32 degrees or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit"), "the unit must have heat or air conditioning to be counted as sheltered."  CPD Notice 21-12.

The inspection of 2640 Portland Road NE ("Village of Hope" or DMV) found built-in heat, but only 1 toilet per 13 residents and 1 shower per 65 residents.  Conclusion:  not enough toilets or showers to count as "sheltered."  The inspection of 3737 Portland Road NE (CCS) found 1 toilet per 9 residents and 1 shower per 7.5 residents, but portable heaters (extension cords) for leaky, sometimes moldy, units.  Conclusion:  heating insufficient to count as "sheltered" (cooling capacity not mentioned).    

The decision to reverse was not based on an inspection, but on "information from other CoC's [sic] and consultation with HUD."  Reasons as such were not given, but the text of the email communicating the decision (set out in its entirety at the end of the blog) seems to say that reversal was required by the absence of HUD-established "ratio-based criteria" as to how many showers and toilets are "enough" (though others have figured this out), and HUD standards for whether Salem's "regular seasonal patterns fall below 32 degrees or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit" (she must have missed Salem's years-long controversy over warming).  In sum, the consultant/contractor found: 

The resources invested in these emergency sheltering communities move people from unsheltered to a place with sufficient weather protection and sanitary accommodations to consider them sheltered.  [Emphasis added.]

The first thing one notices about the decision to reverse is that it seems to be a policy decision made by contractors.  Contractors who religiously bring such routine decisions as accepting committee members' resignations to the Board.  Yet this decision was not taken to the Board.     

Another thing that stands out is that their decision gave no deference whatsoever to, or even acknowledged the role of, the Alliance's PIT Workgroup or its HMIS Coordination Entity, to whom the Alliance had given responsibility for the PIT.  It even suggests that the co-chairs' decision was  somehow a "discount" of Salem's "efforts to move individuals and families toward housing stability."  Such disrespect, and that is not too strong a word here, is contrary to the Alliance's mission and purpose, the success of which depends utterly on gaining the goodwill and cooperation of homeless services providers whose committee work is in addition to all their regular duties, which goodwill and cooperation is by no means guaranteed at this point in the Alliance's development.  Trust and cooperation are not built by politically-motivated, ham-handed tactical maneuvering.  

The last thing worth a mention is that, by reversing the co-chairs' decision, the contractors removed a perhaps strong incentive to address the defects that the co-chairs identified and thereby improve the situation for program participants.  Want the "micro-shelter village" to qualify as emergency shelter?  Bring in more toilets and showers.  Do something about the heating situation.  In other words, the decision to reverse may well have hurt those the Alliance exists to help.      

The Alliance might have, but has not so far, developed minimum standards for what constitutes "emergency shelter."  Thus the contractors' decision has implications beyond the PIT in that it will, in all likelihood, mean that Salem's "micro-shelters" will be classified in HMIS and counted as "emergency housing" for purposes of the Housing Inventory Count (HIC), along with UGM Men's Mission, UGM's Simonka Place, Safe Sleep United, The Arches Inn, Sheltering Silverton, Family Promise, etc.  Thus, the contractors' decision is likely to affect the Alliance's "statistics" in non-trivial ways -- for example,  its HMIS bed coverage rate, bed usage rate and system performance metrics.

The contractors' decision will also affect the way Salem looks at Salem's "micro-village" program outcomes.  Church at the Park (CATP) operates Salem's "micro-villages" with periodic grants from the City of Salem.  CATP has indicated variously that its goal is to move participants to "more permanent housing destinations", "positive destinations", "positive exit destinations", and "more permanent locations", and uses the below chart to illustrate.

 

The chart implies participants are moving from CATP's "managed sites" (which include duration warming (= sheltered) and vehicle camping (= unsheltered)) into housing of some sort.  A Statesman Journal story reported 18 people moving from the DMV site into "stable housing" and "67% of households [sic]" from CCS had moved into "more permanent destinations."  Woodworth, W. "Salem officials consider next sites for micro-shelter villages for homeless."  (3 January 2022, Statesman Journal.)  Councilor Phillips said at the 18 January work session, "The testimony from DJ Vincent during our last session in terms of the first year metrics on the micro-shelter sites that are managed is that we ended homelessness for about a hundred people" (at 22') and was not corrected.  In short, Salem thinks managed sites are moving people into housing.  

In fact, based on HMIS information provided by CATP, most program (both DMV and CCS) participants exiting to "more permanent locations" have exited to something other than the three housing classifications shown on the above chart, whether to emergency shelter, hotel, residential treatment facility or detox, friends or family (hardly more permanent).  Thus only 15% of DMV exits  (versus the reported 37%) and only 14% of CCS exits (versus the reported 61%) were to the type of housing advertised [figures revised 1/27/22 to correct math error].  The figures would like be even lower if calculated by household, but CATP did not provide that information.  See the chart at the end of the blog [revised 1/27/22]. 

Classifying "micro-villages" as "emergency shelter" would make moving from them to other forms of emergency shelter a lateral move, not "more permanent."  Those thinking, well, we all know "micro-villages" are subpar shelter must bear in mind that HMIS does not recognize gradations in the quality of emergency shelter.  In HMIS, ES is just ES.

CATP "Micro-Shelter Communities" FAQs

The big unanswered question here is why CATP feels the need, if it does, to be classified as an emergency shelter, or to prove that "micro-villages" are "an effective strategy to reduce homelessness."  Is it not enough that they offer some degree of comfort and safety?  That they offer folks who have difficulty meeting social demands of Salem's emergency shelters a way to reconnect?  See Harrell, S. "Relationship building is key to Church at the Park’s model in tackling homelessness."  (6 December 2021, Salem Reporter.)  Certainly, few true emergency shelters could prove they are an effective strategy to reduce homelessness, nor do they feel the need.  They just do the best they can.  Perhaps if CATP had not felt this unnecessary pressure to be what it is not, and to prove what probably cannot be proved, this controversy would not have arisen.  While it is still possible to correct this bad decision,  people have their ideas and people are stubborn.   

No doubt some will try to have it both ways -- that is, count the "micro-villages" as emergency shelter and count a move from them to a true emergency shelter as "more permanent."  And that's fine, if what we want to do is game the system so as to paint the rosiest possible picture for public consumption in order to make providers and donors and government officials, etc. feel better.  The alternative would be to focus on getting the best information one can about Salem's homeless services delivery system, and then communicating that information with as much focus as possible on the nature and extent of the problems, so that those problems can be addressed.  Nothing about this is easy.  Salem needs less obfuscation and cheer-leading, and more clear vision and leadership.  

 

text of Jan Calvin's 1/19 decision

 

Church at the Park's HMIS-sourced Report + Our #s in pink

 

Should Salem Bar Discrimination Based on "Housing Status"?

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Salem's Human Rights Commission thinks so, and it's ever so politely asked City Council to "Explore adoption of housing status as a protected identity within the Human Rights Chapter of the Salem Revised Code."  (SRC Chapter 97.)  Councilor Stapleton is expected to move to accept the HRC's recommendation at the first meeting of 2022.  If Council agrees, as seems likely, it would then direct staff to come back at a future date with draft code amendments.  

According to a December 8, 2021 memo (embedded below), the HRC is concerned about reports of people experiencing homelessness being subjected to violence, including being urinated on while sleeping, and excluded from public accommodations "without a behavioral reason."  The HRC wants the City to provide protections for people experiencing homelessness from acts of intimidation as defined by SRC 97.080 Intimidation (making certain acts unlawful) and a "reporting mechanism for micro-aggressions and bias incidents."  

Merriam-Webster defines micro-aggression as "comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority)."  The acts prohibited under SRC 97.080 all have an element of intentionality (intentionally, knowingly, recklessly).  The City would have to make micro-aggressions and mere bias strict-liability offenses in order to make them unlawful, and that it will never do for reasons that should be obvious.  Providing a mechanism to report acts that are not unlawful is not only impractical, it would surely create unrealistic expectations of the City and further disappointment in its response to homelessness.  For this reason, any reporting mechanism the City stands up should be focused on allegations of unlawful conduct.      

The HRC considered that two other cities prohibit discrimination based on housing ("homeless") status.  Madison, Wisconsin, Code of Ordinances, Sec 39.03 Equal Opportunities Ordinance prohibits the denial of equal opportunity in housing, employment, public accommodations and City facilities on the basis of homelessness, defined as "the status of lacking housing (without regard to whether the individual is a member of a family)", including shelter and transitional housing residents.  Louisville, Kentucky, Metro Ordinance, Sec 92.03 Unlawful Practices in Connection With Housing, bars discriminatory housing practices on the basis of homeless status, and defines homeless as lacking "a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence", including shelter and transitional housing residents.  

It may be argued that amending SRC Chapter 97 will have little, if any, practical effect on homelessness in Salem, but the same could be said for Mayor Bennett's contentious, never-implemented sit-lie ordinance (see "Sit-Lie Passes, But Will Cost"), which left many in the community feeling disgusted with the Mayor and Council's leadership.  Sit-lie was a stupid and wrong thing to do, and some act of contrition is called for.  Amending SRC Chapter 97 to include people perceived to be experiencing homelessness would be a good start.   

 

1/6/22 Update:  Councilor Stapleton's Motion

Hlessness to Remain City's #1 Priority

 By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

November 15, 2021 Policy Agenda Work Session

"Addressing Homelessness" will continue to be the No. 1 priority in 2022, Council agreed this week during the work session on the Council Policy Agenda.  Tension continues between the City Manager's need for City programs to be financially sustainable and the Council's need to spend free homeless $$ before spending deadlines expire.  But their wish list* is fiscally breathtaking:  continue and expand organized pallet structure and vehicle camping programs, fund sobering center operations, implement a CAHOOTS-style program and hire dedicated City staff (e.g. social workers, homeless liaison).  Briefly recapping the financial realities:  the $10.5M from 2HB 5006 (2021 Session) must be spent by July 2023. The grant agreement provides the funds shall be used for "sheltering", defined as "site acquisition, preparation, and temporary or permanent shelter purchase" or "operating costs for potential shelter sites, unsheltered site cleanup, sobering center, or crisis response."  The $8.1M set aside from the City's ARPA funds must be spent by December 2024.  Of that $8.1M, $3M was spent to purchase the navigation center, $.5M was spent to purchase the Arches Inn (the name of the 80-room Project Turnkey hotel purchased by the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency), and the remaining $4.6 is designated for "sheltering programs" such as the two on Portland Road that offer pallet structure and vehicle camping.  See the work session staff report.  

Council spent one full hour of the two set aside for the work session in a rambling exchange that revealed unfamiliarity with key terms such as "affordable housing" (generally defined as housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30% of gross income for housing costs including utilities**) and "Housing First" (contrary to apparent belief, hoping that people will move on to permanent housing from programs that provide, say, safe vehicle camping, a mat indoors on the floor overnight, or a pallet structure does not make those programs Housing First).  In the end, councilors resolved to try and get the word out through neighborhood and other civic associations about all the City is doing to address homelessness.  They really believe if only the public knew how "tirelessly" staff was working on the problem, we would stop being so mean about it.  

The influx of money + spending deadlines have apparently infused in Council (or some of them) a belief that the City has to "do it all" -- prevent, manage and end homelessness -- by any means that might be effective.  Questions of actual effectiveness (requiring metrics) and sustainability (requiring permanent funding sources) must be put to one side, they say, begging the additional question when, then, will these questions be taken up?  Those who donated funds ($250K) to purchase 50 pallet shelters, only to find out there is no place to put them, would probably like to know.  See 11/12/21 CMU Update.   

Council will take up the Policy Agenda again in January.       

* meaning programs not firmly agreed upon, such as the navigation center and the Arches Inn.

**Affordability calculations are pegged to Area Median Income (AMI) -- the income level at which  half the families in an area are earning more and half are earning less.  A housing unit that is "affordable at 80% AMI" is affordable (meaning rent + utilities cost no more than 30% of gross income) for a household earning at least 80% of AMI.  Housing that's affordable at 80% AMI is generally considered "workforce" housing whereas housing that's affordable at 30% AMI is considered "extremely low income" housing.   See Defining Housing Affordability.)  

House Passes State Limits on Camping/Sit-Lie Bans

 By Sarah Owens & Michael Livingston

Wikipedia Links

The arguments of Salem City Council and Marion County Commissioners against HB 3115, which provides that local law regulating sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to public must be objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regards to persons experiencing homelessness, failed to persuade House Democrats.  

Today HB 3115 had its third reading, carried by Power, and passed 36-22 along party lines.  The bill awaits its first reading in the Senate.  See  "City Opposes State Limits on Sit-Lie, Camping Bans"  (19 March 2021) for more on the bill and the "reasons" for opposition.  Maybe Council will have better luck in the Senate.

Open Letter to City Council re: HB 3115

To the Salem City Council:

Friday, the Legislative Committee agreed to recommend that the City Council oppose HB 3115 as written.  HB 3115 attempts to "codify" U.S. District Court's decision in Blake v. City of Grants Pass, which held that local laws regulating sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public must be objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regard to persons experiencing homelessness. 

HB 3115 provides in pertinent part that

Any city or county law that regulates the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public must be objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regards to persons experiencing homelessness.  (Emphasis added.)

HB 3115 allows 1) a homeless person 2) to bring a facial or as-applied challenge, and 3) receive attorney fees IF successful and IF the governing body received the required 90-day notice. 

HB 3115 is the result of a collaborative process that began last summer and that included representatives from the City of Salem.  HB 3115 "represents a working compromise between the Oregon Law Center, League of Oregon Cities, and the Association of Oregon Counties", according to Courtney Knox Bush of the City Manager's Office.  Its chief sponsor is Speaker Kotek. 

When the Leg Ctee first discussed HB 3115, City staff had two "primary concerns":  one, "our timeline is to get enough shelter space up...by 2023 and that timeline is not going to shift", two, "liability."  However, after Mayor made clear his opposition, staff came back to the Leg Ctee yesterday with a host of specious objections (set out in fuller detail at the end of this email).  Only three merit discussion.

One:  that the definition of "public property" is overbroad.  HB 3115 states that "public property" has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.705 ("public lands, premises and buildings, including but not limited to any building used in connection with the transaction of public business or any lands, premises or buildings owned or leased by this state or any political subdivision therein."  HOWEVER, the bill restricts only those laws that regulate outdoor public property that is open to the public.  Any further definition of "public property" must be determined by the local governing body in its ordinance or regulation.   

Two:  that the "standing" provision is overbroad.  HB 3115 states "a person experiencing homelessness may bring suit."  The bill does not allow one who is merely interested as a member of the general public to bring suit, but limits standing to persons currently experiencing homelessness, a fact-based issue that can itself be challenged in court, as it often is.  What the City truly objects to is not "standing", but that HB 3115 allows facial challenges and provides attorney fees in limited circumstances. 

Three:  the facial challenge and attorney fees provisions will promote "endless litigation."  In fact, HB 3115 is designed to have the opposite effect.  HB 3115 requires potential plaintiffs to provide governing bodies a minimum of 90 days' notice of intent to sue, including "actual notice of the basis upon which the plaintiff intends to challenge the law."  I know from experience that Salem's City Attorney knows very well how to dismiss a citation or obtain an ordinance amendment when faced with a sound legal challenge.  That is how HB 3115 is supposed to work.  The City of Salem should want its laws to conform to the requirements of Blake v. City of Grants Pass and HB 3115 permits those most affected by laws that do not conform to demand they do so.  The City of Salem should welcome that participation, not try to smother it.

The HB 3115 work group attempted but was unable to reach consensus on greater definition of the sort that the Leg Ctee now claims is needed.  That is precisely why the Leg Ctee are now calling for greater definition;  they know agreement on such definition isn't feasible.  It is also why the Leg Ctee will not be offering any specific amendments.  

HB 3115 is intended to, and hopefully will, bring local laws into compliance with Blake v. City of Grants Pass, so that local governments stop interfering with the constitutional protections of their homeless residents.  The City Council should be supporting the bill, or at least not opposing it, along with the Oregon Law Center, the League of Oregon Cities, and the Association of Oregon Counties, and many other organizations and individuals. 

Sarah Owens

CANDO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from the March 19, 2021 Legislative Committee Meeting

Courtney Knox Bush of the City Manager's Office: 

[HB 3115] is really broad in its reach...unclear in its scope and how that might lead to litigation to define some of the terms...the ordinance just has to be on the local government's books it doesn't have to be enforced if it's just present it's grounds for litigation...anyone has standing...public property is really broadly defined...the reasonableness standard potentially could impact things that would be viewed to have a time, place or manner impact that may seemingly be unrelated, so for example we have an ordinance that closes parks at sundown that could be something that could get caught up in this.  And so that's really where our concern is.

Councilor Andersen

What I'm interested in [is] the...standing, I mean it sure seems to me like it's the broadest standing I've seen and I'm also interested in the attorney's fees I mean all of those things don't sound like they're good for the City's efficient operation of what it needs to do with the understanding that we are doing what we can for homelessness on the streets and other things. 

Assistant City Attorney Marc Weinstein

My analysis and I think it's shared in the legal community is that when you take those issues together with the issues that Courtney mentioned there's a lot of vagueness within this, the scope of this bill, and together with the potential for really expansive standing rights to sue that this could lead to a lot of litigation, costly litigation, as cities attempt to get the clarification that is not in the bill.  The things that Courtney mentioned and that it unfortunately even though it's designed in theory to prevent litigation that is cities look to get that clarification that's not in the bill it's gonna actually wind up promoting litigation that's going to be very expensive and have a lot of impacts on the City's ability to manage the City effectively.  I don't mean that as in manage the unsheltered population, but just its everyday functioning of the City.

Salem Police Lt Aguilar

[HB 3115] would definitely affect us, especially given...the broad definition of public property...certainly we would need to do some work and really hone down what's really the intent of the bill and then how we would be able to work within it...we would support the bill but definitely with some amendments and some better definitions.

Courtney's sum up of the issues

The attorney fees, the standing, the broad reach, the lack of clarity in the scope as it pertains to what public properties are, and the reasonableness standard...

Marc's additions to Courtney's sum up

The clarity regarding the potentially very broad reach, the definition of public property, what constitutes reasonableness, what constitutes a person experiencing homelessness, and what it means to be a law that regulates the act of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property...

--

City Opposes State Limits on Sit-Lie, Camping Bans

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

Legislative Committee March 19, 2021 Meeting

The Legislative Committee today agreed to recommend that City Council oppose HB 3115 (which provides that local law regulating sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public must be objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regard to persons experiencing homelessness) unless it is amended, consistent with the March 9 letter from Portland Commissioner Dan Ryan to Representative Bynum, Chair of the House Committee on Judiciary.  That letter states that Portland 

[W]ould like to see a narrower definition for “public property” to ensure that local jurisdictions can place reasonable restrictions of the use of public space, specifically as it relates to environmentally sensitive land and structures like tents on sidewalks.  It is important that HB 3115 does not end up as an unfunded mandate on local jurisdictions. Additionally, it is important that this legislation not be a conduit for endless litigation.

City staff also told the Committee such a law might, for example, affect the City's ability to close parks  at sundown -- or even "manage the City effectively."   

The bill states that "public property" has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.705 ("public lands, premises and buildings, including but not limited to any building used in connection with the transaction of public business or any lands, premises or buildings owned or leased by this state or any political subdivision therein") and requires that

Any city or county law that regulates the acts of sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry outdoors on public property that is open to the public must be objectively reasonable as to time, place and manner with regards to persons experiencing homelessness.  (Emphasis added.)

One never would have known from the fifteen minutes or so that the Committee spent on HB 3115 that the City participated over the summer in the bill-drafting work group -- a group that, according to Commissioner Ryan's letter, reached "consensus on the importance of preventing criminalization of homeless individuals for living their lives in a public space."  Mayor Bennett, of course, did not participate in that work group.  He is fine with criminalizing homeless individuals for living their lives in a public space, regardless of the U.S. District Court's decision in Blake v. City of Grants Pass which HB 3115 is intended to implement.  He thinks the City's enforcement powers are already too limited, and he wants more, not less, authority to "chas[e] them around town."  See "House Bill Kills Mayor's Sit-Lie Buzz"  (4 March 2021).  So it was only natural that he, in his inimitable "I dunno, I'm just asking" fashion, kept pressing the Committee until there was agreement to recommend opposing the bill as writ, and to have someone in the City Attorney's office testify in opposition on the City's behalf. 

The Committee did not discuss the -1 amendment that's been proposed, which amendment would simply include state laws that regulate sitting, lying, etc., as well as city and county laws.  It is possible, but unlikely, the City will propose amendments, as opposed to writing a letter echoing Commissioner Ryan's letter and the ill-informed letter submitted by Marion County Commissioners in opposition to the bill.   

Open Letter to Salem City Council re HB 3115   

3/23/21 update: City Council approved all of the Leg Ctee's recommended positions without discussion. 

City Manager Steve Powers submitted written comment on HB 3115  to the House Judiciary Committee that included the below paragraph lifted from the Leg Ctee's report of March 19, 2021.

[I]n its current draft, the language in HB 3115 is overly broad and unclear.Without amendments, the bill will require extensive litigation to clarify the scope.  To avoid costly litigation which may restrict services to those most in need, amendments to HB 3115 would help to clarify the scope of the bill relating to the definition of public property, the type of laws the bill would affect, clarification of the reasonableness standard, and who has standing to bring a lawsuit against a local government under the law.  

The idea that HB 3115-related litigation "may restrict services to those most in need" is a new one, not discussed by the Leg Ctee.  Apparently, someone in the City Manager's Office thinks veiled threats to restrict homeless services are somehow persuasive.  

Later in the meeting, Council approved using the Portland Road winter shelter site for a managed vehicle- and pallet-structure camp from the end of March through the end of October.  See "News from the Continuum" (24 March 2021).  

3/25/21 update:  HB 3115 moved out of the House Judiciary Ctee without amendment, "do pass."

4/14/21 update:  Harrell, S. "Salem area officials worry bill to decriminalize homelessness will just lead to more litigation"  ( April 2021, Salem Reporter.) (no analysis, just a recitation of the "reasons" offered for opposition). 

4/15/21 update:  HB 3115 third reading.  Carried by Power.  Passed 36-22 along party lines.  Awaiting first reading in the Senate.

6/9/21 update:  HB third reading.  Carried by Dembrow.  Passed.  Ayes, 18; Nays, 10--Anderson, Boquist, Findley, Girod, Hansell, Johnson, Linthicum, Robinson, Thatcher, Thomsen; Excused, 2--Heard, Kennemer.

Mayor Bennett State of City

By Sarah Owens and Michael Livingston

 

Chuck Bennett's been in City government a long time.  And after eight years on Council and three years as Mayor, he's begun his second mayoral term.  His 2021 State of the City address was his fourth.  

 

Last year, Bennett's remarks on the City's "homeless crisis" were focused on persuading Council to enact a sit-lie ordinance.  Bennett believed that then-existing homeless services and shelters "remove any barrier or excuse for anyone to claim that camping on our community’s sidewalks represents a needed choice or situation." See "Mayor Bennett: State of City" (12 February 2020).

 

It is untenable that after decades of work and tens of millions of dollars to preserve our historic downtown as the vibrant commercial and residential center of this region, it is being jeopardized by the current unnecessary use of our public sidewalks for permanent, 24-7 unsheltered living space with all of the attendant health and safety problems and costs. There are no more excuses for letting this situation continue. The council needs to heed our police chief’s advice to enact a sit/lie ordinance.

 

A couple of weeks later, Council passed Ordinance Bill 6-20 on the first reading 7-1.  The City could ban sitting and lying during certain hours only if shelter and hygiene facilities were readily available, so the City made plans to put a big tent and chemical toilets in Marion Square Park at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars.  See "Sit-Lie Passes, But it Will Cost"  (9 March 2020).

 

Ordinance Bill 6-20 was due to become effective immediately on second reading, March 23, 2020, but C19 hit and the Governor called an end to gatherings of more than 50, then 25, then 10, making the tent solution unworkable and effectively killing Ordinance Bill 6-20.  A few days later, Council adopted City of Salem Resolution 2020-18 prohibiting “public gatherings” in “public spaces” and restricts public spaces to active pedestrian use. Violators could be arrested for trespass under SRC 95.550.  The resolution also suspended the camping prohibition (SRC 95.720) in all unimproved areas in Wallace Marine and Cascade Gateway parks.  

 

The park-camping suspension was extended several times and is now due to expire June 1, 2021.  See "City to Extend Park Camping to June 2021" (4 December 2020).  One of the extensions, Resolution 20-506, substituted the prohibition on public gatherings with a mask/social distancing requirement, and provided that "publicly owned sidewalks, including landscape strips, are limited to active pedestrian use", enforceable by trespass under SRC 95.550. So, the City still effectively bans sitting, lying and sleeping on sidewalks, it's just disguised as a C19 mitigation measure.  That the City has not, for a variety of reasons including C19 and Blake v. City of Grants Pass, seriously enforced the ban has been a source of great frustration to Mayor Bennett who, days before his State of the City address, was publicly complaining about the Liberty Street sidewalk outside Rite Aid being "a dump."  See "House Bill Kills Mayor's Sit-Lie Buzz"  (4 March 2021).  

 

From Mayor Bennett's standpoint, the main difference between the state of the City's homeless last year and this year was that, as much as he might have wanted to, he could hardly claim in 2021 that existing homeless services and shelters "remove any barrier or excuse for anyone to claim that camping on our community’s sidewalks represents a needed choice or situation."  So he made the claim indirectly, in a long speech-within-a-speech that lasted 10 minutes (entire address lasted one hour).  The text of the speech appears below in its entirety.

Mayor Bennett State of the City, March 10, 2021

First, he indirectly acknowledged that the electorate is upset with the City's inadequate response to the problem, and argued that the problem is nationwide, complex, under-resourced and growing, though his numbers are bad:               

Over the past several years, homelessness and its impacts has replaced by far any other issue on the public’s mind. No wonder. It’s disturbing on a basic humanitarian level to see our fellow residents living in what can be degrading, unsafe, unsanitary and deeply unfortunate conditions.  The homeless condition invites a range of reactions from scorn or fear to deeply held religious beliefs of personal responsibility to alleviate the situation.  There's a deep hope that there is some simple or universal solution.  What you learn as you get very close to this on a public policy level is that there isn't one thing in government that we can do to solve this problem.  It's truly an all-hands-on deck, all resources concentrated at the local level on this situation, and the price tag is well beyond what we have seen invested into mental health addiction, chronic health care, these needs and the truly affordable housing for every income level [sic].  Oregon is the seventh leading state contributing to the overall homeless population, sitting in order behind Massachusetts, Washington, Texas, Florida, New York and California.  In 2019, Marion County saw a 20% jump in the number of reported homeless individuals, moving from 1,218 to 1,422.  [This is not true.  The higher number appears to be the preliminary 2019 figure reported in the Statesman Journal linked here, though the article cites a total of 1,462, not 1,422. However, while the 2018 PIT Count showed 223 homeless persons in Polk and 995 in Marion, for a total in both counties of 1,218 -- the figure cited for Marion alone -- the final 2019 PIT Count showed 121 homeless persons in Polk and 974 in Marion, for a total in both counties of 1,095.  That's a difference of twenty-one persons, not 20%.  See "The Struggle to Count Bodies and Beds" (18 January 2021).]  Our homeless advocate groups expect the number to rise between 1500 and 1800 homeless people in Marion County today.  [Also not true.  The 1,800 figure is based on current HMIS data and has been cited for at least the past year as being more reliable estimate than PIT Count figures.]  That number is too high.  Based on interviews with people who are homeless in our region, many have untreated mental illness, addictions, and chronic health conditions worsened by long periods of homelessness.  Also some individuals have pre-existing barriers to housing, such as criminal history, evictions, and a poor rental history.  Providing shelter for someone who is experiencing chronic homelessness requires intensive case management and a network of community-based services.

Then he gave a kitchen-sink account of all efforts, no matter how remotely related, for which the City could take some amount of credit.  Message:  look at all the City is doing and stop complaining.

The City is currently working with our homeless service providers to increase shelter capacity, adding more permanent affordable housing units, and reducing barriers that lead to homelessness.  We are dedicated to finding solutions through a community-wide coordinated approach.  That means strengthening our crisis response systems as we advocate for state assistance, for more supportive housing as well as a navigation and sobering center.  It means retooling our criminal justice involvement through a mobile-crisis response structure that has trained professionals that can assist homeless individuals on the spot with direct access to addiction treatment, mental health counseling and health services.  We're asking again that the state support a sobering and a navigation center to help homeless persons access needed programs of all types, including mental health and addiction services and a variety of other programs that assist them out of their situation.  In addition to our collaborative long term planning agendas, Salem is involved in several current programs to help mitigate the homeless crisis.  Those include additional security services for downtown.  Last year the Salem Housing Authority opened Redwood Crossings, 37 units of permanent supported housing.  Salem Housing Authority owns and manages the property, contracting with Arches to support residents.  Salem Health leases six of the housing units for transitional respite care for homeless individuals coming out of the hospital or with long-term illness.  Salem Housing is securing funding for Sequoia Crossings, which will add about 75 units of permanent supportive housing to Salem.  It will own and manage the property, contracting with Arches to support residents.  The Homeless Rental Assistance Program HRAP, was launched in July 2017.  The City through the Salem Housing Authority has committed $2.1 million dollars to support the homeless rental assistance program.  It links chronically homeless individuals to housing, food, furnishings and social services.  HRAP has housed more than 300 individuals since its inception.  This, the largest Housing First program in Oregon, has had an 83% success rate moving homeless residents into permanent housing. The Salem Housing Authority operates a community partners property tax exemption program to encourage the inclusion of affordable units in market rate developments.  This program provides a tax exemption and requires the housing authority be designated as general manager in a five-year renewable partnership.  It's an agreement to achieve the tax exemption.  Salem Housing Authority does not become a partial owner or an active manager of the property.  It's really interest from apartment developers and owners who make this happen, and any who are interested are welcome to let us know. The City has created a temporary homeless shelter operating today at the Oregon State Fairgrounds in partnership with the State Fair Council, Mid-Willamette Community Action Agency, Church at the Park and other local homeless advocates.  The temporary homeless shelter offers a place for folks to sleep and shower for at least [up to] 100 residents in a socially distanced 30,000 square foot area.  The City also provides financial and staff support for the Salem Warming Network, which houses homeless individuals during the coldest nights of our winter.  We've worked to design overnight parking policies, allowing for an innovative safe vehicle parking program, permitting homeless people to safely park and sleep in their vehicles in designated parking spaces in the Salem area.  We've increased staff support for departments working on the homeless crisis in Salem, such as hiring a navigator at the Salem Housing Authority to work directly with our unsheltered population on the streets and in parks, learning how we can best support their needs and get them back on their feet.  There now are added patrols with the Salem Police Department and code enforcement checking on health and welfare of homeless individuals in public spaces.  We're trying to make sure that these folks are at least checked on regularly.  We are awarding more than $400,000 each year in grants to local non-profits to provide emergency assistance and essential services to Salem residents and families in need.  We're beginning a new permanent supportive housing units [sic] in structured small communities.  You'll hear more about that I think over the next several weeks.  The City is also providing short-term financial assistance with City of Salem utility bills for households experiencing financial hardships.  We're offering tax incentives to developers who will build affordable housing in our area, and we're adapting building standards for single-family property owners to add additional units on their property, such as a basement apartment or converting a single-family home into a duplex.  We are also providing more than 3,000 Salem households with affordable rent through our Salem Housing Authority.  That's 3,000 people who could be potentially homeless in this community.  We're pouring time and resources into understanding our region's growing homeless population, identifying subgroups including youth, families and older adults who need our support.  We're very active in the Mid-Willamette Valley Homeless Alliance, which is vice-chaired by our Council President Chris Hoy.  Ultimately, we're setting goals and adapting policies to meet a series of goals.  We need to reduce the need for sheltering in unsuitable locations that would include our City parks.  [Tents are not shelter.]  Reduce the average time a person is homeless --we're talking to people who've been on the streets for 10 to 15, 20 years.  Reduce the number of homeless individuals in our community -- just help more people get into housing.  Increase adult employment and the percentage of persons who become sheltered.

 

Thus, the robotically-delivered mini-speech ended.  There was no homeless death count for 2020.  No call for advocacy at the national level.  No mention of C19 or C19-related resources or their effect on the City's homeless policy decisions or spending.  No expression of understanding or regret for having led the opposition to a private, non-profit developer's quality low-income housing project.  "'I do not understand the Mayor'" (1 December 2020).  No wrap-up, no feeling, no inspiration, no perspective, no focus and no pause before starting into his next topic, the Police Department's "banner year."  Local coverage was blah blah blah. Whitworth, W.  "State of the City: Mayor Chuck Bennett talks homelessness, disasters and development."  (10 March 2021, Statesman Journal.)  Harrell, S. "Mayor points to city efforts to reduce homelessness in annual address."  (10 March 2021, Salem Reporter.) 

 

By all appearances, it would seem that Mayor Bennett, who continues to claim he has consistently pushed for long-term solutions to the City's homelessness, and is "A Mayor for All of Salem", is just going through the motions.  He continues to behave as though homelessness is neither his or the City's problem, and remains in 2021 just as stubbornly focused on how to get it off his plate and out of his view as he was in 2020.  

Bennett is a poor politician.  When Salem residents say "homelessness" is their No. 1 issue, they have in mind the people under bridges and overhangs, namely the chronically homeless.  This is the same homeless subpop that haunts Bennett's beloved downtown, and the would-be target of his sit-lie and camping bans.  This group also happens to be what the majority of the Oregon legislature has in mind when they are asked to increase funding for homeless assistance programs.  They all are wanting first and foremost to bring about a functional end to chronic homelessness.  What halfway capable politician could fail to grasp such an obvious opportunity to focus his call for "all hands on deck"?  Charles R. Bennett, obviously.  

     

Campaign Website