I must express my concern with the direction some members of the Grants Pass City Council are taking regarding the Pathway to Stability program. There appears to be a rush to push this initiative through without sufficient dialogue with the community. A troubling lack of communication and transparency is evident among certain council members.
When the new city council and, for that matter, the county commissioners took office in January, I urged them to prioritize transparency, especially when introducing policies or programs that could be considered controversial. Just as importantly, I encouraged them to ensure the public had an opportunity to understand, support, and participate in the decision-making process. Failing to do so only harms our community, creates division, and leads to unnecessary complications in the future. You must gain community support for your decisions, there is NO excuse for not doing so.
Unfortunately, both the city council (some members) and the county commissioners have failed in this regard. Our city and county are currently grappling with several serious challenges, many of which are rooted in poor communication and a lack of transparency. Since taking office, both governing bodies have not done enough to build public trust or secure community support for their decisions.
It’s time for the city council to treat the Pathway to Stability program with the seriousness it deserves. The public must be given a real opportunity to ask questions, gather information, and form their own informed opinions. The council should not rush or obscure initiatives that will affect our entire community for years to come. I urge the city council to slow down. Schedule a town hall meeting, with the city attorney, city council and chief of police in an open meeting for our community to ask questions and learn in greater detail about this Pathway to Stability program.
There is no legitimate reason to exclude the public from this process. Council members should listen to residents and take their concerns seriously. After all, city councilors work for the people – not the other way around.
We have a two issues going on with the homeless issue right now:
1) The injunction: This hopefully will be resolved soon in which NO campers will be allowed in any park. This is being done by expanding the current campsites. The city council is doing good in this area, for trying to get out of the injunction.
2) Pathway to Stability: This is the second issue. It is an issue for lack of transparency and the rush to undertake the program. There are two very concerning issues with this program.
One: It is my understanding that the large lot (8 acres) is for allowing up to 500-600 campers, we don’t need or want that kind of room (even if you factor in some car campers, we still don’t need that much room and it will result in increasing our homeless population).
Two: The Pathway to Stability program may not remove all of our current campsites that are in town. This is another very concerning issue.
This is why we need a town hall meeting with open discussion and transparency to ensure we all have the right information and all our questions are answered.
We have had a public townhall meeting regarding Pathways to Stability and I am sure there will be more, and there should! Public participation can even happen at the steering committee level. I know ALL of the councilors have been invited to the steering committee meetings that include a large number of non-profits that will participate in the Pathways to Stability Assessment Center.
You obviously have little knowledge of HB 3115. This will allow our unhoused residents to continue filing suits against our city. This will NOT be over when the injunction is lifted. We will only be safe as a community from this law when we provide a system that is all encompassing, like Pathways to Stability is trying to implement; where if an unhoused individual chooses to not participate in the program, they will be one deemed unreasonable, not the city.
Thank you for the comment: I know all too well that until HB3115 is repealed, our city and others will continue to be easy prey for lawsuits. With the language of, “Objectively Reasonable” in HB3115 it will never end. For further information check out; Homeless: Understanding State and Federal Law;
https://avoicewithin.org/homeless-understanding-state-and-federal-law/
However, expanding the current campsites as they are doing will hopefully allow the judge to lift the injunction. That doesn’t mean the future lawsuits may come about because of HB3115.
The Pathway to Stability is a different issue that the public is entitled to gain far more information on. That too will not stop future lawsuits nor will it most likely allow all of the current campsites to be closed down as the need for at least one will remain, most likely for those people who are kicked out of the Pathway for Stability shelter for breaking the rules.
Yes, you are correct in that one location will have to be kept open, and that would most likely be the one next to the police station. Pathways to Stability could stop the lawsuits and here is how… With a low barrier option to enter, assessment within 24 hours to attain individual’s need, case manager onsite, services onsite, all the non-profits are onboard to operate with staff onsite (like MINT, UCAN, etc.), transitional housing onsite, there will be a plan put in place for each resident. The plan is what makes this work and keeps us from getting sued. There will be clear paths for these individuals to pull themselves out of homelessness, and a safety net, if they were to fail. But if they were to continually fail, it would then show them to be the unreasonable ones, and there would be ramifications. Also, when the injunction is lifted and there is a clear plan implemented, like Pathways to Stability, then we can institute a no-go zone throughout town and enforce behavioral ordinances, keeping the homeless and drug addicts off our streets, out of our parks, away from our businesses, schools, etc., all the while helping those who really need it. But you can’t do that if you just open “resting sites” as there is nothing implemented to help these people. That is clearly what the intent of HB3115 is… And that is the only thing that will be deemed “objectively reasonable.” I encourage you to shoot me an email (ron (at) usobserver.com) to arrange a meet up. We could do coffee and talk about this. Also, I don’t know anyone who is involved with Pathways to Stability who is against 100% transparency. And yes, the public should be involved because it can be clearly shown how Pathways to Stability will benefit them.
I am not opposed to the general concept of Pathway to Stability, but I am opposed to a few of the specific details. In the current design it will allow (almost 8 acres) 500-600 people. That is over three times the amount of people the court for the injunction requires and what our current campsites hold. That is an outrageous and unacceptable size. I am a firm believer in, “build it, they will come”. We don’t need nor should we accept such a design.
Second issue is – the city does not need to commit to such an expensive project, either by purchase or by lease that will be held accountable for decades to come. These are my main concerns but I am sure many other people have a great deal more they want to learn about are are concerned about. They are entitled to know the details and know that this will not close down all the camps in the city (something I think many do not actually know).
Find a small lot that won’t hold more than 200 people and won’t commit the city for decades to come in an acceptable location with full transparency among the public and I suspect there won’t be so much resistance, that is my gut feeling.
Do you realize that the current data states there are over 700 homeless in our area? If you are aware of that then you must realize we are on the hook to provide space for them under the law, if we want to manage where and when they can “rest.” If we have no rules, we don’t have to do anything under the law and we can just go about our lives letting the homeless camp anywhere and everywhere. But we don’t want that. We want there to be rules, so we have to provide – but it will be fewer than 500-600. There is nothing the city is doing with Pathways to Stability that will, “commit [the city taxpayers] to such an expensive project, either by purchase or by lease that will be held accountable for decades to come.” I am sure there are exit clauses and progress milestones built into any agreement for any land acquisition. Should the people know the specifics; YES! Pathways to Stability would be providing the Assessment Center service FREE to the city. That has been stated emphatically. How is that encumbering us? And to address your comment about “build it, they will come;” when they (the homeless) have to follow a program that is clear and reasonable, and there is no other way for them to be in this community, only people who truly need help will come and take part. Those that want to “Rest” in our parks and do drugs without recourse won’t have any other option but to move on. It’s unfortunate that such an easy idea is so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand… You still have not reached out to arrange a reasonable discussion over coffee, or so I can invite you to a meeting. Regardless, I am willing to do everything here on your platform.
The problem using your numbers is: If we have 700 homeless in our area (which they are clearly not all in town) – than what happens when that numbers grows, and it will grow. So in another year maybe there is 1000 then the next year another 300 more so we are at 1300. We faced this very question and discussion when we were under the first injunction. If I am not mistaken – nobody in their right minds expects us (even the law) to even think about furnishing a shelter for every single person that happens to come into Grants Pass homeless, that is absurd.
Which is exactly why the judge in our current injunction is looking for us to increase our size to 190 spaces, not 600. You have to reminder, there is a thing called reality and nobody anywhere expects us to furnish shelters for anyone and everyone that happens to pop into Grants Pass homeless. So the 500-600 is just nonsense. Tone that number down or face backlash from the community and nothing will get done.
Last I heard, the city was looking into leasing since they can buy the land. The last I heard the lease agreement was something like a 10 year commitment. I could be wrong but these are the very questions that need addressing by the city council in front of the entire community.