The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

8 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]

View Report View Attachment A View Attachment B View Report - Taylor View Attachment B - Taylor View Supplemental Report - 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Report - Attachment A 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Report - Attachment B 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Report - Attachment C 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Report - Attachment D 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Legislation - 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Report - Exhibit A 9/11/2020 View Supplemental Legislation - 9/18/2020 View Supplemental Report - Exhibit A 9/18/2020 View Supplemental Letter 10/8/2020 View Supplemental Report - Bas 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Report - FULL SUPPORT 10/16/20/2020 View Supplemental Report - Support for the Oakland Homeless Encampment Management 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Report - Support 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Report - We Support The New Encampment Management Policy 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Report - Writing In Support 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Report - Writing In Support Of Encampment Management Policy 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Staff Report - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment A - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment B -10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment C - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment D - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment E - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment F - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment G - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment H - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment I - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment J - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Attachment K - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Legislation - 10/16/2020 View Supplemental Exhibit A -10/16/2020
  • Default_avatar
    Margaret Laffan over 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose the Encampment Management Policy. As an attorney who works with unhoused Oaklanders with disabilities, I have witnessed the extreme trauma directly caused by the city’s existing practices around cleaning and relocating encampments. On multiple occasions, I have lost contact with the people I work with following encampment sweeps. People's entire lives are completely uprooted when the city shows up to “clean” an encampment, quite often with a person’s personal belongings considered to be garbage and getting thrown away. Additionally, many of the restrictions proposed with regard to where people are permitted to stay and what can be safely stored are unrealistic and will only cause further criminalization of people for exercising their means of survival. The fact that this policy was created without the widespread input of people experiencing homelessness is extremely concerning, since it claims to be an attempt to “balance the needs of all residents” (unhoused, housed, and business), but in practice it will benefit only housed residents and businesses and cause further deep harm to Oakland's unhoused community. I urge you to reconsider this policy with the meaningful input of unhoused people, who are most effected by it.

  • Default_avatar
    Maria Caycedo over 3 years ago

    It's an encampment removal and movement program - not a management program. It doesn't take into account the needs of unhoused residents, nor did it seek their input. It contains no long term solutions to the housing crisis.OPPOSED! :-(

  • Default_avatar
    Martha Mackmiller over 3 years ago

    I support this new homeless encampment policy as what's been previously proposed hasn't worked. encampments spill out into the streets blocking traffic, bike lanes and sidewalks and parks are taken over in a manner where all oaklanders cannot enjoy them. This policy maintains the compassionate approach but balances with a need to make oakland a safer, cleaner place for all

  • Default_avatar
    needa bee over 3 years ago

    Three years ago city council unanimously passed a recomendation that the administration locate a minimum ofctwo parcels of city owned or managed lands for sanctioned encampments and autonomous tiny house villages. For years advocates, unhoused leaders and current council president rebecca kaplan have asked about those parcels. Unhoused folks. Have asked for the city to designate an area where wecwould be allowed to exist. This policy is not representative of that recomendation, of community demands or of unhoused requests for sanctuary. The collection of the data used to inform this proposal was inadequate. Homeless advocates and unhoused voilves need to be prioritized. We cannot pit the complaints of housed residents against the basic survival needs and human rights of unhoused. The framing of this policy was grounded in how do we restrict unhoused folks existance aka. Criminalization. No where in the survey was there a question about what do unhoused folks NEED as they are in these emergency responses aka informal settlements. Council should not vote on this policy. It should be sent back to LEC to be properly flushed out. Yes the city needs an overarching policy and practices for how to support the existance of people displaced to living in the streets. This is not that policy. If it was about compassion, the survey, the data collecting, the framing of the policy and the outcomes of this proposal woukd be entirely different. This policy goes against the current #DefundOPD

  • Default_avatar
    Joy Navarro over 3 years ago

    I oppose the EMP. The city should be providing more support for those who are unhoused, not getting rid of encampments. This proposed policy is inhumane. This is not what Oakland should be about.

  • Default_avatar
    Jennie Gerard over 3 years ago

    The proposal and implementation plan before the City Council doesn't address the important issues that ShelterOak and other homeless advocacy organizations have submitted for consideration. In fact, the Council chose to attach only letters from neighbors objecting to conditions at encampments, thereby failing to indicate the strong statements we submitted.. There is much improvement needed at encampments starting with hygiene facilities -- water regularly supplied, porta-potties regularly serviced, and trash regularly picked-up. At present fewer than 40% of encampments have anything approaching this standard. The proposals before you need to be balanced with greater attention to the well-being on the unhoused residents in encampments. Do not pass this but send it back to the LEC and Administration for further work.

  • Default_avatar
    Andrew Yen over 3 years ago

    This "Encampment Management Policy" resolution is completely reprehensible and represents a gross misdirection of Oakland's local government priorities. It demonstrates a complete lack of humanity and indicates to Oaklanders struggling to pay their rent how little faith they should have in their city government if THIS is the kind of policy that's being drafted. Write policy that will safeguard and protect people from the damage done by the housing crisis - not treat them like dirt.

    If you vote for this resolution we'll know exactly the kind of monster you are.

  • Default_avatar
    Frank Sosa over 3 years ago

    I am a district 1 resident of 10 years and I strongly oppose this new homeless encampment management policy because I believe that it is being done in bad faith? I believe it’s in bad faith because as far as I can tell many of the past promises made to ensure the dignity of these populations has not been made. I’m speaking to the lack of basic services at the current encampments including no regular trash pickups or dumpsters, no porta potties or maintenance of the ones in place. I’m also speaking to the continuation of evictions during the pandemic. How are we to trust this counsel if it has failed in its past promises? I believe that we are in denial about the scope and scale of our homeless situation. Many of us such as myself though we are houses the pandemic has made us housing insecure and we realize we could well end up homeless ourselves in the future. As a single father of two children this is especially worrisome. In short not only is this polices against its current homeless population it’s against your houses neighbors who may soon themselves be homeless. During a pandemic is not the time to expand the criminalization of your most marginalized neighbors. What we need you to do more than anything is expand affordable housing at any cost.

  • Default_avatar
    sandy vaughn over 3 years ago

    not well written, doesn't include key stakeholder input (the unhoused population) and will result in a lot of re-shuffling of unhouse people. Probably some lawsuits coming our way, too, if this is passed. Please send back to committee to be re-worked.

  • Default_avatar
    Casey Fittz over 3 years ago

    I am an Oakland resident and strongly oppose this measure. I could understand relocation if there was space allotted for people to move to. Why can't the city provide the bare minimum (land, water, waste) to their most vulnerable residents before it tells them where they can't live? Surely a parking lot with basic utilities would go a lot further than pretending people will just go away if you displace them enough.

  • Default_avatar
    Melissa James over 3 years ago

    I have lived in Oakland for 20-years. I own my home, pay taxes, and vote here right in here Oakland in zip code 94601. The out-of-control homeless situation in this city has caused me to seriously look at moving to another nearby city in the East Bay. The endless amount of trash (includes needles and human waste), drug dealing, crime and theft related to the encampments is intolerable. People set up tents in front of residential homes. Currently when you call the police about the serious safety and health issues, you are told they cannot do anything about it. My neighbors have the same complaints. We have symphony but something must be done. A diverse group of long-term residents (who live in the flatlands) are being held hostage to a situation causing the city to be unlivable. I plead with the city council to listen to your taxpayers, not these so called "homeless advocates". Otherwise you will see many residents move out.

  • 10157766638586239
    Maya Abramson over 3 years ago

    The EMP is a complete disaster and endangers all unhoused residents of Oakland. I strongly oppose this policy. By passing this, you are denying BASIC human rights such as water & sanitation, and will criminalize folks that are merely trying to SURVIVE. You should be focusing on housing and safety SOLUTIONS, not pandering to property owners.

  • Default_avatar
    Rob Scott over 3 years ago

    I'm glad to see Oakland standing up for itself. Being a doormat doesn't have to be our legacy. We have many challenges and it's time we stop allowing con artists, dealers, addicts, and special interest groups to burn away our resources.

  • 10159034393855774
    Rmy Doucet over 3 years ago

    I am a district 3 resident. I am appalled by this policy and strongly urge the City Council not to pass it. The CDC's recommendation is to halt all encampment sweeps during the pandemic. The guidelines provided in this policy would deem the majority of the city "high sensitivity" and allow for broad discrimination of unhoused residents. There is nothing in this policy that would address the root of the problem or provide housing for those experiencing homelessness.

  • Default_avatar
    Alyssa Townsend over 3 years ago

    I am a resident of D4 and I strongly opposed the EMP, in fact, I find it appalling. Sweeping the unhoused under the rug and hoping the issue of homelessness will go away will not fix this! We are in a pandemic and Oakland's unhoused residents are at a much higher risk. We need to funnel resources and energy in to housing these folks and solving the base issues that cause homelessness. The EMP disproportionately affects BIPOC and the disabled, and further criminalizing these folks is the last things needed right now. Reject this policy and do better.

  • Default_avatar
    Reisa Jaffe over 3 years ago

    I am a D3 resident and am opposed to this policy. It is telling that the map the staff provided says where people cannot be. Where is the map that shows where people can be? That map needs to include how many people can be safely accommodated in each area. It needs to show how people in those areas can access food and services they need. Loren Taylor replied to my concern about this policy leading to criminalization saying that would not happen but then did not answer the question, what specific actions will be taken if a person refuses to move. How is this policy improving the 33.5/100 equity score? Send it back. We can do better.

  • Default_avatar
    Yuri Crdenas over 3 years ago

    Dan Kalb, I am holding onto my ballot to see how you vote on this. PLEASE stand in support of your most vulnerable residents.
    I am a D1 resident and whole-heartedly oppose this disastrous measure.

    42% of homeless people in Alameda County are disabled. Disabled people are disproportionately harmed by property seizure and forced displacement, and will face extreme hardship if relegated to areas far from access to food, water, and other necessities.

    Not to mention Covid19 is still spreading rapidly. People without houses in Oakland need to be allowed to shelter in place to survive this pandemic.

    This policy is informed by a survey conducted of 60% home owners and only 14% people who have experienced housing insecurity/being unsheltered.

    It is unconscionable to vote anything but NO.

  • Default_avatar
    Sydney Selix over 3 years ago

    I would like to express my opposition to the proposed Encampment Management Policy. Omission of the homeless perspective is apparent in failure to address actual issues they face. Chiefly, this policy would result in increased policing, criminalization, and displacement of our unhoused community members without offering alternatives, and without addressing the root causes of homelessness. While unhoused people may be less visible after being moved to more marginal areas, this proposal will make them more vulnerable while placing more barriers for them to access any services. Further, the time and money that would be spent enforcing this harmful policy would be much better spent on building affordable housing and investing in public health services, both of which would uplift our most vulnerable community members, in stark contrast to this policy. This policy would also disproportionately harm people of color and disabled community members, who represent 42% of unsheltered people in Oakland. Proposed buffer zones will exclude homeless people from over 90% of the city, shunting them into isolated areas unserved by services, transit, & access to food & medical care.
    In the formation of this policy, the exclusion of community stakeholders - namely those w/lived experience of homelessness - resulted in a proposal which will have a disparate impact on the above mentioned vulnerable groups. Please reconsider and include interested parties in further planning.

  • Default_avatar
    Marissa Seko over 3 years ago

    I live and work in District 3 and I would like to urge the City Council not to pass this cruel encampment management which will further criminalize and stigmatize our unhoused neighbors. This policy does not provide any form of serious relief to the thousands of Oaklanders who have been forced out of their homes and are in desperate need of additional services and affordable housing options in the City. Instead it merely functionally outlaws from being able to live or rest in a huge percentage of the City and restricts their presence particularly from the areas of the City where the most support is available to them. As someone who has worked with domestic violence survivors for close to a decade in Oakland, I know first hand how this policy will further endanger survivors who are fleeing for their lives and who have been forced onto the streets without providing any of the solutions that they need. Please vote no on this cruel, inhumane policy and focus on providing compassionate services to the unhoused in Oakland.

  • Default_avatar
    Jesse Turner over 3 years ago

    I am a D2 Resident. It is morally repugnant and inconceivable for Council to jam this proposal through without necessary structures in place to care for our unhoused neighbors. Vacant properties, city-owned lots that you sell on the nickel, and empty schools are just a few of the available infrastructure options at your disposal to address the causes of the crisis before you start punishing our most vulnerable neighbors for the effects. There’s some serious groundwork to be laid that you haven’t bothered with, and thus you will be putting my neighbors in grave danger. Shame on you.