The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

3 20-0239 Subject: 2020 Supplemental Encampment Management Policy From: The Life Enrichment Committee Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Adopting The Administration's Proposed Encampment Management Policy, To Be Implemented Upon Adoption By The Administration [TITLE CHANGE]

  • Default_avatar
    JD Doyle over 3 years ago

    Reject the Supplemental Encampment Management Policy. This proposal endangers the lives of our unhoused neighbors, puts their health in jeapordy and offers no real solutions to the current homeless crisis that has increased due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Furthermore, enactment of new "Encampment Management Policies" should -- for the time being -- be put "On Hold," while implementation of the approved "Homeless Commission" is in process. Mayor Schaaf has announced that appointment of commissioners is anticipated to be completed by November. A comprehensive homeless policy that responds fully to the diversity of perspectives of Oakland residents and is sustainable is called for. This current policy is harmful and short-sited.

  • Default_avatar
    Prescott Chair over 3 years ago

    I support Item 3, the 2020 Supplemental Encampment Management Policy before you today; The adoption of this policy should greatly improve the quality of life for the unhoused and housed on and around Wood Street , Raimondi Park, 3rd & 5th Street, Kirkham, Mandela Parkway and others in West Oakland.
    Understanding this is a much needed first-step, that will lead to other policies that provide for our unhoused population here in Oakland.
    I ask that this policy is adopted and implemented immediately

  • 10216765383918682
    Rose Micallef over 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose this policy as it will have extreme and immediate traumatic impacts on all unsheltered and unhoused people living in the city of Oakland. This policy does not take the human rights approach. This will further criminalize restrict and make invisible Oakland's predominatly Black unhoused residents.

  • Default_avatar
    Andrew Morales over 3 years ago

    STOP DISPLACING THE HOMELESS. Eviction is a very real and terrifying thing we are all facing with the pandemic and mass unemployment. You are also placing the rest of the population at risk with COVID by displacing these people to new locations; those suffering from homelessness are at risk for exposure and all you are doing is sending them to new locations where new people can be exposed to the virus. Stop pushing for harmful temporary solutions and start looking into providing actual housing for these people!

  • Default_avatar
    Susan Smith over 3 years ago

    I oppose this policy. We need to work for alternative solutions that uphold human rights and protect those most vulnerable to Covid-19 and other threats of harm. Forcing people to move over and over again criminalizes people just for having no place to go and sleeping outside. It is cruel and it's the wrong direction. And it ignores the Supreme Court Boise ruling. Please say no to this plan and choose the side of human rights. Thank you, Susan Smith, Oakland resident D1

  • Default_avatar
    Michael Bott over 3 years ago

    I totally support this proposal. I am the owner of Torchio’s Auto Repair at 2020 Brush Street, a business that has been operating in the City of Oakland for almost 100 years, since 1924. In 2019, my wife and I purchased the Brush Street building, moving the business from its original location on Webster Street.

    Since our move I have been constantly cleaning the streets and washing human waste off the sidewalks and from around my building. I am worried about the future of my business and the effect of the surrounding conditions on the health and safety of my customers and employees. I also am very concerned about the damage to my building due to fires started in the encampment behind my building on Caltrans land. My livelihood, and that of my employees, depends on maintaining a safe environment and protecting the building from fire. I understand that you have heard from other neighborhood residents and business owners who are equally concerned about the neighbor conditions.

    I have repeatedly reported abandoned cars on the street but no one comes out to tag these cars.

  • Default_avatar
    End TheSweeps over 3 years ago

    I am a resident of Oakland and I would like to say shame on you. SHAME ON YOU. This policy is clearly a poorly planned legal end run around Martin v. Boise, and it is abhorrently apparent that you hope to jettison the health, safety, and humanity of our unhoused neighbors for business and property holding interests.

    Disgusting

    To “Inform” this policy you faked outreach to the community with a survey containing leading questions, and ensured the survey would primarily be answered by white homeowners rather than those who will be most directly affected.

    Disgusting

    You propose to expel our unhoused neighbors from 90% of Oakland, forcing folks from their communities, their access to resources, their homes. This flies in the face of CDC guidelines-during a global pandemic-and will result in an increased spread of Covid-19 to folks who often have multiple compounding risk factors that make exposure a far too likely death sentence.

    Disgusting

    What our unhoused neighbors and the community at large need is housing, not poorly disguised sweeps. Utilize empty hotels, vacant apartment buildings, and other unused properties to create safe and secure shelter for our neighbors struggling with homelessness. We see this proposal for what it clearly is despite your laughable use of Orwellian language. And we will not stand for it. Scrap this despicable attempt now, today, bring it no further. Or we will fight. And we will win.

  • Default_avatar
    Tom Atkins over 3 years ago

    Strongly support the spirit of the ordinance, however, 50 ft is not enough separation from homes and businesses. Suggest at least 150 feet but 500 would be ideal.

  • Default_avatar
    Mary Ann McNamara over 3 years ago

    I reject the continuation of containment zones for the unhoused on public sidewalks as they violate the rights of residents, the unhoused, and the disabled, as mandated by the Constitution, Federal and State Statutes. See https://www.uchastings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/UC-Hastings-et-al.-v.-CCSF-Complaint-FINAL-FILED-05.04.21.pdf.
    I notified the city more than 2,161 days ago that an encampment started at MLK and 24th St, long before COVID – nothing was done. Oakland’s Temporary Encampment Management Policy (“TEMP”) “standards for intervention” #6&7 permit partial or full closure to protect public health and/or safety. Both are jeopardized by the policy being proposed. The encampments are deplorable: Dangerous conditions are rampant, including COVID, rodents, drug dealing, violent crime, and the fire that recently broke out at MLK. All the TEMP factors point towards real intervention, not declaration of a 100 foot “safety buffer” between the encampment and residences. Until housing is made available, the City needs to provide safe, alternative shelter on public properties like the Oakland Arena parking lot, public parks, or Port of Oakland, where the unhoused can be provided needed services and practice physical distancing, and protecting public safety. The TEMP standards mandate that the City shall make good faith efforts to offer alternative shelter or housing; this proposal does neither. Oakland will face a lawsuit if it does not ACT NOW.

  • 10159034393855774
    Rmy Doucet over 3 years ago

    I vehemently oppose this policy, which is nothing more than a poorly disguised attack on unhoused citizens. The Supreme Court ruled in Martin v Boise that homeless persons cannot be punished for sleeping outside on public property in the absence of adequate alternatives. This Policy would undermine this ruling and directly harm unhoused citizens. This is also in direct opposition to CDC guidelines in regards to containing the spread of Covid-19 and would put the most vulnerable at risk. This is a disgraceful attempt to eject the homeless without any regard to their care, safety, or lives.

  • Default_avatar
    Constance Thomason over 3 years ago

    I support this ordinance. Try living near an encampment. There is utter chaos, illegal dumping by other residents with the idea of helping the homeless with items that they no longer want when they are just saving Dump Fees. There are fires. There are rats, rotten food, garbage, human waste ect. Try Living next to that, its not pleasant and is very sad. This should be Alameda County's jurisdiction as they are responsible for Public Health. We as a responsible city cannot allow this problem to run rampant. It is unsustainable for any and all of us. The more that we allow it to run rampant with no restrictions, the more it invites others to join the encampments from other parts of the country. It is called pitching a tent in Oakland, You won't be arrested and in fact some really nice people will come around and offer you services. Please understand this is not all but it is many. Other cities should be allowed to share in the wealth. Enough is enough.

  • Default_avatar
    Alicia Lund over 3 years ago

    I oppose this policy and any other that would criminalize and abuse our unhoused community.

  • 10213872941692562
    Melissa Mandel over 3 years ago

    Among the many points I would like to make on this policy proposal, I would like to point to one glaring omission:
    What is missing is a MAP OF OAKLAND CLEARLY SHOWING THE HIGH-SENSITIVITY AREAS that it implies with a list of conditions.
    As defined in this policy proposal I find myself at a loss to imagine the City’s view of where people will be allowed and where people will not be tolerated to exist.
    A map showing the on-the-ground representation of the City’s conditions is the only way for us all to understand what these conditions mean to us. What spaces do these conditions define?
    In addition, this map must show and overlay of the current encampments, especially those that exist within the High Sensitivity Areas.
    Transparency is based on good and forthright communication and such a map would go a long way toward satisfying this requirement.
    ============================================================
    1. If I have another moment, I have another point that I think is critical for this policy to state upfront:

    OPD must not be routinely included in the team visits to encampment sites.

    OPD must ONLY be called in to assist with violent and/or criminal situations that cannot be managed by the team present.

    This policy clarification would be consistent with the effort being undertaken by the ReImagine Public Safety Taskforce, and would contribute greatly to growing trust between city officials and people this policy affects.

  • Default_avatar
    J F over 3 years ago

    Oakland needs to better partner with the County and State which have a more full range of services and resources available instead of taking this issue on in isolation. I am in support of designated area for encampments with sanitary services, mental health, and substance abuse services. 50-100 feet from Residential, Church, parks and schools is not enough. The City has a proper zoning setback that should be adhered to for this policy as well. Page 9 of Mr. Dunston's report alludes to removing all consequences for those refusing to abide by the policy and refusing to accept services which is unacceptable. Oakland must do better.

  • Default_avatar
    Marissa Robbins over 3 years ago

    What Mari said. Criminalizing homelessness does not prevent homelessness or address its root causes. Housing and dignity for all might, though!
    STRONGLY OPPOSE.

  • Smallmari
    Mari Amend over 3 years ago

    As someone who works with people experiencing homelessness (and have for the last 4 years), I STRONGLY oppose this policy.

    Policing and evicting people experiencing homelessness does NOT work. Finding them safe and healthy housing is the approach we need. This policy treats people who are unsheltered as the problem when the real problem is our city's lack of affordable housing and systems of care and support for folks.

    This policy will use the racist, violent, and punitive police to invisibilize the racialized, anti-Black crisis of houselessness without addressing root causes. You MUST STOP THIS PROPOSAL in committee today!

    This proposed policy encourages mass evictions of our unhoused neighbors, Displacing Oakland's houseless residents during the pandemic will result in the moving and resetting individuals to new and dispersed locations. This policy puts them and the community at large at increased risk of contracting Covid-19 by creating new exposure points. Can we PLEASE STOP PUNISHING PEOPLE for being unhoused and start approaching this with a focus on harm reduction? Helping people live more safely? Approaching them with care and not police? I expect better of Oakland.

  • Default_avatar
    Borys Niewiadomski over 3 years ago

    picture a future where we stretch our ability to imagine care and life enrichment outside the scope of the size of a wallet. an altruistic future where we care for one another despite our circumstances because it's possible to do so. a future where together we acknowledged and faced the cruel realities of life head on by extending our hand to our neighbors in their times of grief and need. we can build better for people. we can treat people with human dignity. people deserve better. we can't hide, sell out, or arrest our way through these larger issues with socio-economic structure in a system that constantly devalues and dehumanizes us

  • Default_avatar
    Olivia Morgan over 3 years ago

    I oppose this policy and any other that would criminalize and abuse our unhoused community. Repeatedly displacing our most vulnerable neighbors in the middle of deadly health crisis is inhumane. People need homes, food, and medical care not to be swept out of sight. I walk by hundreds of empty units on my way to work, I live above a four bedroom that has been vacant for months. How are we even considering policies like this while homes sit empty? How can we consider putting tax dollars toward harassing the unhoused when that same money could be spent providing real services that improve the well being of our community?

  • Tinyvazquez
    Adrian Vazquez over 3 years ago

    I oppose using police officers to forcibly evict our houseless neighbors. This will lead to harm in the context of a pandemic and use a tool (the OPD) which has proven to be totally unaccountable and dangerous.

    Please vote no on this policy and put forward solutions to the root problems rather than this simple-minded slate of punishments for those problems' victims. Thank you.

  • Default_avatar
    Katherine Genis over 3 years ago

    The criminalization of unhoused community members is not a solution to homelessness in Oakland. This proposed policy is punitive and unsustainable, and its core function is to further marginalize an already-vulnerable population.