The City offered a $1.2 million competitive grant for a homeless project. This grant came with a detailed set of rules and procedures designed to ensure a fair and transparent process, one free from favoritism and bias.
The grant was ultimately awarded to Pathway to Stability, but this decision has sparked backlash and serious concerns regarding how the process was handled.
Among the issues that have raised red flags:
- Lack of a secured location:
The grant required each applicant to have a secured site. Pathway to Stability did not have a confirmed location at the time of application, which should have been grounds for disqualification. - Improper communication:
According to a Daily Courier article, there was communication between Pathway to Stability and the Mayor. The rules clearly stated that all communications were to be directed through a single designated contact person.
These procedural violations indicate that Pathway to Stability should have been disqualified from consideration.
Adding to the controversy, Pathway to Stability proposed a location next to a school, a placement that should have immediately raised red flags. Similarly, Elk Island, another applicant, proposed a site just a few blocks from downtown and Riverside Park, a popular family and tourist area. That same location was rejected back in January due to strong public opposition, and rightly so.
A suitable location for such a project should be away from schools, senior centers, and major public or tourist areas. While no site will ever be perfect, placing a homeless facility next to a high school or downtown is simply unacceptable. Both of these applications should have been rejected on those grounds alone.
The fact that the City Council and Mayor failed to follow their own rules and procedures is deeply troubling. If city leaders cannot follow the standards they themselves established, how can they expect residents, or even the homeless population – to follow rules? Leadership means setting an example, and in this case, that example has fallen far short.
If there are no qualified applicants, the city should not simply choose “the best of the worst.” Instead, officials should look for ways to help all applicants meet the requirements, perhaps by identifying suitable city-, county-, or privately-owned properties that could be considered for future projects.
Ultimately, credibility and public trust depend on the city’s commitment to fairness, transparency, and adherence to its own rules. If those rules aren’t followed, nothing will improve, and the community will continue to lose faith in its leaders.
[A copy of this will be emailed to: City Attorney Nuttall, City Manager Cubic, City Council and Mayor;
snuttall@grantspassoregon.gov, acubic@grantspassoregon.gov, mayorcouncil@grantspassoregon.gov]
