S8 20-0759 Subject: Clarifying Alternative Shelter
From: Office Of The City Administrator
Recommendation: Adopt A Resolution Amending Resolution Number 88077 C.M.S. Requesting The City Administrator To Follow The Center For Disease Control (CDC) Interim Guidelines On Homelessness And Covid-19 To Only Clear Encampments If Individual Housing Units Or Alternative Shelter Is Provided; Clarifying The Requirements For The Provision Of Individual Housing Units And Alternative Shelter
I understand the perspectives of others based on soundbites and their myopic window view. Self-guilt sometimes helps in determining one’s view.
The health and welfare of those genuinely in need should be the primary focus of actions by council.
We know there are those who are opportunist exploiting the current Covid provisions. This council should act responsibly considering long term consequences when developing strategies not to sustain those homeless conditions but to improve and enrich their lives.
We have two affordable/homeless housing projects in Prescott, affected by the current encampments. We want them to move forward ASAP, which will help its residents thrive, not just survive.
Let’s not use Covid as a reason to do nothing…as residents we’ve bought (paid) into the measures, taxes…that we suppose to directly improve our homeless problem. And yet we’ve only become a regional magnet, attracting more homeless in Oakland on a daily basis.
I want to believe the council is taking this action today for the right reasons and therefore I can’t oppose it.
Bay Area Legal Aid supports the proposed resolution’s clarification that any shelter that requires individuals to share a room with a person who is not part of their pre-existing chosen living arrangements, congregate shelters, and any shelter that requires occupants to vacate for multiple hours do not constitute alternative shelter. We also support the proposed resolution’s command that an offer of alternative shelter be provided 30 days, rather than 72 hours, prior to a scheduled encampment clearing or closure. However, we are very concerned with several provisions of the proposed resolution that may detrimentally affect the City’s unhoused community. Specifically, an offer of shelter for only 90-days is still insufficient to constitute an adequate alternative. Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposed resolution includes no guidance on how unhoused people’s partners, pets, and possessions will be accommodated in the process of shelter clearances and closures. Therefore, we urge the Council to define alternative shelter in a manner that provides unhoused people a safe place to stay without a time limit during the pandemic and also to address the practical circumstances that often lead to people declining shelter. Finally, we urge the Council to rethink the EMP which, as we have previously noted, is problematic for a variety of reasons, and to allow for a meaningful opportunity for feedback from the unhoused community in designing any such plan going forward.
I care about my neighbors. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. The number of people living without housing has increased during this pandemic. The city must not vote to allow congregate shelter stays to meet the criteria of appropriate “alternative shelter.”
The proposed language decimates the public health COVID standards put in place, materially harms the unhoused, and creates undue emotional trauma for the evictees.
We urge you to support the resolution put forth by Councilmembers Bas and Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
Amidst rising COVID cases and overwhelmed hospitals, the Oakland City Administration is putting forth policy language that permits homeless encampment evictees to be placed in high COVID-risk temporary congregate shelters. Instead of opting for progressive and comprehensive solutions to homelessness informed by those who are actually homeless, the city’s interventions materially harm the unhoused and endanger public health. Bas and Kaplan have put forth a commonsense resolution decreeing congregate shelters as unfit forms of alternative shelter during the pandemic. Please tell the Oakland City Council that the unhoused need safer shelter in a time of COVID.
The City should work with the Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy composed of Oakland’s leading unhoused activist groups, to create more compassionate, pragmatic, and effective solutions to solving homelessness.
As a provider of direct services to Oakland's homeless residents, I strongly support this amendment to the EMP.
The City of Oakland must, at the very minimum, follow CDC guidelines which state that unsheltered communities should not be evicted and displaced unless safe, non-congregate shelter is provided. The City's current policy causes unnecessary and unconscionable harm, because it says that unsheltered residents can be displaced and evicted, with only temporary two-week stays in congregate shelters being offered. This "alterative shelter" is not safe. The city must not waste our limited resources to affirmatively cause harm to Oakland's most vulnerable residents.
The great majority of unsheltered people in Oakland are seniors and people with disabilities. The city must absolutely not displace any unsheltered person in unsafe congregate shelters, and especially not elders and people with disabilities who are at the greatest risk of death if they contract COVID.
The EMP as it stands is a failure, but this amendment removes one of it's cruelest initiatives.
Evicting encampments with no plan to provide shelter to encampment residents is a human rights abuse that causes extreme harm to our most vulnerable neighbors. Oakland needs to provide real solutions like housing, and sanctioned, self-governed community sites - rather than wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a never-ending cycle of brutalizing homeless people who have nowhere else to go.
It's unclear what a selection of oppose means in this circumstance so to be clear, if it is an option to revoke the current EMP policy and start again., I'm in support of that. If that's not an option then clarification on what qualifies as adequate housing must happen and I am opposed to the City Administrator's current proposal. The proposal being put forth by Kaplan while better is still not adequate. With 70% of unhoused people being Black and systemic racism in OPD, there must be an amendment that prevents OPD's involvement with anything related to this policy. There must be something that stops the EMP from criminalizing the unhoused.
The entire council must oppose the EMP in its entirety. This proposal is neither kind nor humane. As written and amended, it further threatens public health at a time where deaths are at an all-time high. This proposal is intended to keep the curbside communities out of sight, out of mind, and traumatized for the entire process, all while spending taxpayer money to do the city's dirty work. Reject this proposal as written and amended, and create real solutions that aid public health for all. None of the definitions for "alternative shelter" are adequate, responsible, or respectable. Conversations between the community and council members continue to be full of empty promises and straight lies. Shame on you, housed and salaried folk, deciding how to sweep up the homeless and worsen their health and safety. Do better.
I care about my neighbors. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. The number of people living without housing has increased during this pandemic. The city must not vote to allow congregate shelter stays to meet the criteria of appropriate “alternative shelter.”
The proposed language decimates the public health COVID standards put in place, materially harms the unhoused, and creates undue emotional trauma for the evictees.
We urge you to support the resolution put forth by Councilmembers Bas and Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
Amidst rising COVID cases and overwhelmed hospitals, the Oakland City Administration is putting forth policy language that permits homeless encampment evictees to be placed in high COVID-risk temporary congregate shelters. Instead of opting for progressive and comprehensive solutions to homelessness informed by those who are actually homeless, the city’s interventions materially harm the unhoused and endanger public health. Bas and Kaplan have put forth a commonsense resolution decreeing congregate shelters as unfit forms of alternative shelter during the pandemic. Please tell the Oakland City Council that the unhoused need safer shelter in a time of COVID.
The City should work with the Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy composed of Oakland’s leading unhoused activist groups, to create more compassionate, pragmatic, and effective solutions to solving homelessness.
I understand the perspectives of others based on soundbites and their myopic window view. Self-guilt sometimes helps in determining one’s view.
The health and welfare of those genuinely in need should be the primary focus of actions by council.
We know there are those who are opportunist exploiting the current Covid provisions. This council should act responsibly considering long term consequences when developing strategies not to sustain those homeless conditions but to improve and enrich their lives.
We have two affordable/homeless housing projects in Prescott, affected by the current encampments. We want them to move forward ASAP, which will help its residents thrive, not just survive.
Let’s not use Covid as a reason to do nothing…as residents we’ve bought (paid) into the measures, taxes…that we suppose to directly improve our homeless problem. And yet we’ve only become a regional magnet, attracting more homeless in Oakland on a daily basis.
I want to believe the council is taking this action today for the right reasons and therefore I can’t oppose it.
I ask this council to do the right thing.
Bay Area Legal Aid supports the proposed resolution’s clarification that any shelter that requires individuals to share a room with a person who is not part of their pre-existing chosen living arrangements, congregate shelters, and any shelter that requires occupants to vacate for multiple hours do not constitute alternative shelter. We also support the proposed resolution’s command that an offer of alternative shelter be provided 30 days, rather than 72 hours, prior to a scheduled encampment clearing or closure. However, we are very concerned with several provisions of the proposed resolution that may detrimentally affect the City’s unhoused community. Specifically, an offer of shelter for only 90-days is still insufficient to constitute an adequate alternative. Furthermore, we are concerned that the proposed resolution includes no guidance on how unhoused people’s partners, pets, and possessions will be accommodated in the process of shelter clearances and closures. Therefore, we urge the Council to define alternative shelter in a manner that provides unhoused people a safe place to stay without a time limit during the pandemic and also to address the practical circumstances that often lead to people declining shelter. Finally, we urge the Council to rethink the EMP which, as we have previously noted, is problematic for a variety of reasons, and to allow for a meaningful opportunity for feedback from the unhoused community in designing any such plan going forward.
I care about my neighbors. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. The number of people living without housing has increased during this pandemic. The city must not vote to allow congregate shelter stays to meet the criteria of appropriate “alternative shelter.”
The proposed language decimates the public health COVID standards put in place, materially harms the unhoused, and creates undue emotional trauma for the evictees.
We urge you to support the resolution put forth by Councilmembers Bas and Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
Amidst rising COVID cases and overwhelmed hospitals, the Oakland City Administration is putting forth policy language that permits homeless encampment evictees to be placed in high COVID-risk temporary congregate shelters. Instead of opting for progressive and comprehensive solutions to homelessness informed by those who are actually homeless, the city’s interventions materially harm the unhoused and endanger public health. Bas and Kaplan have put forth a commonsense resolution decreeing congregate shelters as unfit forms of alternative shelter during the pandemic. Please tell the Oakland City Council that the unhoused need safer shelter in a time of COVID.
The City should work with the Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy composed of Oakland’s leading unhoused activist groups, to create more compassionate, pragmatic, and effective solutions to solving homelessness.
As a provider of direct services to Oakland's homeless residents, I strongly support this amendment to the EMP.
The City of Oakland must, at the very minimum, follow CDC guidelines which state that unsheltered communities should not be evicted and displaced unless safe, non-congregate shelter is provided. The City's current policy causes unnecessary and unconscionable harm, because it says that unsheltered residents can be displaced and evicted, with only temporary two-week stays in congregate shelters being offered. This "alterative shelter" is not safe. The city must not waste our limited resources to affirmatively cause harm to Oakland's most vulnerable residents.
The great majority of unsheltered people in Oakland are seniors and people with disabilities. The city must absolutely not displace any unsheltered person in unsafe congregate shelters, and especially not elders and people with disabilities who are at the greatest risk of death if they contract COVID.
The EMP as it stands is a failure, but this amendment removes one of it's cruelest initiatives.
Evicting encampments with no plan to provide shelter to encampment residents is a human rights abuse that causes extreme harm to our most vulnerable neighbors. Oakland needs to provide real solutions like housing, and sanctioned, self-governed community sites - rather than wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on a never-ending cycle of brutalizing homeless people who have nowhere else to go.
It's unclear what a selection of oppose means in this circumstance so to be clear, if it is an option to revoke the current EMP policy and start again., I'm in support of that. If that's not an option then clarification on what qualifies as adequate housing must happen and I am opposed to the City Administrator's current proposal. The proposal being put forth by Kaplan while better is still not adequate. With 70% of unhoused people being Black and systemic racism in OPD, there must be an amendment that prevents OPD's involvement with anything related to this policy. There must be something that stops the EMP from criminalizing the unhoused.
The entire council must oppose the EMP in its entirety. This proposal is neither kind nor humane. As written and amended, it further threatens public health at a time where deaths are at an all-time high. This proposal is intended to keep the curbside communities out of sight, out of mind, and traumatized for the entire process, all while spending taxpayer money to do the city's dirty work. Reject this proposal as written and amended, and create real solutions that aid public health for all. None of the definitions for "alternative shelter" are adequate, responsible, or respectable. Conversations between the community and council members continue to be full of empty promises and straight lies. Shame on you, housed and salaried folk, deciding how to sweep up the homeless and worsen their health and safety. Do better.
I care about my neighbors. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. The number of people living without housing has increased during this pandemic. The city must not vote to allow congregate shelter stays to meet the criteria of appropriate “alternative shelter.”
The proposed language decimates the public health COVID standards put in place, materially harms the unhoused, and creates undue emotional trauma for the evictees.
We urge you to support the resolution put forth by Councilmembers Bas and Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
Amidst rising COVID cases and overwhelmed hospitals, the Oakland City Administration is putting forth policy language that permits homeless encampment evictees to be placed in high COVID-risk temporary congregate shelters. Instead of opting for progressive and comprehensive solutions to homelessness informed by those who are actually homeless, the city’s interventions materially harm the unhoused and endanger public health. Bas and Kaplan have put forth a commonsense resolution decreeing congregate shelters as unfit forms of alternative shelter during the pandemic. Please tell the Oakland City Council that the unhoused need safer shelter in a time of COVID.
The City should work with the Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy composed of Oakland’s leading unhoused activist groups, to create more compassionate, pragmatic, and effective solutions to solving homelessness.