December 14, VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Mayor Edward B. Murray City of Seattle P.O. Box Seattle, WA Sweep of Homeless Encampments

Transcription

1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Mayor Edward B. Murray City of Seattle P.O. Box Seattle, WA Re: Sweep of Homeless Encampments Dear Mayor Ed Murray: The Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness ( Coalition ), Columbia Legal Services ( CLS ), and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (collectively, we ) write this letter out of concern for the welfare of people experiencing homelessness who have been, or will be, subjected to the City of Seattle s ( City s ) interventions requiring the unsheltered homeless to move from public spaces. These actions must not occur without adequate notice, engagement, outreach, procedures enabling the storage and safeguarding of valuable property, offers of meaningful shelter or safe alternative places to be and sufficient services. Given what has been witnessed during a recent sweep, these concerns are well founded. This letter urges the City to consider the legal and social implications of these sweeps, suspend the implementation of current strategies, and develop new policies with input from knowledgeable homeless advocacy groups. 1. November Meeting with City Officials On November 10, 2015, Alison Eisinger from the Coalition and Merf Ehman from CLS, among other advocates, met with Deputy Mayor Kate Joncas, Jim Theofelis, Scott Lindsey, and Chris Potter regarding Mayor Murray s declaration of a state of emergency and its intended plan of action with respect to people who are in unauthorized encampments. In relevant part, the Coalition and CLS were informed that sweeps would occur during regular work hours and that two outreach workers, a field coordinator from the Financial and Administrative Services Department, and police officers would be dispatched for the execution of the sweeps. Individuals living in a targeted encampment would be offered some services, but the City had no specific information about the type of shelter that would be offered or the number of new beds or spaces it would provide. Indeed, when asked what shelter the City would make available, officials only named the City Hall shelter, for which people line up nightly.

2 Page 2 of 6 In response, the Coalition raised a number of concerns about this plan. Specifically, the City did not adequately address: (1) the notice individuals would receive, (2) the logistics of transporting individuals to shelters, (3) the systems the City would utilize to ensure preservation of private property, and (4) the requisite increases in available shelter space so that one group of unsheltered individuals would not be prioritized over others. Also, the Coalition requested the City not to implement the Multi-Departmental Administrative Rules ( MDAR ) as written, but instead rely on the experience of service providers, advocates, and city workers to develop new guidance. The Coalition and other advocates highlighted issues with the MDAR that have been problematic and should be amended before the City proceeded. These included: The definition of encampment arbitrarily limiting protective measures such as notice, storage of belongings, outreach, engagement, and offers of shelter only for people who happen to be camped in locations with three or more structures. The restrictions on where notice, outreach, and other protective measures would be required. The amount of time considered adequate notice. The provisions for storage and retrieval of personal possessions. The process for determining an item s value. The necessity of offering immediately available shelter space that meets the needs of those camping outside, without displacing others. In addition, the Coalition requested notice from the City before any sweeps occurred. Deputy Mayor Joncas assured meeting participants that Jim Theofelis would contact the Coalition ahead of time. Unfortunately, the City began conducting sweeps without contacting the Coalition or addressing the issues raised at the meeting. 2. December Sweep of Yesler Way Viaduct On December 7, 2015, the Coalition and CLS witnessed a sweep occurring under the Yesler Way viaduct, an area where people are now forced to shelter after the closing of green spaces and the prohibition on using sidewalks. With torrential rain and dropping temperatures, the sweep became a scene of devastation for those who had taken refuge there. Specifically, the Coalition and CLS observed the following: Posted notices informing individuals that the location was unauthorized for storage or shelter, dated December 3, But, it is unclear whether any other notice or outreach was provided to individuals in advance of the sweep. A team consisting of two outreach workers, a Department of Corrections work crew, a Seattle Parks Department official, and two police officers conducted and oversaw the sweep. When the Coalition and CLS tried to inquire about protocol, each party diverted responsibility to a different agency present at the scene. Affected individuals who were fortunate to be present during the sweep were told that they could bag and carry away possessions or have their possessions discarded by the work crew. The City was not equipped to provide other options. For those absent, items were thrown away wholesale. Tents and bags full of possessions were trashed without anyone ascertaining the contents or their worth. The Coalition and CLS observed items of apparent value being discarded by the work crew. Nothing was tagged for retention by the City. Nor were there any apparent means for tagging and retaining possessions regardless of whether the owner was present or not.

3 Page 3 of 6 Once items were thrown onto the garbage truck, there was no opportunity for people to reclaim their possessions regardless of their value or how critical they were to their owners. In an especially egregious episode, one man s neatly bagged belongings, including his medication, were thrown away while he went to a nearby shelter for additional storage bags. Despite his pleas for help upon this discovery, he was not allowed to retrieve his belongings. Complicating the difficult lives of unsheltered homeless individuals in this way is antithetical to the type of action one would expect towards the victims of homelessness during a state of emergency. This episode, among others, raises serious legal and ethical concerns. To date, the City has failed to provide specific policies and information to address the issues raised during the November meeting. These concerns have been compounded by the December 7, 2015 sweep, as well as other sweeps. We request that the City suspend all sweeps until a comprehensive plan can be instituted with input from invested individuals and organizations. 3. Legal and Practical Concerns a. Constitutional Violations Sweeps conducted without adequate notice to the people living in the identified locations and/or without adequate procedures to safeguard their property violate civil and property rights guaranteed by the constitution. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect homeless persons from the seizure and destruction of their property by the government. The practice of summarily seizing and destroying homeless persons property is an unreasonable search and seizure that violates the Fourth Amendment. See Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012) (City violated Fourth Amendment rights of homeless persons when it seized and destroyed their legal papers, shelters and personal effects). Seizing and destroying a homeless person s property without effective and adequate pre- or post-deprivation process including adequate notice violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 1032 ( City must comport with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause if it wishes to take and destroy a homeless person s personal property.) Moreover, destruction of personal property found in public areas can also violate Washington State law. See RCW We request that the City cease removing people who are homeless from their encampments and destroying their possessions until it develops and shares a cogent plan that protects the rights of these individuals, and more critically, provides shelter without driving others outside. If the City is determined to conduct sweeps, they should only occur after enough shelter is available for all. Additionally, better guidelines for clearing homeless persons and their belongings from unauthorized places should include: A minimum level of notice that will be provided and the contents of such notice. A minimum level of outreach that will be provided ahead of any action and the organizations that will be conducting such outreach. A set of clear procedures and instructions for processing private property at sweep sites, both for items belonging to individuals present during the sweep and belonging to those who are absent.

4 Page 4 of 6 A well-communicated process for affected individuals to retrieve all seized items of value and to make claims for improperly trashed items of value. A means for transporting affected individuals and their possessions to shelters and/or other acceptable accommodations, taking into account the issues posed by disability and/or limited mobility. An outline of the consequences for those who do not, or are not, able to engage and choose to remain at the site. A description of the role of law enforcement at the sweep. Given what the Coalition and CLS witnessed at the December 7, 2015 sweep, a detailed policy addressing all of these points is necessary to protect the rights of homeless individuals, and to decrease the burden on the officials tasked with executing the sweeps. Most importantly, however, the plan should not be instituted or executed until the City can provide safe and appropriate shelter for those displaced. This is especially true given the City s insistence that safety concerns are driving its plan. b. Lack of Available Shelter Space The practical concerns surrounding where unsheltered people ultimately find safe and adequate housing and/or shelter must be addressed, and indeed are at the core of the current state of emergency. This is not just a matter of humanity, but the law. The position of the United States Department of Justice is clear on this: When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless. Statement of Interest of the United States, Bell v. City of Boise, No. 09-CV-0540-REB (D. Idaho) (filed Aug. 6, 2015). Further, as declared in the Proclamation of Civil Emergency (Nov. 2, 2015), Section 1, Individuals living within the City of Seattle should have access to basic shelter. Of course, we appreciate the City s desire to increase safety and reach out to people who are unsheltered. But, until other shelter actually exists, a tent or a sleeping bag on the street or parking strip is, in fact, basic shelter. Seattle shelters are currently at or above capacity. This means that offering beds at existing shelters to individuals displaced from unauthorized encampments will not reduce the number of people sleeping in public spaces. It simply reshuffles who spends that night unsheltered and who may be subject to removal from his, her, or their self-created place of refuge. As noted in the Proclamation, the 2015 One Night Count found 2,813 persons sleeping unsheltered in the City. Unless and until the City confirms that this number of additional shelter spaces is available, there will be families and individuals sleeping outside. Removing their vehicles, tents, sleeping bags, and blankets is not an answer, and it is cruel. The Emergency Taskforce on Unsheltered Homeless, created by the Mayor, recommended a number of options to be used in dire situations such as those currently facing the City. The most important

5 Page 5 of 6 was the proposal to open community centers for overnight shelter. We urge the City to treat this emergency like any other and open these facilities for overnight use. Finally, we recognize the City s work to establish authorized encampments on City property. While relocation to these authorized encampments may be a viable alternative for some, the City must recognize that there are those for whom this will not be a workable option. Some people struggle with mental health issues or substance abuse disorders. Some have serious mobility issues. This means that there needs to be sufficient low barrier shelter options that are available, without displacing those already using the space. Further, there need to be access to on-demand treatment services and contingencies made to accommodate people with mobility issues or other disabilities. 4. Conclusion Seattle has a severe crisis - too many of our citizens are living and sleeping outside. Many may be in unsafe situations, as noted by the City, but they have nowhere else to go. Undoubtedly, these are complex issues and the City deserves credit for taking them on. But sweeping people from their encampments without enough adequate and available shelter for them does not increase safety, nor does displacing those who are currently using the shelter space. Such individuals are already suffering from the many indignities and perils of homelessness. The City should not cause additional hardship and create additional barriers by failing to properly with them, by destroying their property, and by failing to provide real access to authorized housing and/or shelter. Though we hope to work collaboratively with the City, we will explore alternative avenues to ensure that those living outside are not harmed, rather than helped, by the City s actions. We ask for a meeting with the City as soon as possible to discuss this matter and reach a better understanding of how the City is protecting all of those living without a place of refuge. Sincerely, Ann M. LoGerfo, Directing Attorney Yurij Rudensky, Attorney Columbia Legal Service 101 Yesler Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA (206) Jennifer Shaw Deputy Director American Civil Liberties Union of Washington 901 Fifth Ave., Suite 630 Seattle, WA (206) cc: Kate Joncas, Deputy Mayor of Operations Jim (James) Theofelis, Special Advisor of Homelessness Scott Lindsay, Special Assistant on Police Reform and Public Safety Chris Potter, Department of Finance and Administrative Services

6 Page 6 of 6 Peter Holmes, City Attorney Darby Ducomb, Deputy City Attorney, Special Projects (via )