2.9 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 urge Council to vote on the side of humanity not on the side a political bullying and profit-driven agendas. I urge Council to vote with their conscience. In this season of Christmas for those of you who are Christian or Catholic I posed this question: what would Jesus do in this situation? What would Jesus say to you right now? And if Council really truly believes in their heart that the definition of adequate shelter that is being presented by an Administration and a mayor whose Legacy includes Mass violations of human rights is indeed adequate then I challenge council members to spend one night in Saint Vincent de Paul. Think about where you if you were unhoused would hide all your belongings on the streets since they won't be allowed into the shelter. Then go stand in line at 5 p.m. to wait for a bed and stay there for a night. and when you come out the next morning please tell us how your night was. For years even prior to our current homeless state of emergency government agencies have been told repeatedly by unhoused people who have attempted to use shelters like st. Vincent de Paul that the shelter system is broken. why would it even be an option in the midst of a pandemic to believe that a broken shelter system is adequate? It's not adequate prior to the pandemic and it is absolutely unsafe and unhealthy during this pandemic.
The Mayor's plan will result in further criminalization and marginalization of people who deserve to be treated with equal care and respect especially in the face of this global pandemic. It is unconscionable that in this year where deaths from COVID are over 3000 per day yet the Mayor is proposing faulty and temporary "solutions" that will actually make people more at risk. Kaplan and Bas' amendments actually help provide pathways to all neighbors, housed and unhoused, to work together for solutions based on what is best for our own neighborhoods. If Mayor Schaaf's plan is passed, it will solidify her legacy as a global human rights violator. We need to work together for safe housing for all.
Instead of attempting to minimize the effects of this ongoing crisis, this resolution will actually place people at greater risk to their health and safety by moving them to indoor congregate shelters than they would be in by living in an outdoor encampment. People living in congregate settings comprise less than 1% of the U.S. population, but nearly 50% of coronavirus deaths. With the current worsening of the pandemic, shelter outbreaks have recently been reported in many jurisdictions, despite the implementation of social distancing and other health protocols. In San Jose, officials said the outbreaks in congregate settings are happening “despite safeguards and regular surveillance testing.” In San Diego, the medical director of the county’s epidemiology department noted “that it does not take much to spark contagion among those sharing the same living space, even if it is a cavernous as a convention center.” Indoor congregate settings cannot be made safe from airborne transmission of the virus and are likely to place people in more risk of catching COVID-19 than they would be if they remained outside in an encampment. Further, time limits on shelter stays, such as the two weeks suggested by the resolution, will result in people being displaced back out onto the street. These disruptions during the winter months will only exacerbate the danger to people outside. I urge you to not include congregate shelter stays in your definition of “alternative shelter.”
As a homeless services provider, I am strongly in favor of Councilmembers Bas' and Kaplan's proposed amendments, and strongly in opposition to Mayor Schaff's amendments.
Evicting encampments without providing adequate housing is a human rights violation. Two weeks in a shelter is not adequate housing. The CDC advises against shelter placement due to increased COVID risk. Shelters are not accessible to people with disabilities. The amendment proposed by Mayor Schaff will result in widespread, systematic discrimination against people with disabilities, in violation of the ADA.
After spending the past several weeks documenting the experiences of individuals impacted by Caltrans encampment sweeps as part of the claims process for the class action lawsuit, Sanchez v. Caltrans, I cannot emphasize enough how harmful sweeps and "encampment closures" are. Being displaced by sweeps destroys lives and needlessly causes unimaginable pain and suffering. People have lost their last few precious belongings, irreplaceable family heirlooms, and their only access to makeshift shelter and survival equipment. The City of Oakland must stop perpetrating this incredible harm against our own community members and neighbors.
Encampments must not be "closed" or evicted unless adequate housing is provided. Two weeks in an unsafe shelter is not housing, and should not be accepted as justification for repeatedly displacing our unsheltered neighbors who have nowhere else to go.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
The language used in the policy you are proposing today allows for unhoused communities who are being EVICTED to be placed into congregate housing that, in the midst of a pandemic, is a clear public health risk and what the United Nations defines as “cruel and inhumane” violations of international human rights against unhoused residents.
There are better solutions. I demand that you adopt the amendment proposed by Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelters in a time of COVID.
Furthermore, the city council should work with the Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy composed of Oakland’s leading unhoused activist groups, including The Village and East Oakland Collective. Collaboration with on-the-ground organizations working in solidarity with unhoused people. By acting from a place of solidarity, rather than charity, we can create more comprehensive, compassionate, and effective solutions to solving homelessness.
The city of Oakland should not place our unhoused encampment evictees in high COVID-risk temporary congregate shelters. This harmful act would dehumanize the evictees and fail to uphold the safety, dignity, and belonging that our unhoused neighbors are owed.
Please support the Amendment by Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan and Nikki Fortunato Bas. The proposed Amendment will support healthier and safer shelter during the pandemic.
I strongly urge the Council to support the Bas/Kaplan proposal to clarify and amend the definition of alternative shelter. We protect our residents, shelter staff members, and community and provide safe, decent, long-term accommodations. We must stop churning people through temporary congregate situations, which endanger everyone and promote illness, fear, and instability. Please support this proposal. Thank you.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks as I don't think it meets the criteria of appropriate “alternative shelter.”
The proposed language does not meet the public health COVID standards put in place, and is harmful both physically and emotionally to our unhoused neighbors, who are among the most vulnerable citizens of our city.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
I am very concerned about the outbreaks of Covid in Oakland and we should do the MAXIMUM we can, not the minimum to help those most vulnerable. I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
Encampment sweeps are inhumane and immoral at any time. They are cruel and unusual. But specifically, the definition of alternative shelter is far, far too broad. I agree with Councilmember Bas and Councilmember Kaplan's suggestion to remove congregate shelters from the list of alternative shelters due to the high risk of contracting COVID-19 and the extreme likelihood that people will be displaced back onto the street in circumstances that are riskier than in an an outdoor camp. However, there are other VERY GOOD reasons why an unsheltered person would not want to stay in an alternative shelter. Many shelters, congregate or otherwise, largely do not take pets, and for many people, unsheltered or not, pets are valued family members that they would not want to abandon. Additionally, in the Community Cabins specifically, there have been rampant stories of rape and abuse and I for one would not want to be forced to live with a potentially predatory roommate that I had no choice over. For many, encampments, especially co-governed encampments, provide community safety in an extremely dangerous environment and exits should be to PERMANENT, SUPPORTIVE housing that is SAFE and allows for pets and other needs.
I urge Council to vote on the side of humanity not on the side a political bullying and profit-driven agendas. I urge Council to vote with their conscience. In this season of Christmas for those of you who are Christian or Catholic I posed this question: what would Jesus do in this situation? What would Jesus say to you right now? And if Council really truly believes in their heart that the definition of adequate shelter that is being presented by an Administration and a mayor whose Legacy includes Mass violations of human rights is indeed adequate then I challenge council members to spend one night in Saint Vincent de Paul. Think about where you if you were unhoused would hide all your belongings on the streets since they won't be allowed into the shelter. Then go stand in line at 5 p.m. to wait for a bed and stay there for a night. and when you come out the next morning please tell us how your night was. For years even prior to our current homeless state of emergency government agencies have been told repeatedly by unhoused people who have attempted to use shelters like st. Vincent de Paul that the shelter system is broken. why would it even be an option in the midst of a pandemic to believe that a broken shelter system is adequate? It's not adequate prior to the pandemic and it is absolutely unsafe and unhealthy during this pandemic.
The Mayor's plan will result in further criminalization and marginalization of people who deserve to be treated with equal care and respect especially in the face of this global pandemic. It is unconscionable that in this year where deaths from COVID are over 3000 per day yet the Mayor is proposing faulty and temporary "solutions" that will actually make people more at risk. Kaplan and Bas' amendments actually help provide pathways to all neighbors, housed and unhoused, to work together for solutions based on what is best for our own neighborhoods. If Mayor Schaaf's plan is passed, it will solidify her legacy as a global human rights violator. We need to work together for safe housing for all.
Instead of attempting to minimize the effects of this ongoing crisis, this resolution will actually place people at greater risk to their health and safety by moving them to indoor congregate shelters than they would be in by living in an outdoor encampment. People living in congregate settings comprise less than 1% of the U.S. population, but nearly 50% of coronavirus deaths. With the current worsening of the pandemic, shelter outbreaks have recently been reported in many jurisdictions, despite the implementation of social distancing and other health protocols. In San Jose, officials said the outbreaks in congregate settings are happening “despite safeguards and regular surveillance testing.” In San Diego, the medical director of the county’s epidemiology department noted “that it does not take much to spark contagion among those sharing the same living space, even if it is a cavernous as a convention center.” Indoor congregate settings cannot be made safe from airborne transmission of the virus and are likely to place people in more risk of catching COVID-19 than they would be if they remained outside in an encampment. Further, time limits on shelter stays, such as the two weeks suggested by the resolution, will result in people being displaced back out onto the street. These disruptions during the winter months will only exacerbate the danger to people outside. I urge you to not include congregate shelter stays in your definition of “alternative shelter.”
This would place unhoused residents at increased risk at COVID-19 due to the crowded conditions.
As a homeless services provider, I am strongly in favor of Councilmembers Bas' and Kaplan's proposed amendments, and strongly in opposition to Mayor Schaff's amendments.
Evicting encampments without providing adequate housing is a human rights violation. Two weeks in a shelter is not adequate housing. The CDC advises against shelter placement due to increased COVID risk. Shelters are not accessible to people with disabilities. The amendment proposed by Mayor Schaff will result in widespread, systematic discrimination against people with disabilities, in violation of the ADA.
After spending the past several weeks documenting the experiences of individuals impacted by Caltrans encampment sweeps as part of the claims process for the class action lawsuit, Sanchez v. Caltrans, I cannot emphasize enough how harmful sweeps and "encampment closures" are. Being displaced by sweeps destroys lives and needlessly causes unimaginable pain and suffering. People have lost their last few precious belongings, irreplaceable family heirlooms, and their only access to makeshift shelter and survival equipment. The City of Oakland must stop perpetrating this incredible harm against our own community members and neighbors.
Encampments must not be "closed" or evicted unless adequate housing is provided. Two weeks in an unsafe shelter is not housing, and should not be accepted as justification for repeatedly displacing our unsheltered neighbors who have nowhere else to go.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
The language used in the policy you are proposing today allows for unhoused communities who are being EVICTED to be placed into congregate housing that, in the midst of a pandemic, is a clear public health risk and what the United Nations defines as “cruel and inhumane” violations of international human rights against unhoused residents.
There are better solutions. I demand that you adopt the amendment proposed by Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelters in a time of COVID.
Furthermore, the city council should work with the Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy composed of Oakland’s leading unhoused activist groups, including The Village and East Oakland Collective. Collaboration with on-the-ground organizations working in solidarity with unhoused people. By acting from a place of solidarity, rather than charity, we can create more comprehensive, compassionate, and effective solutions to solving homelessness.
The city of Oakland should not place our unhoused encampment evictees in high COVID-risk temporary congregate shelters. This harmful act would dehumanize the evictees and fail to uphold the safety, dignity, and belonging that our unhoused neighbors are owed.
Please support the Amendment by Councilmembers Rebecca Kaplan and Nikki Fortunato Bas. The proposed Amendment will support healthier and safer shelter during the pandemic.
I strongly urge the Council to support the Bas/Kaplan proposal to clarify and amend the definition of alternative shelter. We protect our residents, shelter staff members, and community and provide safe, decent, long-term accommodations. We must stop churning people through temporary congregate situations, which endanger everyone and promote illness, fear, and instability. Please support this proposal. Thank you.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks as I don't think it meets the criteria of appropriate “alternative shelter.”
The proposed language does not meet the public health COVID standards put in place, and is harmful both physically and emotionally to our unhoused neighbors, who are among the most vulnerable citizens of our city.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
I am very concerned about the outbreaks of Covid in Oakland and we should do the MAXIMUM we can, not the minimum to help those most vulnerable. I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
I believe that the city should not vote to allow congregate shelter stays of two weeks 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.
I urge you to support the Amendment put forth by Councilmembers Nikki Fortunato Bas and Rebecca Kaplan which provides for safer shelter in a time of COVID.
Encampment sweeps are inhumane and immoral at any time. They are cruel and unusual. But specifically, the definition of alternative shelter is far, far too broad. I agree with Councilmember Bas and Councilmember Kaplan's suggestion to remove congregate shelters from the list of alternative shelters due to the high risk of contracting COVID-19 and the extreme likelihood that people will be displaced back onto the street in circumstances that are riskier than in an an outdoor camp. However, there are other VERY GOOD reasons why an unsheltered person would not want to stay in an alternative shelter. Many shelters, congregate or otherwise, largely do not take pets, and for many people, unsheltered or not, pets are valued family members that they would not want to abandon. Additionally, in the Community Cabins specifically, there have been rampant stories of rape and abuse and I for one would not want to be forced to live with a potentially predatory roommate that I had no choice over. For many, encampments, especially co-governed encampments, provide community safety in an extremely dangerous environment and exits should be to PERMANENT, SUPPORTIVE housing that is SAFE and allows for pets and other needs.