AmnestyPVD wants answers from Smiley Administration about unhoused rights violations
"...the City of Providence, at the direction of your office, apparently denied the basic human dignity and legal rights of approximately fifty unhoused residents..."
AmnestyPVD (Amnesty International USA, Local Chapter 1016) released an open letter to the Office of Providence Mayor Brett Smiley in reaction to the "encampment sweeps" of unhoused residents and the human rights violations of vulnerable residents that are a part of them.
To Whom It May Concern:
Amnesty International USA, Local Chapter 1016, (AmnestyPVD) expresses grave concern at the news that the City of Providence, at the direction of your office, apparently denied the basic human dignity and legal rights of approximately fifty unhoused residents formerly of the Charles Street Tent Encampment. As you may know, Amnesty International is a nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization that has been working for human rights for more than 60 years. We have more than 10 million members internationally and hundreds of local groups in all 50 states in the US, campaigning for human rights in their cities, countries, and around the world. We affirm that access to affordable housing and shelter is an essential component of a fair and equal society, and is integral to realizing the full spectrum of human rights. We advocate for unhoused people to be treated with the respect and dignity that we would expect any individual to receive, on par with the consideration and rights granted to property owners.
In an age when affordable and low-income housing is all but nonexistent, evictions are higher than ever, resulting in severely reduced shelter space. Additionally, protections for those affected by COVID have all but disappeared. Society must stand up for our values of compassion and dignity for all. AmnestyPVD condemns any violation of displaced, vulnerable people in the strongest possible language.
We must hear from this administration to understand whether and to what extent such apparent violations have transpired. Many questions present themselves. What specific interventions, supports, and efforts to secure shelter did mayoral office staff make for the residents of the tent encampment? Were staff of state offices also involved in any such efforts? Was the staff of the nonprofit care community involved in relocating residents? Were all standard systems and protocols followed in this emergency effort and, if not, what specific deviations from policy did the staff make? Are there encampment resettlement protocols that amend and complement congregant and other indoor shelter systems? For instance, will ARPA dollars henceforth be allocated for hotel rooms for all people found to be sleeping in tents, and if not, why was extraordinary effort made in this case and not for others? When will the other hundreds of rough-sleeping residents using those systems secure temporary shelter or safety?
The chief area of concern for us is whether or not the rights and dignity of the residents were maintained during an ugly, violent process of eviction. The City is paying for all of this in labor costs at the police department, employing heavy machinery to destroy and clear people's belongings, and in terms of public credulity in our civil institutions.
We have concerns about the balancing of property rights against the rights of the unhoused. Why was so much consideration paid to the absentee property owner? Was there any discussion of whether or not such a demand from his local agent to enforce trespassing laws on a notoriously unsecured property was in the taxpayers’ interest? Why did the property owner, via his local agent, complain after more than seven years only a few weeks ago? His property has been unmaintained, unenclosed, with broken fences and a history as a site for illegal garbage dumping, for at least seven years. It has been at times the most notable feature of the property. During this same time, people have been camping on it, more or less out of sight. What would compel an absentee owner to complain and make demands after seven years?
Many would call this property a “slum blighted lot” since the state it is in seems to directly contribute to creating a situation inimical to public health and safety. That means it violates Rhode Island General Law 45-31-8. Why was your office not previously in contact with the property owner or his agent, vis-a-vis fines and penalties for not maintaining and securing his lot? Are you interested in enforcing good neighbor laws against wealthy absentee property owners, or just standing by as a handful of police violate the legal rights of some of the most vulnerable individuals in your City? The unhoused at Charles Street Encampment were doing everything they were supposed to do while waiting for shelter and housing. What has the property owner done to uphold community standards? Answers to these questions are critical to ascertaining your administration’s commitment to legal and human rights in our city.
Many of our chapter’s leaders have left messages with staff in your office. We would appreciate a meeting to address our concerns at your soonest convenience. Thank you in advance for your time and careful attention.
Signed,
Amnesty International USA
Local Chapter 1016
See coverage of the Charles Street Tent Encampment here:
Providence police order residents out of their homes for an impromptu "head count"
Residents of the Charles Street Tent Encampment given eviction order
Oped: Following a script, the Charles Street Tent Encampment was raided today
DOT contractors imperiled unhoused pregnant resident at Charles Street Tent Encampment