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
    Evvy Archibald Shulman almost 3 years ago

    As a resident of district 1, I strongly oppose this policy. It is inhumane to our unhoused neighbors and pushes them further away from services and community support. Rather than creating more opportunities for police harass and ongoing evictions from camps, why don’t you spend our city’s resources creating permanent, affordable, accessible, and dignified housing for these folks? This is nothing but cruel to our unhoused community and will do nothing to solve the actual issues that lead to homelessness. Please vote no on this.

  • Default_avatar
    KT Milne almost 3 years ago

    I staunchly oppose the EMP. Once Oakland's eviction moratorium expires, a wave of evictions will massively increase the houseless population. This policy does not have adequate space for the 8,000 houseless people in Oakland currently, much less people who will become unhoused due to the recession. This policy attempts to invisibilize houseless people, an impossible and deeply harmful endeavor. This policy is informed by a biased and exclusionary survey conducted by CM Taylor's office. Only 14% of respondents had experience housing insecurity/being unsheltered, while 60% of respondents are homeowners. This policy reflects these staggeringly biased numbers. It formalizes the City's harassment of homeless folks into a policy that will inflate property values at the cost of human lives. The EMP clearly represents the interests of white homeowners, developers, gentrifiers, and other anti-homeless interests at the expense of the general Oakland community. It invests further resources in police & policing of unhoused residents. The people of Oakland demand homes, not harm, for our houseless neighbors.

  • Default_avatar
    James Boudreau almost 3 years ago

    I am strongly urging the city council to vote no on this! This policy would ban being unhoused from 98% of Oakland's land, which only criminalizes our unhoused community members, it does nothing to help them. Passing this would not provide any support, and would only make their lives more difficult. Please vote no

  • Default_avatar
    Brian Wy almost 3 years ago

    I hope the children of the people who support this policy will be the ones who spit on their parent's graves. There is a special place in the earth for all of you complaining about "trash" and "ugly tent cities". Support your houseless brothers and sisters. Don't be class traitors.

  • Default_avatar
    Emma Fogel almost 3 years ago

    I would like to express my strong opposition to the proposed Encampment Management Policy. This dehumanizing 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. 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 a large share of the unhoused population in Oakland. Through my work with unhoused community members at the Homeless Action Center, I have seen firsthand the harms that displacement has on our clients who reside in encampments. My colleagues and I often lose contact with clients who have been displaced and have lost their phones and other belongings in encampment sweeps, which greatly hinders our ability to provide services to clients. Our clients often lose their most valuable possessions when they are displaced, ranging from important documents that are needed to access services, to their most prized possessions that cannot be replaced due to their sentimental value. Please rethink this policy, and please center unhoused people’s voices in future efforts to addresses Oakland's homelessness crisis.

  • Default_avatar
    Elizabeth Cheever almost 3 years ago

    I strongly oppose this proposal because it hurts the community members who most need public resources and support. This plan does not address the suffering of unhoused people, it simply makes it less visible to the rest of the community. It is the wrong thing to do, from a moral standpoint and a policy standpoint. These buffer zones would isolate people struggling with homelessness and make it more difficult for them to access services, food, and medical care. This proposal criminalizes poverty without providing a solution.

  • Default_avatar
    Proud Native Oaklander almost 3 years ago

    This is violence against our most vulnerable population. This is a racist and classist policy that values optics over solutions like expanded social services. I am a life-long, Oakland native, born and raised in District 1 where I am now raising my own family. I am deeply ashamed that the City Council of Oakland would even consider a policy like this, but they're also responsible for the over development of this city and lack of resources/services/affordable housing that are driving people to live in tents under freeways. And now they want to make their greed and lack of foresight invisible by erasing and criminalizing the existence of human beings. You don't like encampments? Me either. People should have better choices but Oakland has rapidly eliminated any choice except for the most wealthy among us. We are "nice white people" but certainly, if something were to happen in my family and we lost our rent-controlled apartment in Temescal, we'd have few other options than tents ourselves. "They should work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I don't want to have to see them every day." --Some of y'all. If you don't want to help our unhoused neighbors, fine, but you should move to Walnut Creek where you belong. You know who NEVER would have suffered this nonsense? Cat Brooks. SHAME ON YOU LIBBY SHAAF. SHAME ON YOU OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL.

  • Default_avatar
    Kate Steel almost 3 years ago

    I am a District 3 resident and submit this comment in support of the 2020 Encampment Management Policy. The Policy provides a balanced approach to remedy the unregulated homeless encampments that populate the City. It does NOT criminalize homelessness. The serious encampment situation does not serve the public health and safety needs of the unsheltered, nor of the housed residents, business owners, neighborhoods and City park users. The Life Enrichment Committee and City Staff has tackled a difficult and painful problem. The City has shown a commitment to securing housing facilities and social services for the unsheltered. Is it enough to solve the problem right now? No. But it is progress. In the meantime, there is an immediate need to manage the homeless encampments which pose serious safety and health threats. All citizens of Oakland need access to public parks free from human waste, trash, vermin, drug dealing, drug manufacture, used syringes, condoms, violence and personal safety threats. Those issues are well-documented. Neighborhoods in which encampments are located likewise need relief from those serious problems. I urge the Council to pass the Policy. K. Steel

  • 10213872941692562
    Melissa Mandel almost 3 years ago

    Vote no and send this inadequate policy proposal back to staff for completion. It is missing the most urgent element of the city's need to face up to the thousands of unhoused people within its responsibility. That element is stated in the PATH plan as "Emergency Strategies to shelter and rehouse households..." I cannot find a single suggestion or initiative articulated in the Encampment Management Policy proposal that offers any insight into the city's intentions longterm. None! Both housed and unhoused people of Oakland deserve to be told what the city's actual intentions are. If I base my conclusions on the city's actions, then I conclude that the city has no intention of creating the emergency and urgently needed safe, healthy, and dignified places for people to be. And I have to conclude from the city's continued ignoring of the curbside voices that it has no respect for the humanity of people who have been forced to fend for themselves on our streets. I am appalled by my conclusions, so please come clean and present your actual intentions for sheltering and rehousing the currently unhoused residents of Oakland.

  • 10211300708090666
    Nancy Nadel almost 3 years ago

    The council has been grandstanding for years blaming staff for the lack of designated approved spaces for organized safe clean camps equal to the need. It is past time to put forward locations yourselves and establish those locations by ordinance instead of this cruel and useless policy that will not improve conditions for the homeless nor for the housed or businesses in West Oakland. Sadly you will wind up wasting money in lawsuits and this winter will still torture the unhoused. Where, besides the pitifully inadequate "community cabins" will you establish clean safe serviced camps?. I heard the hesitation is that it will look permanent. Well, it has been 6 or 7 years that we have had this crisis and it is not going away. Collect all the money you were supposed to collect for affordable housing and in the meantime establish legal camping areas asap, not by eliminating areas, but by designating areas that are ok.

  • Default_avatar
    Rai Sue Sussman almost 3 years ago

    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. As a lawyer working w/unhoused & precarious people in Oakland I oppose this policy both for the defective process promulgating it, & for the effects on our most downtrodden citizens. Omission of the homeless perspective is apparent in failure to address actual issues they face. 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. People w/disabilities represent 42% of unsheltered people. An example of who is affected by this policy: my client is long-term homeless & in a wheelchair after she was hit by a car. She cannot get physical therapy bc she is homeless. It is hard for her to travel so she eats at soup-kitchens near where she stays. If removed from this “zone” she would be unable to access food regularly & would lose access her friends--housed & unhoused--who help her. Moreover, the bait & switch of temporary shelter is problematic. Once it expires, displaced people will have been separated from belongings, support & routines people set up to survive. They will start from scratch the process of providing shelter & stability. This proposal will re-displace people already struggling & legitimize harassment & criminalization of poverty without providing a solution.

  • Default_avatar
    Olivia Lee almost 3 years ago

    I am a renter in district 1 and I strongly oppose the EMP. It is extremely cruel and inhumane to criminalize houselessness ESPECIALLY during a pandemic. The data collected for this policy was mostly from wealthy homeowners and not from unhoused folks. This policy is racist and abelist, you need to write policy that provides housing! The fact that this is even being proposed is extremely upsetting.

  • Default_avatar
    Andrew Morales almost 3 years ago

    STOP DISPLACING THE HOMELESS! In the midst of the pandemic, many families are already getting evicted from homes; this policy clearly intends to further aggressions against the already vulnerable. Furthermore, with our ongoing pandemic, you are only risking the further spread of COVID when you continually displace people.


  • Default_avatar
    Robert Bodnar almost 3 years ago

    I’ve lived in District 6 East Oakland for over 20 years, so my expectations for effective city management are appropriately low. But I've never seen anything as bad as the way that the city has handled our ever-increasing homeless population up to now.

    In my part of Oakland, the encampments are not few and far between, or neat and tidy occupying little space. They are enormous, continually spreading, and dense with mountains of trash. Many of them spill out well into the streets, making it difficult to pass in a car. And bike lanes are completely obstructed. And don’t think for a minute that the homeless don’t mind if you try and pass by on a bike. They view it as an intrusion into their territory.

    I have a certain amount of sympathy for people who are struggling, but it’s time for some tough love. The situation should NEVER have been allowed to deteriorate to this level because Oakland has a duty to maintain a safe and clean city for all. I have no illusions that the proposed new encampment policy will fix everything, but it's a step in the right direction. Anything different has to be better. And I frankly doubt that many of the people against it even live in Oakland or near the areas where it is as bad as I have described.

    This social experiment was an abysmal failure, more like a failed science experiment at this point. And I’m tired of living in a dirty petri dish.

  • Default_avatar
    Kevin Goldberg almost 3 years ago

    As a D3 resident, I would like to add my voice in strong opposition to the proposed Encampment Management Policy.
    Enforcement has never, and will never, eliminate homelessness; permanent affordable housing is the only solution. This policy, if passed, will serve to codify harassment and criminalization of homeless residents. Informed by mostly white homeowners who see homeless residents as a nuisance, the EMP will invest further in policing a population which is disproportionately Black and brown.
    This policy would be cruel and inhumane under any circumstances, but during a global pandemic, this policy is dangerous and absolutely unconscionable. If city council member choose to pass this policy today, they will be choosing to actively put our most vulnerable neighbors at greater risk of infection.
    I urge you to please reject this policy outright, or send it back to the LEC.

  • Default_avatar
    A Turner almost 3 years ago

    I am a D2 resident and I oppose the EMP. This policy is shameful and clearly designed to remove, regulate, and further criminalize encampments instead of providing much needed housing and services for Oakland residents. Any policy meant to address homelessness should be crafted by a majority of unhoused voices. I'd like to see as much energy put into caring for people and housing people instead of criminalizing people. There are enough empty units in Oakland to house everyone and it's seriously backwards that instead of working to house people, especially during the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis, and to enact legislation to keep people housed, the Council is instead looking to further displace and criminalize unhoused community members. Do better.

  • Default_avatar
    Oakland Resident almost 3 years ago

    22 year Oakland Tenant from District 1. Oakland needs to address this situation for both housed and unhoused alike. establish Mental Health and addiction treatment services for unhoused, create centrally located camps with services for that. Manage this situation with a concrete and enforced plan, don't just address it piecemeal or pretend it isn't happening or throw policy without enforcement. Living next to a camp, I've seen it all first hand. Many neighbors have moved due to the mad max style chaos the camp creates. it's a hotbed of crime, drug dealing, unchecked trash and needles, mental health/drug meltdowns and public drug use. Guess what, the people living next to the camp are largely long-term rental tenants, low to mid income, some are people of color. Not rich, not homeowners. Many can't afford to move, so instead are faced with lack of sleep due to generators running all night, fights, violence and drug-induced screaming, 24-7 heroin/meth dealing--sadly, one girl OD'ed in the camp over the summer. Arson--one building burned down right in our neighborhood, a lumber yard had 2 cases of arson connected to people from the camp. We all have to live/work together and right now the loudest noise comes from homeless advocates wanting a perfect proposal, but everyone in and out of homes is being impacted by the city's policy of not doing much, so IMO this is a step in the right direction.

  • Default_avatar
    Elsa Mull almost 3 years ago

    Hello. I am a district 3 resident and as a formerly unhoused person with many homeless friends I find this policy to be extremely disturbing. This policy is against CDC covid recommendations and clearly treats unsheltered people as eyesores / problems instead of human beings and seems to be more invested in removing them from Oakland without giving them anywhere to go. People need homes not further displacement! I’m begging you, please don’t enact this policy because it will further victimize Oakland’s most vulnerable population.

  • Default_avatar
    Michelle Brooks almost 3 years ago

    I stand in solidarity with Oakland's unhoused community and oppose the racist encampment management policy. Being unhoused should never be criminalized!

  • Default_avatar
    Mike Da almost 3 years ago

    Our policies need to resolve our unhoused issues by making housing more accessible, not by making it more difficult for unhoused community members to access housing.