Mayor Smiley meets with unhoused people and advocates at Mathewson St. Church for a second time

"The problem is, Mr. Mayor, you want them to move, but move where? There’s nowhere for them to move. There is no space..."

For a second time, Providence Mayor Brett Smiley met with the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project (RIHAP) and people experiencing homelessness in the City yesterday at the Mathewson Street United Methodist Church in Downtown Providence, a short walk from City Hall. Mathewson provides meals and services for people experiencing homelessness.

At issue were recent events of encampments being cleared with little notice, despite the Mayor’s assurance at the last meeting that encampments on City property would be given a 30-day notice before receiving a final 48-hour notice to vacate an area, issues of unhoused people outside Mathewson being harassed by members of the Providence Polic Department, and the ongoing lack of housing opportunities in Providence for unhoused people. As was said at both meetings repeatedly, when unhoused people are forced to vacate an encampment and their property destroyed, where do they go?

Three members of his staff accompanied the Mayor: Mayor Smiley: Rachel Ferrara, MSW, Director of the Human Services Division; Emily Freedman, Director of the Housing and Human Services Office; and Housing Resource Coordinator Dennis González.

The following transcript was edited for clarity and concision.

Kevin Simon, Director of Outreach and Communications at Mathewson: Today, we want to say special thanks to Mayor Smiley and his staff. He has a busy schedule, but this is the second time he’s been here in recent months to speak with our community. We want to have a constructive, productive conversation. We are all here to work together to figure out how we can find everybody’s safe spaces.

Thank you, Mayor and the staff, for being here. We greatly appreciate it. We know you’re all super busy, but we want to form a relationship where we work together to fix the issues that we’re having.

Eric Hirsch, Chair of RIHAP: I also appreciate the Mayor’s presence and that of everyone else here. We have some follow-up questions for you from various people here. And Kevin’s going to start.

Kevin Simon: The last time you were here, we discussed a few incidents that we had witnessed outside the church. Some of our folks, who are here to be in community, were harassed by law enforcement when they came into the area, which was not okay with us.

Last Monday, we had a similar incident. It happened at five o’clock in the morning when folks were on our side of the street and were told they could not be on this side of the sidewalk. They were asked to move to the other side. At two o’clock in the afternoon, a different set of law enforcement officers came over and said, “You cannot be here; you need to be on the other side.”

I asked them, “Where is this direction coming from?” They said, “It is not coming from the Mayor’s office.” It was coming from whoever was in charge of the particular officers on duty at that time.

I’m asking for help because there seems to be a significant disconnect between elected officials and law enforcement officers, whether in the fire or police departments. It’s traumatizing folks, and I don’t think people understand what something of that significance does to them throughout the day.

We’re asking for help to figure out a way to communicate—whether that’s a meeting with Chief Perez or whoever it is—to make sure that these things aren’t happening. We are trying everything we can to create a safe space for our friends to come into every day, and we want to continue, but those instances are just traumatizing, and it’s not okay to have them happen.

Providence Mayor Brett Smiley: I think you’re right. There probably is a disconnect. That’s two different shifts, so it’s two distinct groups of police officers, and I think we can clarify that with a conversation with the Chief and the District Lieutenant for downtown. Those decisions - patrol decisions everywhere - are made by a District Lieutenant, so we want to make sure that, in this case, he’s involved in the decision.

Megan Smith, an outreach worker with the House of Hope CDC: Very shortly after our last meeting, where the communication was that individuals in camps in the City would be given 30 days in advance of a 48-hour notice, there were at least two instances that came to our attention of people being immediately vacated. One was in the cemetery off of Elwood Avenue. They were moved by the Parks and Recs staff. The second was by police behind the Mathematical Society off of Park. In neither of those cases was adequate notice given. I’m aware that we received some of those 30-day notices after that. However, given the two instances following our last conversation, I do not yet have confidence that that will be the standard practice in the future.

Mayor Smiley: On the Mathematical Society - this would be true more generally if it’s private property. We’ve never stated that the 30-day notice would be something we can guarantee on private property. That’s a private property owner’s decision [as to] how quickly they want us to vacate a site. The 30-day notice is on public property. The Mathematical Society is private property, and that’s the private property owner’s discretion. They could ask us to vacate someone immediately. We have a relationship with some of these private property owners, and we’ll share our best practices and what we think is the right way to go about them. Still, ultimately, it’s the property owner’s decision about how quickly they want to trespass or vacate someone from their property. That was the case there.

Concerning the cemetery: Cemeteries [follow] the same rules as all City parks: the parks close at night, and there is no camping in public parks every night. The parks close at nine o’clock every night. Two cemeteries are run by the Parks Department, Locust Grove on the South Side and the North Burial Ground on North Main Street. That’s Parks Department property. They follow the Parks Department rules. That’s why, at least in those two instances, those 30-day notices were not given.

Megan Smith: The person had been established [in the graveyard] for some time. If you’re interested, I have a recording of her describing what happened that she’s permitted me to share with this group.

She was shown no grace.

---

To listen to the recording, see: Encampment evictions are trauma: “They threw everything out. They threw my clothes out.”

---

Megan Smith: She wasn’t even allowed to walk back in to get her possessions before they were removed. I cannot imagine the situation being so urgent that they could not have given her significant notice to collect her possessions.

I recognize there’s a 9:00 p.m. closing policy, but it’s enforced sporadically. She had no expectations that that was coming for her on that particular day. I wonder if there’s an opportunity, at least, for education about showing some grace.

Mayor Smiley: There is an opportunity to reeducate the parks department staff. Enforcing the rules with a strict 9:00 p.m. closure doesn’t mean that somebody shouldn’t be given courtesy and, as you say, grace and dignity to have a chance to pack their belongings. I’m sorry, but that was the experience at Locust Grove. If you share the recording with us, we can use that as an opportunity to talk to the Parks and Rec.

Eric Hirsch: If we had a system where you clear an encampment and people can go to what they consider acceptable shelter or permanent housing, we wouldn’t have that much of a problem with how these police raids are done. But that’s not the case. We’re going to try to get the State to declare a state of emergency so we can ignore the rules because it’s an emergency and get people a roof over their heads.

We think you could do more to delay police raids than you do. I know you want to follow the rules, but there are people outside in danger of freezing to death right now. Shouldn’t that be the priority in terms of police actions? There should be no police raids unless there is an acceptable alternative. I know you subcontract that out to agencies, but all of the agencies together are doing almost nothing to put people into permanent housing because, often, people have housing vouchers - and what landlord is going to take one of those in the current rental market?

We’re trying to get more sympathy and empathy for the people who have nowhere to go and not just have them be scattered somewhere where outreach workers can’t find them and where they often lose a lot of their possessions, including things like their birth certificates and other documents that they need to have to function in society. That’s what we’re trying to get across, and we’re trying to have you understand the kind of lives that people live in these tents and not just enforce the rules.

Mayor Smiley: We’ve been having that conversation for three years. As I’ve said many times, we’re trying, but that doesn’t mean we should be devoid of empathy and grace. We’re trying to be consistent and predictable about our processes, and I think we do an excellent job of that sometimes. There are times when there are opportunities for retraining and opportunities to do better.

I don’t have a policy change. I am not changing policy regarding our treatment of encampments in the city. Where there’s a rub with us is the reality of, as you have described, acceptable levels of shelter. We are doing our best to make additional shelter options available, but we know that some shelter options aren’t the best fit or a desirable choice for some people.

I remember being here a month ago and listening to folks talk about how the top bunk at Harrington Hall was not acceptable to them, and that helps. That’s why I keep coming back, and I’m willing to keep coming back. It helps me to hear an individual’s actual experiences, but from my perspective—for the city and for our policies and procedures—there has to be a balance between available shelter beds and permanent encampments in the city.

Right now, I don’t intend to change City policy regarding that. I do hope to continue to do better and have consistent practices so that social workers, caseworkers, and others don’t lose track of individuals and that individuals have an opportunity to pack up and preserve documents and belongings. There’s an area where I think we want the same thing at a minimum, even though there are other areas where we maybe don’t agree but can do better.

Eric Hirsch: We’ll have to disagree with you on changing policy. We should change the policy to take account of the fact that people are potentially going to die in the winter. Even if it’s on private property, you might say, “We’re not going to do it because of the situation people face.”

Mayor Smiley: Not just the winter, as you well know, people have died and are dying in encampments in the summer - and in fact, at least one last weekend that I’m aware of in an overdose death on private property. This is not a question of discretion for us. If a private property owner asks us to trespass and remove someone, we must do so. We cannot tell private property owners they must let people stay there for 30 days or any other number of days. It’s not a legal remedy available to us. That’s an area where I don’t see [an] opportunity for flexibility. But there are other places where we’re trying to remain open-minded and flexible.

Paula Hudson, Executive Director of Better Lives Rhode Island: Would it be possible to revisit some of the former encampment sites to see if the owners would be willing to lease or rent them? I’m thinking particularly about Charles Street. That place was a dump, and it’s still a dump. If we were able to move people in there with controls—porta-potties, trash receptacles, and wraparound services—that could be manageable.

The problem is, Mr. Mayor, you want them to move, but move where? There’s nowhere for them to move. There is no space. I know you don’t want them on the street. We don’t want anybody sleeping on the sidewalk. I know it’s not good for business. I know that it’s not good for anybody or for any of us to see the inhumanity. But is it possible? Could we at least explore some options?

Mayor Smiley: I don’t want to say there’s no concept where a private property owner might bring some proposal forward that we would be open to. It’s possible. But the notion, and I don’t mean this to be loaded in any way, of what I would call a sanctioned encampment with trash receptacles and porta-potties and such is not something that I support for the City of Providence.

We talked a little bit about it last month. It is hugely frustrating to me how ridiculous it has been to get Echo Village¹ up and running. I’ve been over there and seen the fire suppression they have required, which is absurd. That is a path forward as an alternative to emergency congregate sheltering. The City will be doing two things, and I would encourage partners to help us with this one. It took us nearly a year to find that location. We are already looking, and I encourage you to look for other places. I said it here last time, and I’ll repeat it. We are happy to have more of those in the City of Providence.

Then, in January, a legislative change is required that the Rhode Island General Assembly needs to make - [which is] the way these types of villages fall into the fire code - so we don’t have to deal with this absurdity on the next one. That requires legislative change. Providence will be fully behind that change. I believe the Governor is putting that change in. If he doesn’t, I will so that by the time we’ve located the following site, we can build the next village for less money and in a faster time.

I’ve been talking to other mayors around the country about how they've done it in their communities, too. There’s a network of us who are talking about solutions like this.

Taylor Ellis, RIHAP volunteer: Sites for quality shelter and housing are the first and critical step to getting something done. Talk is talk, but without physical land or a building, it’s talk. There’s a huge gap between quality shelter and the number of people forced to live outside in the City and statewide. As everybody has said, the City and its redevelopment agency have control over many properties in the City and need to select some now for emergency shelters and transitional and temporary housing that are so desperately needed.

I’m sure there’s also a list of State-owned land in the City that the City knows about and can negotiate with the State to make available—even for a temporary period, say two or three years. We’re in an emergency.

Is this an emergency like a hurricane with hundreds of people living outside? That’s what would happen with a hurricane. Are we going to respond like it’s an emergency, or are we going to say these are the rules and laws, and we’re not going to act with the action that we need?

I would also say that when people were forced out of City-controlled land, there was something tossed out about soil contamination. People live outside, and as you said, it’s not just winter but year-round. It shortens people’s lives. That’s a well-documented fact. It leads to deaths that shouldn’t be happening. It leads to more trauma and all the things that keep people down.

City-controlled land is being found and developed for market-rate housing. It’s being sought for a new bus terminal. There are parks and walking paths that have been recently developed, but we still have hundreds of people living outside in the City.

Can you share all the sites the City controls regarding the Providence Redevelopment Agency and the other State land with us? Can you document how you’ve gone through all of these sites? The thing about the Pallet Shelters is entirely correct, but the only way that will pay off for all of us is if we started identifying the following site three months ago and getting that process done. We don’t have the time to let more people die, get sick, and everything else.

Can you be specific about sharing the Information about all the vacant buildings and vacant land, or consider, in an emergency way, repurposing certain areas so that people can stay without being forced from point A to point B and then deeper into the woods further away from the caseworkers that they may be in contact with who are trying to help them but don’t have the housing?

Mayor Smiley: [Information about] City and State land is easy to share. It’s already readily available online, and we can make sure you know where to find it. We have every parcel in the City of Providence, and you can click on it to see who owns it and whether it’s public or private. That Information is available, and we’re happy to help show you how to use that tool so the advocates have ready access to all of that.

Emily Freedman: We’ve been working with House of Hope for more than three years to locate the Pallet Shelter site. We have shared that tool with organizations like House of Hope to help vet sites, review them against zoning, and determine ownership. But as the Mayor said, it’s been difficult. There’s an ongoing effort to look at additional sites.

Mayor Smiley: The other part of your question is, do we have City buildings that are not being used? [Those buildings] are in such disrepair that we’re not using them. For example, many of you know the old Urban League site on Prairie Avenue. That building is a health and safety hazard slated for demolition this summer. We have a former school on Federal Hill that might be put back into service as a school again after some additional repairs. That building is vacant. There are far fewer City buildings than many people assume are unoccupied, and we don’t know what to do with them.

It’s a single-digit list of buildings, and all have an issue. That’s why we’re not in them right now. Some of you might know where the former police academy was next to Chad Brown. That building effectively has no roof at this point. It’s been vacant, and the City doesn’t have the money to fix it. Right now, we don’t know what the plan for the building is, but it’s not safe for anyone, and it basically has no roof. That’s the kind of City buildings we have. Vacant City and State land differ and could be appropriate for Pallet Shelters. As I said, I will share that list.

Eric Hirsch: That’s probably the best option. And we know that you’re not responsible for the Pallet Shelters not being open. It’s the State Building Commission and the State Fire Marshall.

Mayor Smiley: The State Fire Marshall is the primary problem.

Eric Hirsch: But it was a couple of months with the Building Commission.

Mayor Smiley: the Building Commission piece won’t be a problem next time. They had never seen something like this before. Right now, the actual cost and delay is this crazy fire code. That’s a policy change.

Terri Wright, RIHAP volunteer: People aren’t built to endure being forced to live outdoors, which can impact their health.

There are no tenant protections for tenants who pay rent. While we try to find space and mitigate the present harm, future harm comes behind it.

You said you don’t believe in rent stabilization because it doesn’t work. But how do you know it doesn’t work if we haven’t tried? The City and State would benefit from some type of rent stabilization preventing landlords from pricing their tenants out. That’s the biggest issue here because once they get priced out, it’s hard to come up with the first month, last month, and security. You end up forced into a different way of living and struggling.

Eric Hirsch: We’re running about 700 evictions statewide per month. The majority of them are for nonpayment. If rent stabilization came up for a vote, a majority of the residents in Providence would vote for it.

Mayor Smiley: I think they might, too, but that’s because people are struggling, and we’re in a housing crisis. Hopefully, Terry, you have enough respect for me to see that my position is at least principled, even if we disagree. I’ve studied this. I do not believe it is the solution to our problem. We are doing other things that are more useful concerning tenant protection. We are funding lawyers for tenants. We’ve used some of our ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds for a partnership with the RICJ (Rhode Island Center for Justice) for tenant protection and eviction proceedings so that you can have access to a lawyer if you feel like you’re being wrongfully evicted. I feel strongly that passing rent control will only make the problem worse and not better.

I know we disagree, but hopefully, you don’t think it’s a personal or prejudiced opinion; we believe differently in the potential policy outcomes. It has not been tried here, but it has been tried in many other places, and I’ve tried to study and learn the lessons of those other places. I don’t think it would solve this problem. I think it would actually exacerbate it.

Kinverly Dicupe, Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE): A lot of the conversation has been around you saying that a lot of our complaints are really to be dealt with by the State, but rent control is something you can do imminently. You have a City Council, many of which would support rent control right now, and you are the biggest block. You said you would veto that even if they passed it on the floor. What are you talking about? Rent control has been shown to work. The United States used to have rent control before 1950.

Terri Wright: There’s rent control, and there’s rent stabilization. Rent control is just a total cap. Stabilization increases with inflation. Why are you against the stabilization? It’s not here to inconvenience landlords. Rent stabilization will inevitably save lives, and that’s the business we’re in. I do not understand why you would be against it. I didn’t say rent control but rent stabilization.

Kinverly Dicupe: There are different forms, yes, but mainly, what we’re looking for is a cap on rental increases. You’re talking more money for lawyers, but if people are already in the courts, all the lawyers do is slow the eviction process. That’s what you are accomplishing. What we need is a solution. People cannot afford to live in this City anymore. The wages that people get paid in the City cannot pay for rent that’s $2,500. You know, the kinds of people who live in Providence. Where are these jobs coming from? Please tell me about all the jobs in this City that would pay you $80k to afford the kind of rent that you’re allowing.

Mayor Smiley: I understand, and I’ve always understood, that rent stabilization would likely be proposed through the Providence City Council. I understand that rent stabilization takes different forms. I understand that some people say rent control. I understand that it’s two different things, and I understand what would likely be proposed in Providence.

Second, just as a point of Information, it’s unclear whether the City can pass this on its own. There are legal questions about whether it would be challenged in court, and State law is unclear about whether this can be passed at the local level or not.

But I’m not hiding from the fact that, yes, I said I don’t support it and would veto it if it passed.

I’d be curious to know if we can agree on the problem. I believe the problem is that we have a housing shortage, and more people are moving into Providence than in recent years. Inflow migration is high, and during the pandemic, people who used to be in roommate situations spread out into their apartments. The combination of new people plus the same amount of people taking up more apartments has caused a shortage of available homes. When I say homes, I mean apartments or home ownership. I believe we have a supply shortage. Rent control does nothing to address that. Rent control will discourage building additional homes, which will exacerbate and not solve the problem.

Kinverly Dicupe: Great. We’ve heard that talking point a million times from other politicians. They say we have a supply problem, and then they build housing for people who make $70k. That’s not the solution.

Mayor Smiley: We have prioritized permanently subsidized affordable housing in the City.

Kinverly Dicupe: What’s affordable housing? Let us know. Can somebody who makes 30 grand afford that?

Mayor Smiley: In some cases? Yes. It’s based on Area Median Income (AMI). Just speaking about the last almost two years that I’ve been in our office, we have seen 1200 units in the first year and 800 this year, so 2000 new homes or apartments. Approximately 20% of those are permanently subsidized and affordable. The AMI ranges from low income, 30% AMI, up to 80% AMI. It depends on the apartment, but for many of those, yes, if you make $30,000 a year, you can afford to live there because it is a percentage of your income.

Kinverly Dicupe: What if I told you 20% is too little? Look at what most people who live in the projects are making. We will build a building, but only 20% will be affordable—a lot of that we’re paying for. You’re taking people’s taxes to subsidize housing for people who make $80k.

Mayor Smiley: I agree with you. I would like to see a lot more affordable housing built in the City, but we are not subsidizing market-rate housing; we are subsidizing affordable housing, and we should do more.

Kinverly Dicupe: But you just said 20%. What about the other 80%? We’re not subsidizing market-rate housing?

Mayor Smiley: The other 80% is getting developed because it’s profitable in the market, and some private developers are doing that.

Kinverly Dicupe: And that’s the problem.

Mayor Smiley: I know, but the City’s not subsidizing that. You’re saying that we’re subsidizing that. We’re not.

Terri Wright: Every time the City gives tax breaks to some wealthy developer.

Mayor Smiley: But Terry, we’re not giving tax breaks. Not anymore. Tell me the last time.

Terri Wright: The Superman Building.

Mayor Smiley: The Superman Building is not happening. If it were to get built, there would be an approved tax break, and the building would be 20% affordable.

Kinverly Dicupe: There you go. That is what I was talking about.

Mayor Smiley: But we subsidized the affordable portion.

Kinverly Dicupe: We need a hundred percent apportioned.

Mayor Smiley: You have to pay for that. We are willing to continue to subsidize affordable housing. We want to subsidize affordable housing. We’ve put, what, $40 million?

Emily Freedman: If I could jump in, we’ve put out $55 million in the last year and a half. We have 1600 units in our development pipeline. All affordable. Over 200 of those are permanent supportive housing. When we’re partnering with local CDCs and nonprofit developers, we often partner with the housing authority to layer in project-based vouchers. These projects will serve 80% AMI caps, but more likely, everybody’s 60%, 50%, or below.

Kinverly Dicupe: I think you should talk about income because a lot of times AMI...

Emily Freedman: It depends on the household size. It gets complicated.

If I can explain a little more, most of the affordable housing built in the State of Rhode Island is funded through federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, the LIHTC program. To qualify for LIHTC, at least 40% of your units must be targeted to 60% AMI or below. So you’re correct. We are trying to do this and have been making a concerted effort to layer in subsidies.

Suppose rent is targeted to 60% AMI for many people in Providence. In that case, that’s still not truly affordable, especially if you have no or low income or you’re living on social security. That’s where we need to layer subsidies like project-based vouchers through the Housing Authority and Vash vouchers through the Veterans Administration. Rhode Island Housing has rolled out a number of new programs to try to target extremely low-income households. It’s taking multiple layers of subsidy to make it affordable for the many people we know.

Community Member: Are you going to require landlords to accept the subsidies? They don’t have to, and they don’t have to take a Section 8 voucher.

Emily Freedman: We review what is called tenant selection plans to make sure that units are going to be accessible and serve people in our community who are most in need. It is illegal in Rhode Island and the City to discriminate against people with Section 8 vouchers, but we know it happens. The City and Rhode Island Housing review tenant selection plans as a compliance measure. We try to respond if there are complaints about people being unable to access these affordable units. The federal and local governments are spending a lot to build these units. We want to ensure they’re going to people who truly need them. If there are complaints about particular developers, please let us know because we will investigate and initiate compliance measures if needed.

Mayor Smiley: That’s why we’re trying to max out what’s called project-based vouchers as opposed to having a section eight voucher where the individual has to find a landlord to take it. The project-based voucher lives with the apartment, so you don’t have to worry about that fear of discrimination. The apartment itself holds the voucher, so it will always be a subsidized apartment. That is the solution for what we’re doing.

Eric Hirsch: Absolutely. But we have a long time until we start getting those built. We’re trying to say, “Understand the urgency of this crisis and act accordingly.” We need to ensure we have something in place while people wait for these units to be built. That applies to the State as well as Providence. That’s the main thing we’re trying to say.

Attendee 3: Could you inform us about the funding you provide certain organizations? Do you have an evaluation process to see if they’re doing the work? I get calls all the time, and I’m sure everybody else here gets calls saying, “I haven’t seen my case manager in a month,” or “I haven’t seen my social worker in two weeks.” We had a gentleman last year die in the back of a Walgreens that Jenny was working with who died because his case manager hadn’t visited him in quite a while. How do you monitor the money that you are spending on these issues? How does it fare with you when you hear this?

Emily Freedman: With all of the dollars we provide and in working in partnership with the State, we require at least quarterly reporting for homeless service providers. They report into HMIS, and we measure our progress. The homeless service providers here know that we routinely pull that data. “Do you have those touch points with clients? Are we seeing crisis assessments and housing assessments in the system?”

Then, we look at where we’re going to drive resources. We want to drive them to the organizations that have the best outcomes. If we’re seeing organizations exiting people out of homelessness and into permanent housing, that’s where the City and the State will drive our dollars. We must follow those performance metrics to ensure that we are directing resources most efficiently and effectively. The Consolidated Homeless Fund and the Rhode Island Continuum of Care publish those. We have system-wide measures that we look at [such as] equity measures and exiting permanent housing, which we’re constantly looking at and assessing.

Eric Hirsch: I’m totally in support of that, but the number of people being put in permanent housing is ridiculously low. I think the number is 12. And this is a $15 to $20 million system. Let’s see if we divide the $15 to $20 million by the number of people getting into permanent housing. If it weren’t for HUD rules, it would be better to give that money out to people who are homeless and let them try to figure it out. But HUD won’t do that.

Community Member: [So the rule is that on] City land, as long as Parks and Recreation do not control it, they can’t just be thrown out in the middle of the night? Is that the proper clarification? I want to know what to tell people.

Mayor Smiley: I committed to giving 30 days’ notice on public land in Providence and a final 48-hour notice to evict.

Attendee 4: What rights do people have to stand up for themselves at two o’clock in the morning if the police try to throw them out? I want to notify them about what’s happening. Everybody’s trying to do whatever they can, but that’s not helping tonight. That’s not helping tomorrow. We need to know what to tell people because they literally are getting thrown out at two in the morning, and their stuff is destroyed. What do I tell them? How do I ask them to stand up for themselves if they know they’re on City land that Parks and Rec does not run?

Mayor Smiley: I answered the first question about Matthewson Street earlier. The District Lieutenants are the ones who run their geographies in the Providence Police Department. To answer your question about what to tell a client, I suggest they ask to speak with the District Lieutenant and verify that a 30-day notice has been given. As I’m sure you’re all very well aware, there are circumstances where an encampment has been given 30 days’ notice, but that doesn’t mean everybody was there 28 days ago. I understand that’s a problem. The flip side is that it was a request that we’ve tried to honor and implement to give 30 days’ notice. At the individual level, I’m not confident that everyone was there when that 30-day notice was given. The policy the City employs for public property in the City of Providence is that 30 days’ notice will be given and then a final 48-hour notice of final eviction or notice to vacate. If someone were living in an encampment today that you’re working with, then when the police department shows up at 2:00 a.m., I would make sure that they can talk to the District Lieutenant because they know when that notice has been given.

Paula Hudson: But it comes back to Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, where do these people go?

Mayor Smiley: We’ve been talking about that for two years and will keep talking about it. It’s helpful for me whenever I hear an individual’s experience and try to think about ways to do better. I understand the dilemma.

Terri Wright: It’s not only folks who have little or no income. It’s also about working families. What’s more important than anything is that people are protected. Right now, the numbers are growing, and people are dying.

1. See: https://thehouseofhopecdc.org/echo-village/