Cranston City Councils considers ordinance that will determine how the unhoused are treated

"Criminalization is not the answer. It doesn't work and it won't work here."

On Thursday the Cranston City Council Ordinance Committee, chaired by Council Vice President Lammis Vargas, took up an “anti-camping” ordinance proposed by Cranston Mayor Kenneth Hopkins that would allow the police to ticket occupants of homeless encampments, imposing a $50 fine, and to throw their possessions in the trash if they do not vacate the area within 24 hours. The committee declined to take action on the ordinance and voted to develop a more humane policy over the next few months.

As happened when this ordinance was submitted to the Council, people showed up to testify against it. [See: Cranston Mayor Hopkin's homeless criminalization bill garners public outrage]

What was different this time is that the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Anthony Moretti, as well as Cranston Police Chief Michael Winquist and Community Outreach Captain Justin Dutra, were on hand to defend the ordinance. This post has been divided into three parts. In Part One, we will read the testimony provided against the bill. No one testified in favor of the bill. Chief Winquist speculated that those in favor of the ordinance “chose not to be here because speaking for this ordinance may not be the popular thing.”

[Note that one of the people testifying is me. I never pretend to be “neutral” in my reporting, but when I testify, I try to speak from a place of my experiences and observations. Take my testimony for whatever you think it’s worth.]

In Part Two we will hear from Chief of Staff Moretti, Chief Winquist, and Captain Dutra. In this section look for the language that separates people experiencing homelessness from other residents of Cranston. We refer to housed people as “citizens,” “taxpayers,” and “families,” distinct from the homeless, who may be all these things as well but are separated by the language we use.

Part three is a brief discussion of the committee’s decision.

The following has been edited for clarity, but not brevity.

PART ONE

Debbie Flitman: Here we are again. I don't know how this ordinance made it here. This ordinance is way out of line. At the end of the day, this ordinance is set up to criminalize a marginalized community - a community of our neighbors, people with families who are unhoused - our homeless population. The people you are referencing in this ordinance could be your constituents. Homeless people vote and they matter. Often our homeless population suffers in silence, suffering from a long list of physical and mental health issues. While most do not choose to live outside, sometimes it's their only option. And the fact is - and yes, this is a fact - when people live in encampments, they feel safer and less isolated.

Shelter living is not always the solution, especially in this situation. Evidence has shown that some shelters have criteria one must meet to spend a night, like being sober. Some shelters deny entry to the LGBTQ+ community. They deny access to folks with criminal records, people with kids, blah, blah, blah. The list goes on.

If we look to the experts, they'll tell us, that to stop generating homelessness, we need to provide affordable housing - affordable housing aimed at those with very low incomes. We must provide free mental health services, case management services, and housing vouchers, and have them meet with people who can help them navigate the system. We need to fund and create prevention programs geared toward those people who are at a high risk of becoming homeless and figure out where we, as members of the Cranston community, can find these resources to help ourselves. Yes, ourselves. This is everybody's concern, not just the unhoused population.

We could look at HUD [United States Department of Housing and Urban Development] where this kind of data is studied and where information about ways to reduce the homeless problem can be found.

Don't criminalize the homeless - work for a solution. The issue of homelessness is not going to be resolved by continuing to involve politics in it, and ordinances such as this are not kind, compassionate, or humane. It's deadly. This is a human rights issue. Every person has the right to adequate housing. What do we need first? First, we need you, the members of the ordinance committee to listen to the constituents that are here today. We don't want to criminalize the homeless. Please don't approve this ordinance.

---

Tom Wojick: Recently, the United States Supreme Court gave cities the right to prevent Joseph and Mary from sleeping in the park because the Supreme Court ruled against the basic value of humanity. It doesn't mean that we in Cranston must act inhumanely. There are effective ways to address and deal with the crisis of homelessness. Very few people choose to be homeless. Homelessness typically comes about because of economic situations and hardships. Most people who become homeless do not choose to be homeless. Typically, it's the result of dire economic circumstances that are not in the control of the people who become homeless.

I was thinking about this ordinance and it's like the mayor might write an ordinance that prohibits the Pawtuxet River from overflowing its banks because it disrupts public peace and decency, and causes economic distress.

Would this ordinance stop the river from overflowing? No. The city can't stop or prevent it from overflowing its banks until it addresses the core issues causing the river to overflow -infrastructure and climate change.

We cannot prevent the river from overflowing, nor can we prevent homelessness by banning it. But if we look at the causes and circumstances and work with individuals, groups, and agencies that understand the problem, we can find effective and humane solutions. This city must complete a comprehensive plan. Homelessness must be part of that plan. The human and respectful action this committee can take tonight is to not pass this ordinance and to recommend a housing and homeless task force to study the issue and present options, not an ordinance of inhumanity.

One additional point is that the ordinance shifts the burden of homelessness to our police department and would make it considerably more difficult for homeless people to find alternatives if they have arrests and fines. Homelessness is not a policing issue. It's a human, political, social, and economic reality of our society. Cranston can become a model city that demonstrates it cares or can pass an ordinance to inhumanity. I ask you to care tonight.

---

Vivian Sutherland: I'm here to oppose the ordinance. I'm involved in local renter organizing in Rhode Island, and I want to ask any of you who've ever been a renter, did you ever have a termination of tenancy made against you in Rhode Island? It only takes a month for any landlord to say, “I am giving you no reason other than maybe I want to raise your rent. You have to be out in a month, and if you're not out in that month, I can bring you to the district court to evict you.”

In Rhode Island, it's perfectly acceptable to give someone only a month until they're homeless. It's honestly criminal that we, as a society, do this to people. Where's the housing if we're going to criminalize the unhoused? They did that in the Soviet Union. Did it work there? It didn't, but at least they gave people two million houses every year that they built. Compared, at the time, to the population of the United States, that was a lot of housing. I'm not saying that they were great at all, but it just doesn't work to criminalize housing. We need to give people housing. We need to build housing. I would urge Cranston to create some type of housing task force to make sure that you can bring in the types of development that you need to build low-income affordable housing and shelter-type supports.

Homes fix the unhoused problem, not criminalizing people and having them end up in our prison system. That's going to be a bigger issue for taxpayers at the end of the day. I urge you all to not pass this ordinance.

---

Megan Elizabeth Jackson: I'm here as a recent law graduate, a Rhode Islander, a neighbor, and a concerned private citizen. My biggest concern is that the effect of this proposed ordinance would not be to eliminate homelessness or do anything to address the concerns of people about safety and public health. It would simply push people, who are already at their lowest, further into the edges of their already marginalized status and further away from the resources they could access and the communities that they are a part of. As Rhode Islanders, we shouldn't be kicking people while they're down.

It is not in our best interest to emulate West Coast policies. It's not great to be a northeast elite if you're not that elite anymore. Is throwing away all of someone's personal effects and giving them a $50 fine going to make them less homeless or your community any safer? It's going to exacerbate the desperation of people who, as Colonel Winquist has pointed out, have criminal histories, and it is going to further create tensions with legal authorities and give these people more reasons to evade the state and its power.

I understand that immediate bandaid solutions look nice and are politically expedient, but we have to think long-term, not just as local communities but as a state, as to what the ultimate effect of ordinances like this are. I also understand that the Supreme Court recently ruled that this kind of ordinance is within your right to institute constitutionally, but the Constitution is a legal document and it's not a moral compass. Just because the Supreme Court says that it's okay doesn't mean that it's ultimately beneficial to the community or represents the values of Rhode Island as a whole. The people most affected by this ordinance are without homes, not hope.

---

Pat Ford: There is a saying in the homeless community, “Just because you take my tent doesn't mean I can pay the rent.” I represent Libertarian Mutual Aid, an all-volunteer organization that runs the water project, delivering water in bulk to homeless encampments, meal kitchens, and sidewalks across much of Northern Rhode Island. Currently, LMA supports over 24 locations. The demand for our services exceeds the resources we can muster.

Our roots are in the forced eviction of the Providence Charles Street encampment. Attending a press conference there, a young man asked me if I had any water. Opening my truck I showed him two pallets of bottled water. We delivered 40 packs to each tent. We do this weekly.

The realization, that despite the millions spent, no source exists for water to drink and bathing in 2023 and 2024, is stunning.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island continues to waste millions, unable to complete occupancy on pallet homes in Providence that cost millions, and paying excessive salaries to a failed housing department that shows little progress. Despite years of operation, cities like Woonsocket spend hundreds of thousands on a dignity bus that sits idly, and not-for-profits like CAP agencies whose CEOs make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year act largely as a pass-through for government aid. The last salary for the now departed CEO of Crossroads was $345,000. There is a great deal of money to be made off the backs of the poor.

The point - despite millions of dollars spent, there is simply no place for these folks to go. Dispersing homeless encampments kills as social service providers lose contact with the most vulnerable. Even more alarming, the fragile sense of community that exists in these encampments is destroyed with individuals often going it alone and those struggling with addiction vulnerable to overdose deaths as no one is present to administer life-saving Narcan. This ordinance is nothing less than an abomination and does not reflect the basic values of the Rhode Islanders I know. Just because you take my tent doesn't mean I can pay the rent.

---

Rebecca Carroll: I'm here to voice my vehement opposition to the mayor's proposed ordinance, which is an amendment to the ironically titled Offenses Against Public Peace and Decency Section of the City Code. I earned my master's in public administration from URI and completed my capstone research on homelessness in Rhode Island. I'm here today speaking in my capacity as a private citizen and as a resident and voter in Cranston.

While the language in the ordinance refers to camping, let's be clear: this is a direct attack on people experiencing homelessness. No one is camping recreationally on city-owned property. People don't have a place to live.

To put the severity of the homelessness crisis into context, the number of people experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island increased by 35% in just the past year and has more than doubled since 2020. There were more than 2,400 people experiencing homelessness in Rhode Island as of the January 2024 Point In Time count conducted by the Coalition to End Homelessness, which also runs the statewide CES [Coordinated Entry System] hotline for people seeking Shelter.

The largest increase was in people living unsheltered, meaning they're living in places deemed unfit for human habitation, including tents, cars, and simply on the streets. Since 2020, the number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness has increased by nearly 400%. Rather than expanding shelter capacity, driving affordable housing development, or instituting renter protections in the city, the mayor would rather criminalize the very existence of people experiencing homelessness. But you cannot criminalize and fine people out of being homeless. The only solution to the homelessness crisis is housing. That includes shelter beds, but it also includes permanent supportive housing, housing first programs, and policies that prevent homelessness from happening to people in the first place.

I have plenty of data and research from my masters that I'd be happy to share with members of the council and with the mayor's office, but I know my time's limited, so I'll end with this: There are not enough shelter beds or near enough affordable places to live in Cranston. People who are experiencing homelessness would be even further financially devastated by a $50 fine and the destruction of their personal belongings as is written in this ordinance, not to mention the abject cruelty of treating people who need support and assistance with punishment rather than kindness.

I urge the council to reject this proposal and maintain a modicum of decency for people experiencing homelessness in our city. Criminalization is not the answer. It doesn't work and it won't work here. People experiencing homelessness are our neighbors and constituents, and they deserve the basic human rights of stable housing and a government that protects them rather than attacks them and criminalizes them for their current circumstances.

---

Kinverly Dicupe: I'm one of the organizers over at DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality). You might have heard of us. We're a nonprofit and we do a lot of work with people who've been incarcerated and we also do a lot of work in housing. I get to meet a lot of people who are being evicted, have already been evicted, or are homeless and out on the street. Many of them can't find shelter. Many of our shelters are booked up across the board.

It's bewildering to me. Why are we here doing this? Everyone here knows we have a huge housing crisis. This is not a new situation. We know that the rents are high. A lot of you look old, so you have kids, and those kids will tell you it's expensive to rent out here even if you have a college degree.

So what are we doing? We know we don't have enough affordable housing for the people who already live here. We have the Boston refugees moving in. No offense, I like them, but they're moving in and we're here testifying about an ordinance that wants to criminalize people who can't find housing. What is the average rent in Providence right now? It's like $2,000 and I doubt it's any better here in Cranston because it's not better in Pawtucket where I live. Pawtucket, as long as I've lived there, used to be known as the hood, and the rent is high over there too. Central Falls, same thing. I mean Central Falls is a place where a lot of people didn't want to live. Now it's expensive to live in Central Falls.

So again, why are we here commenting about an ordinance to criminalize people who can't find housing when everyone in this room knows that housing for everyday people, people who make around 40, 50 grand, is incredibly hard to find and let alone if we're talking about buying a house in this state. It's really expensive.

I remember canvassing some guy's house and he was like, "That house right in front of mine sold for $600,000. Now, what is a house in Pawtucket doing being sold for more than half a million dollars? Can somebody please tell me? And this house was not cute, it was one of those starter homes that people used to get in the seventies that was like 30 grand or something. One of those homes was more than half a million dollars.

And if you've met many of these homeless folks, they're dealing with a lot of trauma, right? Drug abuse, a lot of times it's family abuse. These people end up in these situations. It's like a convergence of systems failing. If you're not going to do anything about housing people, which, you're all politicians, so nobody expects you to do anything, at least don't make the problem worse.

We don't need these people in the jails. Why do we need these people in the jails? We already know that in America we have too many people in jail. So why would we criminalize somebody just because they don't have enough money to rent a $2,000 apartment? I'm young. A lot of the folks around my age are either living with their parents or they have a lot of roommates. You don't even get to choose your roommates anymore. You just get to have whatever roommate comes around and can afford the rent alongside you. That's the situation for young people. Many of these people have college degrees and that's the situation for them. So no, don't go through with this ordinance and at the very least, don't make the problem worse.

---

Megan Smith: I teach at Rhode Island College in the School of Social Work and more relevant to this conversation, I've done outreach in the homeless community in the state, including the City of Cranston for the last 18 years. I've had the privilege over that time of having a lot of conversations with people who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness and increasingly people who are in and who are being relocated from encampments. Many of my talking points have already been said, so I'll be brief.

There's not a profound issue here besides the one of humanity. I know the Supreme Court has legally allowed for this, but that doesn't make it morally right and doesn't make common sense, as others have said. The number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness has increased exponentially in the state in the last five years, and more and more of those folks have been forced to stay in encampments and make those encampments a source of whatever safety they can have. As someone who spends a good amount of time in those spaces weekly, I can tell you that people are trying to make the best of a terrible situation, not of their creation.

Homelessness is a manifestation of all of our structural failings being visited upon people who have a combination of individual and structural vulnerabilities in their lives. No one is in an encampment because they want to be, but people are in an encampment because that's the best option they have given what we all collectively as a society have given them.

To add more punishment to that - to find someone to throw away their belongings - defies both humanity and common sense. People, as others have said, cannot afford the rent, so charging them money is going to do nothing to solve those structural issues and it also makes it harder for people to work on their goals and for us as outreach workers, case managers, and advocates to support them in addressing their goals. And there should be goal alignment here in the sense that people don't want to be sleeping outside and none of us who have a conscience wants them to have to sleep outside.

I would love to see this conversation go in the direction of having a novel and truly interesting, creative, and thought-provoking conversation about what it looks like to collaborate with people who are experiencing homelessness to create some long-term solution. That's something we, as Rhode Islanders and particularly on the city level such as here, have a unique opportunity to get at this issue.

We have a lot of people who are homeless in the state, but we have a number that we can get our heads around, right? If we think creatively we can house a few thousand people, but that is not beyond our collective imagining.

The last two things I'll say is first, if we're going to have any conversation about this, let's have it honestly. Let's not be disingenuous about the language we use. None of the data support the idea that clearing encampments fosters public safety or public health. Let's not pretend - let's not put that veneer on the conversation that we're having. If it's about criminalization - if it's about “we don't want those people in our city or our state,” let's have that conversation. But if we want to have a conversation about public health and public safety, that would be an interesting conversation to have and I would love to have that.

The last thing I'll say is, again, I do street outreach several times a week, and if anyone wants to come out with us and have the kind of conversations I get to have with people who are experiencing this directly, I would love for you to come out with me. I'll be here. I can give you my contact information and I mean that because when you see it, and I know maybe some of you have, but if you get to have conversations with people, the next conversation about this might have a different tenor to it.

---

Kelly Meara: I'm here on behalf of the ACLU of Rhode Island. I'm also an attorney. The ACLU of Rhode Island wishes to register its strong opposition to this punitive ordinance proposed by the mayor and aimed at the city's homeless population. In addition to making illegal any temporary shelter on city property - a shelter that the ordinance itself recognizes is erected for the specific purpose of protecting from the natural elements - the ordinance would impose a $50 fine on violators and provide for the destruction of the individual's personal property after 24 hours.

This proposal is extraordinarily cruel. We know that some municipalities across the country are seeking to take callous advantage of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in the Grant Pass case to punish the homeless in a myriad of ways. But it would be unfortunate to see any municipality in Rhode Island follow suit, forcing homeless people to move when they have nowhere to go, and engaging in the surreal attempt to fine them when almost by definition they have no money, is deeply harmful and a completely ineffective response to a serious societal problem.

The proposal's heartless plan to quickly dispose of the little property that these individuals have, rather than retain it for a reasonable period for retrieval, raises serious constitutional concerns independent of the Grant's Pass ruling. Like the city's previous ill-fated attempts to ban panhandling, Rhode Island's serious homelessness crisis cannot be solved by punishing the victims of that crisis. The ACLU urges the committee to reject this misguided proposal and instead encourage more useful, compassionate, and systemic solutions when addressing this critical issue.

---

Steve Ahlquist: I'm a reporter and live in Providence. I've been writing about homelessness now for many years. I want to tell a story about what it means when you throw things away from people who have so little. Two years ago in Woonsocket, there was an encampment raided by the mayor. Some of the people who lived there weren't there because they were at a doctor's appointment or working - because many people who are homeless have full-time jobs and need to work. They threw everything in this one particular tent away. And after some time I managed to track a woman who lived there down and talk to her. Among the items that were destroyed, which she will never see again, was the only picture she had of her deceased son and every other family photo she had. All her documentation, which means her birth certificate, and anything she didn't have in her purse at the time, was destroyed.

That's in addition to all her clothing and all her other stuff. The stuff she could get back would take months to get back. The stuff she couldn't get back was gone forever.

When you first become homeless or experience homelessness, the first thing that happens is you have to choose what stuff you will carry out of your home, whether that's a house or an apartment, and you choose the things that you can't live without. You find mementos.

I know a person who brought all her baking stuff with her - pans and cookie sheets and whatever. She brought it with her because she was hoping someday she'd get back into a place and be able to bake again. Then, after some time of course, she had to move and the things that were heavy, like baking pans, were left behind - because you don't give your life up all at once. You give it up in pieces. It's a constant drag on your very sense of self.

You need to think about this if you are considering throwing people's things away.

I'll also add that in Providence they have a process by which if they're going to go into an encampment and throw things away, they scoop everything up, bring it to a cemetery on North Main Street, and store it there inside a building for I think 60 days or 30 days or whatever. But they don't monitor it. Anybody can go in there and say, “Oh, that's my stuff,” and just take it. People have lost their stuff because of people going in and taking it, or their stuff is treated so badly it's no good.

The contractors say, “What we're salvaging here is anything that looks good to us,” but in reality, the contractors don't think any of it looks good because it all looks like trash to them. So they just throw it all in the trash and very little is saved. There's no way to do this in a way that's decent, human, or respectful to the lives you're impacting.

I've done this a long time and I would recommend that any of you here take up Megan Smith on her offer to visit encampments because it is a life-altering experience. I've never been to an encampment without going with a person like Megan, and it's really important to get to know these people before you decide you're going to destroy their lives because that is what this ordinance intends to do, destroy lives.

---

Drake Patton: I'm profoundly moved by the comments of my neighbors and my neighbors beyond Cranston. I've spoken before on this and I want all of us to think about how close we might be to a moment when our lives are not secure. Maybe not for you, but for me, that could be a family member that needs something. Many of us can relate to this, and tonight we heard about the moral compass that we need to have despite the Supreme Court. We heard about cruelty rather than kindness. Someone said, “I ask you to care.” Others said “bewildering,” and Steve Ahlquist just explained to us these very specific things he has encountered.

These are our brothers and sisters, and I don't know about you, but I never assume I'm very far from that. I also assume that this council, who I respect, has the compassion to understand that our best selves involve solutions, not the mayor's thoughtless, cruel ordinance. I ask everyone, regardless of party, to think about our lives and our families and to think about what was said tonight. They were all so beautiful, so powerful, and the people among us who have less, who have fallen in bad times deserve our care. They deserve everything, and I trust that you can do that for us.

---

Karen Rosenberg: My purpose in commenting is to ask the ordinance committee to vote against this ordinance and not return it to the full council. I want to thank the people who came here from Cranston and beyond Cranston to share their expertise and their experience with this issue. I find it disappointing and even offensive that this ordinance was introduced. It seems like the administration could have done some research before they proposed this and required everybody to take time away from their evening to be out here to talk about it because it doesn't seem like there was much thought behind it. We've got so much expertise in this room tonight and people could have explained why this is counterproductive and doesn't solve the problem that it appears to be addressed.

We elect our leaders to solve problems, not to do simple and lazy things, and I am not aware of very much of anything that has been done in the city in the past few years toward addressing the problem of affordable housing. That's what we expect and should be able to expect from our elected officials - that you will do the hard work of figuring out how to solve the problem instead of sweeping it under the rug. I appreciate that people took the time to come here and point out all the reasons why this ordinance doesn't make sense and isn't going to solve any problems. It's going to create problems. It's inhumane and should be withdrawn.

---

Susan Blake: I want to echo the sentiments of so many people who spoke so eloquently here tonight, and note that I was deeply touched by the stories I heard and the experiences of people who are much more versed in dealing with the homeless population in Rhode Island and Cranston. Concerning this ordinance, I beseech you, once again, to listen to that little voice inside of you that is saying, “This is not right.” This is morally reprehensible, and I ask that you not pass this ordinance any further than this room here tonight.

I would like to add a personal story having to do with homelessness. I won't give you a lot of the details, but I have a former family member who, after a divorce, became homeless. I'm not sure if it was by choice or not, but this person had serious mental issues that went untreated and lived on the streets of Providence for many years and then went on the lamb - went MIA for several years without communicating with family and was eventually found dead behind a dumpster. The only personal property this person had on them when their body was discovered was a Sharpie pen and a notepad. This breaks my heart.

Please do not pass this ordinance and let's set up a special commission to work on the homeless situation here in Cranston if we can't deal with it on a higher level.

---

Jess Salter: I am here to speak as a resident of Cranston, but also as someone who works at Amos House, which is one of the state of Rhode Island's largest social service providers - providing services to many of the different populations that we're speaking about tonight. We serve about 15,000 individuals every year who come to us in crisis, and among those services is a continuum of housing that runs from shelter housing to permanent supportive housing. Included in that housing is currently the fact that we run the state's largest family emergency shelter, which right now, tonight, 57 families are sleeping in - a shelter that counts to 160 children tonight. And even with those 57 families in that family shelter, there are 60 families on a waiting list to get into shelter housing through the coordinated entry system.

And I know a few people have thrown around the term CES or coordinated entry system, but to give you a little bit of context of how that works, it is a very necessary but incredibly cumbersome process by which unhoused people have to call and get on a list and navigate technology to be eligible for a shelter bed. Shelter beds we are currently 2000 short of in the State of Rhode Island to keep everyone safe and under a roof.

It's no surprise that there are tents all around the state because we simply don't have enough beds right now in Rhode Island. To afford the average two-bedroom apartment, you need two and a half minimum-wage jobs. That's not realistic for someone who is supporting their children or living independently by themselves.

While it is very encouraging to hear all of the words being said tonight in support of this community that we're trying so hard to protect, it is incredibly frustrating to know that we are putting this amount of effort and this amount of work into addressing this instead of the actual work that needs to be done in this state and this city. We need both a short-term goal that allows for emergency housing to keep all of these individuals and families safe, and we need a long-term project for the state that allows us to move forward so that we don't have well over 2000 people unhoused every single night in the State of Rhode Island, the country's smallest state.

If we are worried about drug use in these tent encampments, then let's invest money in recovery housing. Let's talk about the shortage in recovery shelters right now. Amos House runs the state's only recovery-focused shelter housing. If you are worried about safety, then I hardly think it is in the best interest of what I'm sure is our overtaxed and understaffed police system to go out and disrupt peaceful people and take their belongings. If you are worried about the sustainability of housing, let's talk about rent stabilization. There are so many conversations that we could be having right now that are more useful than this one.

I hope that the words that you've heard tonight encourage you to act with compassion, and I hope this ordinance dies. This is the second time that I have spoken out against it, and it is quite honestly ridiculous that so many of us are still having to say these words in support of people. The 60 families that are on that waiting list and the 57 families that are sleeping in a shelter tonight are your neighbors, many of whom are Cranston residents, and all they want is to be safe. They want a fresh start, they want safety and they want stability, and this ordinance actively works against that.

PART TWO:

Anthony Moretti: First of all, thank you, everyone, for your compelling, valid, and legitimate arguments. This ordinance was not submitted lightly. Cranston is home to many homeless individuals of a certain sector, obviously Ward 6 at Harrington Hall¹. Cranston is a part of the solution. The mayor, as I believe it came out at a previous council meeting, has a concern for the homeless, particularly homeless families. He's tried working with the state this past year to find suitable locations for homeless families, particularly with Stefan Pryor². The mayor is certainly compassionate and wants to be proactive in finding housing for homeless individuals, particularly those with families.

Something to note: the ordinance in no way criminalizes or would criminalize anyone. It has nothing to do with criminality at all. I want to make that clear that we're not trying to make anyone a criminal. In listening to everyone, we would propose, if this were to be heard, that the ordinance could be amended if the council would like to eliminate the $50 fine. We'd be open and encourage that to be the case.

The genesis of this has been since taking office over the past several years - I'm sure [homelessness] is increasing because of what's happened to society, affordability, et cetera, et cetera, for all the reasons the people here this evening articulated - but it was voluminous complaints from neighbors throughout the city. This was not just something that was dreamed up on the third floor, it was a reaction to neighbors throughout the city.

I believe every ward has been touched by it in terms of complaints and concerns expressed to City Hall. It was these neighbors and people who were using City of Cranston facilities, particularly recreational facilities or nearby recreational and outdoor facilities of the city of Cranston where the homeless encampments were popping up and occurring. These people were concerned about [homeless people] being in an area like baseball fields, for example. People with their children, walking their pets feel that they can't live in Cranston the way they want to live - that they would take their walk with their children, but these encampments would be there.

It's not just because those individuals were there, but oftentimes that the camps are fundamentally unsanitary for the general public and for the occupants. It is not a good situation for anyone to live or anyone to be near, as unfortunate as it is.

For example, and I hate to use this language, but I've seen it, there's debris strewn around these encampments. There are used syringes, needles, drug paraphernalia, and prostitution. There are buckets of feces, urine, used and toilet paper, strewn in these areas. That's what we're looking at. That's the element we're trying to do [something about]. We're not trying to pick on anyone, but trying to strike a balance between the occupants and the citizens. It isn't just a one-sided argument and certainly, there are good points to both sides, but it's the mayor's concern for the neighbors of the occupants of these encampments. Would you want your relative in one of these encampments living under those conditions? I don't think so. We want to try to help them. We don't want to discard them.

That is the priority and the concern - to offer sanitary conditions for these folks. The ordinance is intended to protect the citizens and the occupants.

Michael Winquist: I agree with the chief of staff. This is a problem we're not going to solve here tonight, and this ordinance is not going to solve the issue of homelessness in Cranston. There's no question about that. I'm looking at this solely from the lens of public safety and health. I can tell you there are some serious concerns. I've been out in these encampments myself. There are open fires, propane tanks, and used needles and syringes. There are people using drugs and prostitution taking place.

We are not going out looking for encampments. I can tell you right now we have a lot more pressing issues that the Cranston City Police Department has to handle. It's not something that we enjoy dealing with, but when we receive a lot of complaints from people that live in the immediate area of these encampments, we must respond and we must do something. We can't turn a blind eye.

I think those residents - and unfortunately, many of them were supposed to be here tonight and I think they chose not to be here because speaking for this ordinance may not be the popular thing. As I look out, I see everyone here who's against it, and they make a lot of good points.

We don't want to go out and criminalize or arrest people that are in a dire situation. I want to clarify that we have not arrested a single person in one of these encampments for not leaving the area. Every single time we go out we have a community outreach team that's comprised of a police officer - most of the time it's Captain Dutra - and he's accompanied by a mental health clinician as well as a social service provider.

We often provide or offer the services to the people in these encampments, and most of the time they turn down these resources [but] we have to do something. We can't allow this to continue. A lot of these encampments are in areas that are difficult to reach by police or fire. We've had situations where there's been overdoses and a lot of these encampments - not all - are people that come out of the ACI or one of the other institutions that are on the state complexes and they have nowhere to go. There is a bigger issue out there. We need to find not only temporary housing for these people, but permanent housing and we want to be part of the solution. We don't want to be part of the problem. We're trying to do it with great compassion, and as the chief of staff already said, there's a balance and I think we need to try to find that balance.

[As for] issuing a fine against someone homeless, we're never going to collect that, let's be honest. We're not going to arrest somebody that doesn't pay the fine. It's a civil infraction only. It's not a criminal statute. I want to make that clear. So I've heard the word criminalize used several times. Many of the people that are in these encampments are sex offenders. They have nowhere to go, and that creates a lot of concern. If they're along the bike path, they're near ball fields and other locations. It also makes it hard for the police department that has to track sex offenders and make sure they're properly registered. There's a lot more to this situation. But again, I have a job to do - to look at things from a public safety and health perspective.

There's been some media out there that says that we're raiding these encampments. I can tell you, and Captain Dutra is going to explain to you, that's not the case. Most of the time somebody's there with a body-worn camera that can show the interaction that takes place between the police department, the mental health clinician, and the social service providers. It's a very, very respectful process and nobody's running up on encampments and arresting anybody. I know that was falsely reported by certain bloggers and media outlets have reported that. [Colonel Winquist might be referring to this post: Cranston issues warning to homeless encampments: Clear out, no exceptions] The bottom line is we're offering the resources. Unfortunately, there is a component in these encampments that likes to live off the grid because there are no rules. A lot of the shelters out there require that you be searched before you enter the shelter and you have to be sober. Some things take place and people in these encampments tell us that's the reason why they do not want to go into shelter. They want to continue to use drugs.

We have resources for recovery. We're part of the Hope Initiative in Rhode Island. Captain Dutra is involved in that program. We can get somebody into treatment and recovery, but unfortunately, a lot of times those services are turned down. At the end of the day, it's a complex issue. I would be in favor if this ordinance did pass, that maybe it's required they meet with somebody [so] at least we know they're listening and are aware of the services that we can offer them. Right now, the only ability we have, unfortunately, is if somebody doesn't leave the public property and we warn them, and there's no trespass the other option is arrest.

So this ordinance is the ability to try and address the problem. It's a civil infraction and then we wouldn't have to arrest somebody. That's not something we have done so far, and we hope we can continue not to have to arrest the people who are out in these areas.

Captain Justin Dutra: I'm the Community Outreach Captain at the Cranston Police Department... I have to deal with constituent affairs complaints that come through City Hall. A lot of those constituent affairs complaints are about the conditions of these camps the conditions around the camps and the public health and safety issues. When we enter these camps, which I've been to dozens of them in the city, I interact with the people living in these camps as the face of the police.

When we're out in the camps, I'm dressed like this. We're not running checks on people. We're not going out there to arrest them. I go out there with my crisis intervention team members, which is a program we run through the police department. We have embedded social workers that go out with us and we offer a variety of services. We're responding to complaints from citizens. The majority of the concerns are the hypodermic needles and not just a couple - hundreds of needles - some with blood and remnants of heroin or fentanyl on these needles - human feces, and not just a little, I'm talking lots of human waste, [as well as] propane tanks, open fire pits, and rats.

The conditions are atrocious and deplorable. I have compassion for the people that are out there and everybody who spoke, I respect what you do. I respect the work you're doing and I respect your point of view and I hope you continue with it. This is not a slight against anybody out there or the points you made. I think they're all valid points and I agree with that. But the other side of this issue is that the police department is tasked to address quality of life issues for everybody in the city, [not just] the homeless population, but also the taxpayers that have to live in these areas that are adjacent to these homeless camps. Unfortunately, these camps tend to pop up in more urban, low-income areas of the city due to their access to the bike path, public bathrooms in stores and businesses, and bus routes.

Unfortunately, the people who live in these areas, don't have the opportunity to let their children recreate in a beautiful backyard in Western Cranston away from these issues, or in Barrington or Bristol. Their kids have to utilize the bike path, and they have concerns when they're going up and down the bike path and their kids are passing by needles, prostitution, blatant sex acts going on, intoxicated persons, all elements of these camps. I understand that these are addiction issues and bigger issues are going on, but I feel the police department has a responsibility to address the quality of life issues of these taxpayers. Primarily, the low-income neighborhoods of the city have to live in areas adjacent to the camps, so whether the ordinance passes or not, something has to be done to address these camps so the police department can effectively respond to the concerns of the taxpayers and constituents that have to live in these areas. The camps have become out of hand.

Michael Winquist: Some of these encampments have been cleaned up two or three times - and public works cannot clean those places because of the biohazard risk. So the city is forced to hire a biohazard company to come in and clean up the needles and the human feces. There is a cost to clean these sites and as soon as we clean them, another one pops up somewhere else. It's a perpetual issue that we're looking for some support to try to address.

PART THREE

During the discussion on the ordinance by the City Council, it was decided to continue the issue for three months, during which time the council will meet with the administration and with the public safety partners, and form a subcommittee to decide on Cranston’s policy on homelessness.

You can watch the city council’s deliberations here:

1. Harrington Hall is the only shelter in Rhode Island accepting sex offenders.

2. Stefan Pryor is the former State Housing Director.