Loading...
Agenda Item # 9.1 - Jan Bernstein Chargin | Received 06/01/2023To the Gilroy City Council, The issue of homeless encampments has been a topic of much discussion in Gilroy,and throughout the state.Residents are concerned about safety,cleanliness,and public health.The City Council is now evaluating an ordinance that would significantly limit locations where unhoused people could perform the basic activities of daily living. As the people and organizations that work to address homelessness,we understand and share the public’s concerns.We don’t like to see people living on the street,in tents,or in their vehicles.We share the community’s desire for a city where people live in homes,not encampments.We work towards this goal every day. As service providers we would like to ask the City what solution-based steps the City and Staff have taken prior to the current recommended ban?The specific questions are: 1.Has the City attempted to conduct outreach directly or in conjunction with OSH to determine the number of individuals currently living or sleeping in proposed banned areas and whether they are waiting for services to be available? 2.Has the City identified acceptable locations for impacted individuals to relocate to? Service providers do NOT have spaces to place people,and there is currently insufficient capacity in the shelter network system.Where in Gilroy will Quality of Life Officers direct those who are displaced?The majority of the space within city limits that is not included in the ordinance is residential and business property. 3.How much City staff time has been allocated and budgeted to conduct meetings with County agencies and local service providers to come up with a plan prior to passing or implementing this ban? 4.Has the City invested as much time and resources in identifying the needs of the unhoused community as it has drafting this criminalization of poverty and displacement? We know that change has been frustratingly slow –the process to get housing constructed and people off the streets is a long one.But change is happening.Just since July,over 150 unhoused Gilroy residents have moved off the streets and into housing.That didn’t just happen by itself,but through the hard work of service providers and County staff.There are things the City can do that would support this effort such as increased outreach,a parking lot to be used for Safe Parking,development of interim housing.Let’s work together on real solutions. Encampment sweeps interrupt the work that needs to be done and keep people homeless longer. As Gilroy’s service providers,we ask for partnership with the City of Gilroy in addressing homelessness,and to be included in discussions about how best to address the problem.Ideally these conversations would have taken place prior to an item of this significance being brought before the City Council.We emphasize the importance of including people with lived experience of homelessness in the conversation.Their insight and ideas will be invaluable.In fact many public and private agencies require that there be a voice of “lived experience”where decisions are made that directly impact them. We all want the same thing -a safe,clean community.Service providers have already been engaged in the work of encampment clean-up,through St.Josephs’Street Team,South County Compassion Center ’s partnership with Valley Water,and PitStop Outreach projects with Valley Water and Recology.We would welcome the opportunity to work together with the City of Gilroy to assess clean-up needs,schedule activities,and even engage the unhoused community in the work. As written,the proposed ordinance to ban “sitting,sleeping,and lying”or “using,carrying or placing”personal property within 500 feet of schools and parks,100 feet of infrastructure,and 10 feet of doorways and loading docks is not going to solve the problems it was written to address.It is unenforceable and unconstitutional.If implemented as written it would make things worse by pushing problems from the mostly-hidden areas of the city to the residential and business districts.Our recommendation is to NOT pass this ordinance and instead,bring stakeholders together to identify and address the specific problems we are trying to solve. The plan as written gives service providers 30 days after passage of the ordinance to work with the population affected.That is not nearly enough time to be effective with the 75-100 individuals the city acknowledges will be displaced,most of them elderly,disabled,and/or people of color.If the council does choose to move forward with the ordinance regardless,we concerned and will try to attenask that the city work in partnership with the service providers on a plan for implementation that will minimize harm to our community’s vulnerable members and includes a budget for the expenses the work will entail. Sincerely, Vanessa Ashford,Carry the Vision Jan Bernstein Chargin,PitStop Outreach David Cox,St Joseph’s Family Center Tim Davis,South County Compassion Center