Woonsocket City Council passes a bill that would prohibit camping on public property

"This bill doesn’t say anything about the homeless. It talks about encampments, trash, and getting rid of this stuff," says Councilmember James Cournoyer, the bill's author.

In a win for Woonsocket last night, the City Council voted 7-0 to approve 50 new shelter beds to be managed by Open Doors. Open Doors will target these beds for Woonsocket residents experiencing homelessness. The beds are sorely needed, especially since there is a chance that, due to state budget cuts, the city may lose around 46 shelter beds. The Council will take a second vote in two weeks, and Open Doors believes the shelter can be up and running around two weeks after that.

But that is not why people from within and outside the community spoke so passionately for nearly two hours near the beginning of the hearing.¹ Advocates, residents, and people experiencing homelessness right now were there to advocate against a bill that would prohibit camping on public property, which includes fines of up to $250 and the possible issuance of trespass orders.

Councilmember James Cournoyer and Council President Daniel Gendron introduced the legislation. The City Council discussed the bill for over an hour before passing it on a 5-2 vote. The discussion has been edited for clarity:

Councilmember Valerie Gonzalez: We’ve heard a lot of conversation around this legislation, and I am inclined to ask if we can table this legislation. I think the legislation put in place has to do mainly with the issue of homelessness. One of the greatest things that I think comes out of the conversation happening here is the great spirit of collaboration. Woonsocket has put in place many different levels of collaboration, including with the task force, and what’s happening with the different agencies. We have our subcommittee meetings. People have been saying that Woonsocket is being looked at as a model, and it is because of that spirit of collaboration. We haven’t gotten to all the answers yet, but I think these are things we need to discuss.

I was surprised that no notice was sent to the subcommittee so that we could discuss this legislation at the subcommittee level. I think it’s important for us to do the work we’re doing, and with the first passage of the Open Doors, we will have a chance to see [how that works.] Maybe we should revisit this at a later date. I think it is counterproductive to what we’re doing right now. We need to see through the initiative to relocate some of the people, see where we’re at, and then maybe reevaluate this. But I don’t think this is the right time. I think it would undermine some of the work we’re doing, and I’m hoping we can table this legislation for a later time.

Councilmember Denise Sierra: I have a few questions that the ordinance didn’t answer, and I’m not sure anybody can give me the answers tonight. First, when the city takes the property out of the encampments for the 14 days, where are we storing their property? I don’t see that in the legislation.

Councilmember James Cournoyer: It will still be stored, like anything else, at the police station where they have cars that are impounded, all kinds of stuff.

Councilmember Sierra: So, at the police station. That answers the question. I had no idea where it was going to be stored. Secondly, I would like to know who will be cleaning the encampments. It essentially says city officials. Is it the police officers taking the tents and the property out of the encampments, or Director D’Agostino’s people cleaning them? Who do we have that will be cleaning out these encampments once the notice goes up?

Director of Public Works Steven D’Agostino: How did the tents get there?

Councilmember Sierra: I would suppose by the people who own them.

Director D’Agostino: I would suppose they would remove them, and then if the mayor or council provides an area of storage, that’s fine, but this is not in the job purview. We’re not taking down tents.

Councilmember Sierra: I understand that. That’s why I’m asking what provisions have been made... I’m clear that it’s not your department, Director D’Agostino.

Director D’Agostino: I will tell you - It’s my time [to speak] now. I will tell you that I’ve just about had enough as an employee here. You got the legislation to provide some shelter for homeless people. Fine. It’s needed. All well and good. Now it’s time to move on.

Councilmember Sierra: With all due respect, I’m trying to get the answer...

Director D’Agostino: With all due respect, I’m not done. I’m not done.

Council President. Daniel Gendron: Director, I’ll come back to you because Councilwoman Sierra does have the floor.

Councilmember Sierra: I do, and I am asking this because I know that Director D’Agostino’s department does not want to handle anything from the encampments. You completely took this the opposite way that it was intended. I know very well that your department does not want to remove anything from the encampments, but this legislation does not state who will be removing [the property]. In cases where somebody is out of the encampment for more than 72 hours and the notice goes up, who’s cleaning that stuff and taking it to the police station? That’s what I would like to know.

Council President Gendron: I think it would be like any other ordinance. This body creates the ordinances, the resolutions, and the legislation. Ultimately, the enforcement, or the handling of how this will be enforced, would lie in the hands of the mayor and the administration. That would be a call on the mayor’s part. Is it something that public works would handle? Is it something that the police department would handle? Would it be something that a hazmat team would handle? It’s like any other law; we do not give every point to how something will be addressed. It ultimately comes to the administration for its enforcement aspect. And I think it would always be handled most safely for the employees, for the police, or if we needed a hazmat team. That’s the problem with the way that these encampments have gotten. They’ve gotten dangerous, and we may need to hire companies to do it.

Director D’Agostino: So, can I finish my thought?

Councilmember Sierra: No, I still have the floor. That’s the problem I have because there are no provisions here as to who will be doing that, which is a huge issue for the administration. I would somehow hope there would be some amendment or mention of the plan because it’s not a full plan as is, and I want one. I want to support the ordinance, but not without knowing who is going to be responsible for cleaning and who’s going to be responsible for storing. These are two big issues that this doesn’t mention. That’s where my issue lies. I appreciate what you said, Council President, but it still doesn’t scratch the itch for me unless somebody here can compose an amendment that assures me that it’s not Directed D’Agostino’s people that are going to end up removing the tents and anything in there that could potentially be dangerous. That’s my concern. And with that, anyone can speak.

Director D’Agostino: I apologize for snapping.

Councilmember Sierra: Thank you. I accept it.

Director D’Agostino: No problem. Sometimes I have a temper. But I would suggest that in doing so, you can collaborate with the police, and because there’ll be some personal items, I’m sure, they’ll say that they were missing or destroyed or whatever. So if you have some collaboration for storage, you eliminate that aspect of the problem. I could create an area where things could be stored, maybe like a cargo container, and you can tag it, so to speak, and do it in an orderly fashion. It could be done, right?

Councilmember Sierra: A plan.

Mayor Christopher Beauchamp: I know this is a weighty subject, but in section three, it says any encampment materials or personal property left at an unauthorized campsite may be removed, the keyword being "may." We’ll discuss the occupants who have the campsite or a tent. If it were me making a decision, I would ask them to remove their belongings because if we’re going to say eventually we have a shelter where people are going to hopefully go, then we go into cleaning an encampment, that language right there says we may do it as a city. Still, as the mayor, I’m not going to burden my police department or my public works people with stuff that could be hazardous to their health.

The "may" there means to me - and I could be wrong, I’ll let Councilman Cournoyer address it - that first, I would, as the director said initially, ask the people that are supposedly living in that tent to take their stuff or come get it at an appropriate time. I think that’s part of the answer. But listen, this is a moving target. None of us has all the answers today. I think we’re all going to a point where many people have said. I’ve gotten many people calling me and saying that Woonsocket is being proactive in doing something good to help the homeless. I think all of this blends into that, but we’ve got to make sure we’re all on the same page.

Councilmember Cournoyer: So, as the mayor indicated in section three, any camping materials and/or personal property left at the unauthorized campsite may be removed and properly disposed of by the city collectively. We have a mayor. He’s the chief executive officer of the city. He will decide who and how it gets dealt with, whether it’s public works, a third party, etc. We say the city, its agents, and its employees shall not be held liable, et cetera, et cetera. [The mayor] may hire a hazmat team as the council president indicated. He may hire a third party to clean up. We’re not going to be that prescriptive. We’re not going to micromanage the mayor and how he manages this.

The point is, we have a lot of ordinances on the books. It says that “camping in these sites will be prohibited.” If there are campsites after they’ve been given proper notice, if the stuff is left behind, we will do like we do with the parks and everywhere else in the city, it will get cleaned up. We have a solid waste division that drives around the city picking up the mattresses people dump at dead ends. This is going to be the same thing.

Again, it says “may” be removed. It says, “The public safety officer, and/or his designee, shall attempt to provide to readily apparent owners at least 72 hours notice of the intent to remove and a reasonable opportunity to remove the personal property from the public property.”

We had many people speak tonight, and I appreciate their passion and concern. I would note that many of them are from outside the city, and they talked about the 72-hour notice before an eviction. It says at least 72 hours. It’s a minimum of 72 hours. If the mayor decides to give them three weeks’ notice, he has the authority to do it. The minimum is 72 hours, okay? We’ve done the Open Doors contract. We’re providing 50 beds on top of our over a hundred beds. I keep hearing that other beds will close - maybe, maybe not. That’s a funding issue. If all the good people who are no longer here tonight are so concerned, they can write checks to keep the existing beds open, okay?

My friend Pat Ford, who spoke, so I’ll invoke his name, he’s from Cumberland. I called Cumberland today. I called the mayor’s office in Cumberland, and here’s what they have on their website. “It’s an honor to be the mayor of such a vibrant community. I have clarified my priorities by including all the elements that make Cumberland a livable and great place to live, work, and play. We can create a great community that provides opportunities for all. If there’s ever anything our office can do to serve you, please contact my community outreach coordinator.” So I dialed up the community outreach coordinator and said, “Hi, I need some help. I have a homeless person that I need some help with. Do you have a shelter or some temporary shelter that you could put me in touch with?”

The answer was, “Oh, when we have that, we have a place for you. We refer you to Pawtucket, to Open Doors in Pawtucket.” Not Cumberland - Pawtucket. “And then we have some places in Woonsocket.” And that is the issue. That’s the crux of it. I heard a gentleman stand here tonight and he said, “Imagine if all the other communities in the state did what Woonsocket is doing and was going to ‘criminalize’” - and we’ll get to that in a minute - “‘criminalize’ the encampments. What would happen?”

Well, I would turn that around and say, imagine if the other 38 cities and towns—I should maybe say the other 37 or 36 cities and towns—excluding Woonsocket and Pawtucket - imagine if they stepped up and did what we do. We added 50 beds on top of the hundred-plus beds that we currently have.

I grew up in North Smithfield. They don’t have any shelter beds that I know of, okay? I spoke to the state, with the mayor, on a Zoom call about Open Doors, which I support, and everybody up here supports it. It passed seven to nothing, and the Secretary of Housing opened the call with, “I want to thank you for taking this call and having this discussion because nobody else in the state is willing to.”

But I’m going to sit here and listen to these people, one after another, show up from outside the city and criticize us because we’re trying to get control of a situation that’s out of control so that we might have a chance to do what Cumberland is trying to do, which is to make Woonsocket a great place to live, work, and play. Okay? This isn’t trying to criminalize homelessness. Because these people don’t like to read, the ordinance says very clearly, “it’s subject to a non-criminal hearing.” Okay? It’s a non-criminal hearing, not criminal, non-criminal. And as far as this evil, $250 fine they keep talking about, what it says, if they bothered to read it, is on the first offense, “any person found in violation of the provisions of this ordinance may be subject to a non-criminal hearing." May doesn’t mean they will be, but may. “May be subject to a non-criminal hearing in municipal court via summons to appear and be issued. A no trespass warning is documented by the police department for a first offense. For a first offense. If it continues, if a second offense or subsequent offense, if they have a second subsequent offense, it shall include a municipal court hearing.” Now they do have to go to court, and this is important, “with a fine not exceeding $250 at the discretion of the municipal court judge along with a continuance for acceptable, appropriate social services.” So it’s a fine not exceeding $250, which means the judge, in their discretion, could issue them a fine of one penny.

There’s a ton of flexibility here. It’s not punishing people. It’s having consequences for breaking a duly passed ordinance, like we fine people for speeding. We’re all up in arms because we had a terrible, tragic accident, and we want cameras and we want to charge people all kinds of fines, but we have places where people can’t go anymore because of the filth and the squalor.

Is that attacking the people? No. But the reality is, it’s a problem. We had opening day for fishing. People used to go fishing on the river over by Privilege Street. They can’t do that anymore. It is strewn with garbage, filth, and needles. We ask, who’s going to clean it up? This guy right here [indicating Mayor Beauchamp] has been the one leading the charge and cleaning it up, and he had his life threatened two weeks ago. One of our “guests” offered to end his life because he was cleaning up squalor.

We provided barrels with wheels! I hear, “Oh, the [garbage] bags are too heavy.” We gave you carts with wheels; we gave you a dumpster. It didn’t happen. You know who cleaned it up? This guy right here [indicating Mayor Beauchamp.] We also have audits that haven’t been done in this city, as Mr. Corey Johnson indicated. We have the community center that we’re in the middle of trying to get done. We have a budget we have to get working on. We have a wastewater treatment facility that we’re being sued - ironically by the state - because we dumped effluent into the river, and shame on us. Fair enough. But the state doesn’t do anything about the people dumping junk in the river at these encampments.

We have all these major issues, and we have spent, with all due respect to my colleague here [Valerie Gonzalez], who’s had her committee over two years working on this, and they’ve made great progress, don’t get me wrong. And tonight is more progress. We added 50 beds with the potential to grow. We’ll walk before we run in that regard, but we added something. Today, this snarky letter from the ACLU tells us we’re criminalizing homelessness. We’re not criminalizing anything. They say we’re being hasty. We’ve been at this for two-plus years or longer. There’s nothing hasty about this.

But they didn’t mention that anywhere in that letter; there was no recognition whatsoever. They called us anti-homeless. Yet we are the ones setting up a new facility right here in Woonsocket, adding to what we already have. You know why? Because nobody else is willing to do it. But we’re going to get criticized.

At some point, we have to draw a line in the sand. This notion that we’re going to send in our police department like stormtroopers - we’ve all heard people who have visited the encampments with Police Captain Picard and other police officers who have treated these people with absolute dignity and empathy, month upon month. And we now have an ordinance saying, “Okay, we have beds.” Are there enough beds? We can debate that all night long. There’ll never be enough beds.

Other people, in Cumberland and elsewhere, have to step up to the plate and do their part. It can’t always be Woonsocket. We have something before us that we can address, which anybody up here who’s rational and sane will acknowledge as a ridiculous problem in the city. Okay? We have these encampments with all kinds of filth and needles. People can’t use these public spaces anymore. On and on it goes. Now, is that an attack? This bill doesn’t say anything about the homeless. It talks about encampments, trash, and getting rid of this stuff.

Not everybody in the homeless place is dirt poor. I’m sure the mayor can talk to you about at least one or two people with lots of money, but they like to be in camps. It is what it is, across the board. I’m sympathetic, but we are a community of 40-something thousand people. I appreciate all the good folks who come in from out of town, who are full of ideas for us. Go to your city and town hall and pound the table. Ask them to do something. We are doing plenty.

At some point, we’ve got to force the issue. Now, if you read this, without being emotional and irrational, you’ll see a ton of flexibility. Tonight is the first passage. Okay? If people want to talk about it some more, we can do what we did when we rescinded the omnibus tax stabilization plan, and they wanted to table that because of some misinformation. But we gave it first passage, we had a work session, everybody got their heads around it, and ultimately it passed unanimously, seven to nothing. My recommendation is that we give this first passage tonight. We can have a work session next week, early this week, whatever you want. We can talk about it some more, and if there have to be changes, fine, we’ll make changes for the next passage. If there are no changes, this will not get a second passage until May 5th. The mayor can sit on it for 10 days before he signs it if he chooses to sign it. That puts us out into the middle of May. And again, this simply says, you give notice of not less than 72 hours.

If the mayor or anybody else is concerned that if we enforce this immediately, there are not enough beds or Open Doors isn’t ready, which I think they will be ready - Mr. Horton has said it’s going to take him a week or 10 days to get set up. He was pushing us to get this done in three days. But if there’s an issue, not enough beds, or a concern, the mayor has all the flexibility in the world to manage this and address that issue. But to do nothing, to delay, to continue to talk about this stuff - we now have something that’s, for lack of a better term, a comprehensive approach with providing the beds, addressing the encampments, and then we have something else before us to deal with the litter on “private properties.” We’ll get to that later. But this puts it all in one package, if you will, once and for all.

I’ve heard everybody up here say they want to do something. They want to do something about the encampments. We said we want to provide beds, and we want to do something about the trash. That’s what this does. It has a ton of flexibility. As far as the other folks that come in here and share their thoughts with us, God bless ‘em. I appreciate their goodwill. I know their hearts are in the right place, but as long as we’re the chumps who keep raising our hand - I’m going to go back to Housing Secretary Goddard. “Thank you for taking this call. Nobody else in the state will.” That says a lot. I think we owe it to the residents, the taxpayers, and the people who pay their bills to do this because not everybody supports additional beds in the city. There’s a very legitimate concern that if you build it, they will come.

I’m disappointed, and I hope he’s still here, that Nick didn’t reach out to neighboring businesses. I know he spent a lot of time recruiting people to the encampments in the last couple of days. He says he’s got 50 people. We know we might not have enough beds. It would’ve been nice if he had also spoken to the neighbors, such as St. Anne’s, but that’s water under the bridge. He could start doing that and have that conversation tomorrow. I have absolute confidence - I would not have supported the Open Doors lease if I didn’t have absolute confidence. I think all of us have visited their facility in Pawtucket. It’s a very well-run operation. I am confident that Mr. Horton and his team will do a good job. And if things go sideways, we’ll shut it down.

It’s a 17-month lease. It’s not lifetime, but they’ll do a good job. At the same time, we owe it to the people who have been very tolerant. We’ve had people in this community who have given us a ton of grace and leeway to work through this issue, but they’re at their breaking point, okay? We have the opening day for Little League next week. What do we do if somebody decides they’re going to set a tent up in the middle of the Little League baseball fields? We’re supposed to say, “Oh, well, there’s nothing to do about it. These people have a right.”

No, they don’t.

[To Councilmember Fox] Pace yourself over there.

Councilmember Kristina Fox: It’s not going to happen.

Councilmember Cournoyer: So, at some point, we must take some measures that make people uncomfortable. We’re not going in there like stormtroopers. Nobody can argue that our police department hasn’t been compassionate and empathetic in working with these people. This ordinance gives maximum flexibility. They may get a fine not to exceed $250. It could be a penny, okay? Nobody here is trying to fine people, but we must have some consequences when you don’t adhere to a duly passed ordinance. It’s like any other ordinance we have. I will not support tabling under any circumstances. I think we owe it to ourselves and the community to pass this, and if there’s further discussion that needs to be had or someone feels we should have, we can do that. That’s why it takes two passages, and we have plenty of time between now and then to discuss.

I apologize to some of you. I was in a hurry because I was waiting to find out if the Open Doors lease was finalized. I did not want to distract from that. The most important thing on my mind was to get the Open Doors lease agreed to. Once I found out, I hurried and put this in, and I apologize. I would’ve loved to discuss it more, but I’ve had it. I told you guys this before, back in December. I’m tired of having conversations. We need to move into action, and we’ve been going slow, waiting to get certain things done. We are there. We’ve got to move on.

Councilmember Fox: I’m voting "no" on this. I would like to see us table this and work on it more for a few reasons. First, we talked about how we’ve seen members of our law enforcement, like Captain Picard and others, go to the encampments, talk with people, and build rapport. Those types of things will go out the window, I fear, if we institute this kind of ordinance, because the second somebody sees a Woonsocket Police Officer coming up to their tent, they’re not going to know. “Are you here to talk to me and help me? Or are you here to arrest me?” The trust is going to be lost overnight.

It might jeopardize our police department’s ability to do its job. Ultimately, a lot of the things that they work on require the trust of people, in particular, in these places and these environments. If they don’t know anyone and don’t have anyone willing to talk to them, it significantly hampers their ability to do their job. I don’t know if you had the opportunity, Councilman Cournoyer, to reach out to Chief Oates or Captain Picard, or if you have any feedback from them. I think there’s also an opportunity, within our subcommittee, to discuss this more.

I think the most important thing for us to focus on is what we passed—this shelter—and getting it across the finish line—opened, implemented, and fully ready—is the number one thing. It’s our number one priority when it comes to this issue.

I hear everyone’s frustration about how much time we’ve spent on this, but “the poor will always be with you.” This issue is not going away anytime soon, especially because nearly half, or maybe at this point over half, of our Woonsocket neighbors live in poverty and are a paycheck away from experiencing homelessness. There’s no silver wand to wave that will raise people’s incomes and lower the price of goods and the cost of living. We’re going to be dealing with this problem for quite some time.

I worry that by doing this kind of ordinance we’re going to hamstring ourselves from being able to have the connection to our unhoused neighbors, particularly people who are fleeing some seriously terrifying situations - runaway teens, runaway children, survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking. They won’t want to talk to us because they fear they will end up in jail. We are all good people on this rostrum and want to see our neighbors safe and housed. However, not even five years ago, we had a mayor who instructed her Police Department to be stormtroopers and slash tents. In the future, we could see those same types of leaders get elected again. Then, that flexibility becomes inflexible. What if we get somebody who says, “I want to make an example of everyone. No one will be breaking this camping law in my city.”? Every time you get somebody before your bench judge, who’s the mayor’s friend because they went to PC together or whatever the Rhode Island connection is, “Hey judge, I need you to make sure you make an example. Give ‘em $250 every single time.” I fear that, with how this ordinance is structured, we can’t guarantee that there won’t be violence and problems that are all personally reprehensible, because many people have spoken out against the actions the previous administration took.

We don’t want to see those types of actions committed when we not only planted the seed but also watered the soil, cultivated, and grew that fruit. All I’m asking is, can we bring it back to the subcommittee? We have a chair of that subcommittee who is incredibly dedicated and vigilant about ensuring that what comes before that subcommittee is vetted and discussed appropriately, openly, transparently, and effectively.

Finally, I would agree that this has been hasty. I understand that you didn’t want to blindside us. Still, I have six years of experience working in anti-homelessness agencies as an outreach and engagement specialist, policy analyst, senior policy analyst, and lobbyist, all here in Rhode Island. I’m here to help make the policy proposals we put forward actually work. If the goal is to have less homelessness and fewer signs of blight and neglect, I don’t think that passing a ban on camping will work in getting us there, especially with how this is drafted right now.

I’ll also say it was not lost on me that so many of the people who came up to speak opposing the ban got spicy, because they’re passionate advocates. They’re not fancy leather briefcases carrying DC lobbyists who can come in and know exactly what to say to an elected official to prevent them from taking it any other way. It wasn’t lost on me that nearly everyone who spoke either has deep roots in Woonsocket, has been working in Woonsocket for years, or has been volunteering for years with the folks who also came here to say, “We’re people too. We live here, and we care about this. We want you to see us for who we are. This scares us, this would hurt us.”

Then, finally, I want to say, we need to see other communities step up. How much money does Middletown, Rhode Island, have, and how much do they contribute back? However, if all these other cities and towns are shirking their duty, why in God’s name do we want to follow their example? As a councilmember, I took an oath to make this city the best it could be, to uphold this community, and to serve it as best as possible. And that meant taking on the big, big problems. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to solve them, but damn it if that shouldn’t be our goal every single time we step to this rostrum because the people of the city deserve no less. So, how about we see some reason and take it back [to committee] to work on it as a team? This is a great team.

When we passed this shelter with Open Doors, we passed a transformative policy. That’s what we can do when we’ve worked together. I’m asking because even by your admission counselor, you didn’t get to talk to us all the way you normally do. You’re always reaching out to us. You’re always calling me saying, “Hey, what do you think of this?” or “Hey, I think that you could...” I’ve asked you for your advice, feedback, and support, and you’ve worked with me and improved the things I work on. I’m asking if we can do that with this before we take it. Because of the taste that we got tonight from all the people who came here, that’s the beginning. Before we take that big, big step, even though it’s the first pass, before we take that big step, can we take half a step back and have a discussion as a team and make sure that this is as air tight as possible?

Although there is new business about enforcing litter laws - when it comes to trash, when it comes to public urination, defecation, et cetera - I will say, “My God, people, stop watching.” We have litter laws. We have public indecency laws. If you’re caught urinating outside and the officer sees you, they can arrest you and register you as a sex offender. We have some pretty steep penalties now. Why don’t we see what we already have available to us? We might already have what we need. Not to say that we have to throw this out, but we can make this better and ensure that we’re not going to create something that will be a message that we don’t want to have unhoused people here.

We heard from folks that it might not have been our intention to criminalize, but people have told us they see this as making them feel like criminals. Let’s take it back, work on it as a team, and I’m confident that we’ll come back, whether next week or the week after, and pass something that will work, meaning it’s going to lessen homelessness. I run downtown every single day. I guarantee you, no shade, but I’m downtown way more than all of you are, right? Because I live there. I’m not kicking needles every time I run down Main Street. Let’s live in reality. Let’s work together as a team on this, and let’s please table it for now.

Councilmember Michael Dubois: I heard everybody tonight, and in the past, I said, once we get a shelter, I will support closing down the encampments. Now we have given the first passage to the lease, and I’m looking at the lease. In the packet, there’s also the memorandum of understanding. If you look, it says “initial beds will be prioritized for Woonsocket-based referrals by state protocols. Referrals will prioritize people currently in shelters in Woonsocket that are closing and people living in encampments in Woonsocket.” They are going to be prioritized. That’s why Open Doors is going out and talking to the people in the encampments, saying, “We have a bed for you. We are going to have something for you.” I think that’s critical. Once we offer them a bed and they pass on it, it’s their preference to live the way they’re living currently, and we will not allow them to continue to violate the space they occupy. Because of all this, I am not in favor of tabling this. I think that we should vote on it. If it were to get tabled, I think it would be a travesty. We need to give the first passage, and I’m all for the work session next week to discuss it in depth before we give the second passage.

Public Safety Director Eugene Jalette: I don’t - well, I do care what you people do, but the police department got a couple of digs tonight. There was a lot of talk about the police department. I will tell you about the last homeless encampment we tore down, or whatever word you want to use, we went out to the people who were there several times and gave notices. So when we use that word “stormtrooper,” we’re a very professional police department. Whatever you ask us to do, we will do it with dignity. We’re going to do it professionally. If this is what the council wants to do, our police department will handle it accordingly and with discretion. I don’t want to get that stormtrooper label about how we will handle these situations. We work collaboratively with all these groups, and if we remove a camp or a tent or whatever you want us to remove, we will do it with professionalism and dignity.

Council President Gendron: I would expect nothing less. I’ve had nothing but that experience with your department. That wasn’t even a thought in my mind.

Director D’Agostino: I’m going to conclude with this. Councilman Cournoyer’s presentation was spot on. He laid out all the points. This is the first passage, as he said. The mayor is very passionate about this subject. He is. Everybody on the rostrum is. As he said, much can be done between the first and the next passages. The mayor can choose to extend the time, whatever. There are so many things that can be done. I didn’t hear anyone notice this city’s taxpayers, business owners, and homeowners. I was born and brought up here. I have more time in this city than most. I’ve done my share, in the last 11 years, to rebuild this place, and I’ll be goddamned if it’s going to go downhill, okay? It’s not happening. Not on my watch.

Open Doors is going to be passed again. They legitimately can’t get in there until the next council meeting anyway. There’s plenty of time to discuss this, but I think it signals that everybody in the community needs to know that this is a meaningful council and that you want to address it on both fronts, with compassion and authority. There’s plenty of flexibility there. I urge everybody on the council to support this first passage. I think it’s well-crafted, well-thought-out, and sends the right tone to the city, taxpayers, and businesses. I urge your support, and don’t upset me. [Laughter]

Councilmember Gonzalez: I hear you on the timing. The way that I see this is a little bit different because we don’t have things in place. We should be waiting on this for a little bit longer. I know what the situation is. I know we have as a Public Works director and Director Jalette, and there is no question that you do everything with dignity. We’re very proud to have you in our city, and how you handle things is for that reason. Whenever we have any public safety issues, I call to get your feedback because I think what you have to say is important. But you’re not here forever. When we pass legislation, we have to see beyond the people who are here. We have to see beyond the council that is in place.

Flexibility is good for us now because we know what we intend to do, but that flexibility might not be good in the future because we don’t know who else will be in place. I understand the homeowners, taxpayers, and businesses are all a part of this, but some of the people who spoke today are homeowners here in Woonsocket. Other people who are working in the community cannot be here today. I talked with the person who runs the Limitless Living program. She works in the city, she’s a homeowner here, and she wanted to make it known that she is not in support of this legislation as a homeowner and taxpayer.

We have a lot of compassionate taxpayers here. We have a lot of compassionate business owners here. They might not have come up here to speak about this, but they care about this issue. All of us agree that we don’t want these encampments. The goal would be that there is not a single encampment anywhere, but we are working on creating a transitional process between these encampments and the shelters we’re adding. You asked, “What if they don’t go into shelters?” If they decide they won’t go into shelters, then you can identify who those people are. And when you identify who those people are, we can deal with that.

The Open Doors shelter will help us better understand what we’re dealing with. I understand that things are going slow. Believe me, I’ve been working on this stuff for two years. I feel how slow things move, but we have accomplished many things in the last two years. Much of that was setting some foundations, allowing us to do things more rapidly. For example, this thing about being able to regionalize [shelter bed assignments] with the state would never have happened if we hadn’t spent, during those two years, five to eight months working on the regionalization legislation. I think we’ve reached a point where we actually have a stride because we’re collaborating with so many different agencies and the administration.

I appreciate the language. It is a non-criminalized court appearance, but even though it’s not criminalized, whenever you go through a municipal court, the homeless, like anybody else, have the right to ask for counsel for those things. Then you have tax dollars that are going into legal fees. If somebody keeps ignoring the law at some point, there has to be some consequence. You can’t say that there will never be any consequences. It’s money that should be spent on housing people, and it is going to other things. We need to sit and talk about these things. I can’t support it, because we can say, “Let’s give it first passage,” but when you give a first passage, you’re saying, “I support this the way it is, right?”

If we want to see any changes, as legislators, we should have those conversations, make the changes, and pass exactly what we want to pass. But if you’re saying yes today, you’re saying you’re good with this. There’s no narrative that says this council voted yes, but they really meant something else. That’s not in there. If you say yes, you’re saying yes to the whole thing.

The other thing—I know Councilwoman Sierra asked about who will clean up. We threw out the police and mentioned hazmat. Don’t forget that our Director of Human Services, Margaux Morisseau, has looked into what it would cost to do some of those cleanups. If we’re talking about hazmat, we already discovered that it’s a lot of money.

Who’s going to pay for that? Some details need to be ironed out. Councilman Cournoyer, I applaud your passion. I applaud your commitment to this. I know that you say under no circumstances would you table it. I think that sometimes, when we draw a line, the flexibility in this language should be the flexibility that we have right now to speak with one another, and all we’re asking is to be included in the conversation. Let’s sit down, have that workshop, talk about this, and develop something to continue the unification we’ve been leading with in this city. Considering all we’ve heard here today, I hope we can continue to lead in consensus and that spirit of unification.

Councilmember Sharon Harmon: I’ve come into the session sitting on the fence regarding whether I would vote to table it or vote for it. Then, after I heard Mr. Cournoyer share his thoughts on what direction his intentions were, I felt his passion. I‘ve stated that we keep beating this dead horse, and we keep talking about what we’ve got to do and what we want to do, and we still haven’t put anything in place. I agree with our other councilmembers - we must ensure we have all our t’s crossed and i’s dotted. We need to ensure we have everything in place so we know exactly what’s going to happen and not assume what will happen and who will do what. I’m still trying to feel my support regarding voting for it tonight or tabling it. If I can be persuaded to act tonight, I’ll wait to hear what anyone else says.

Councilmember Cournoyer: Let me respond to a couple of comments real quick. Number one, to Councilwoman Fox, what happened with the prior administration and how that was handled - this law wasn’t on the books - it didn’t matter. Whether we have an ordinance or not, how people behave, how they run a city, and how they exercise their perceived authority - this isn’t going to make a difference, whether this is on the books or not. It happened, and this was not on the books. So that’s number one.

Number two, we’re not trying to do what other communities do. I said there are a lot of communities that are not stepping up to the plate. We all recognize that. And there was a suggestion, “Why do we want to join them?” We’re not joining them. We’re doing so much more than everybody else. That was an expression of frustration and disappointment - that so many people come here from out of town - and I honestly don’t think they spend nearly as much time going to their city and town councils and pushing that.

As far as tabling this, I hear you. We should have discussions, and I’m all for that. If there were no mechanism to have another [vote], if this were the only passage, I would agree with you and say, fine, let’s table it. That is not the case. We have two more weeks before the final passage. We have another 14 to 15 days to have three work sessions if we want to discuss this before it reaches the second passage. There’s an old saying, “Perfect is the enemy of good.” Okay? We’re never going to have anything perfect. We want to get it as good as we can. What this provides is a framework. I think it has all the flexibility we need and we can tweak it, but what we’re going to do by tabling it is slow us down. As Councilwoman Harmon said, we keep talking, talking - and I’m doing more talking to irritate her - but at some point, we have to put something on paper and move forward. And if it doesn’t work out well, guess what? We can rescind it, we can amend it. There are a whole bunch of things we can do, but we have to stop at some point. And I think tonight is the stop.

If we pass this, we’ll have the work sessions. If somebody thinks we need to tweak it, I don’t think we do, but let’s hash it out. We have that time, but let’s not waste another meeting and push this further. Let’s move the ball incrementally down the field. And yes, as I said, your committee and then the new subcommittee have been working on this for two years. You’ve made progress, I get it. But at some point, we have to stop talking about these things and force the issue. We’re all adults. I think it can be managed well.

The motion to table the legislation is defeated on a 5-2 vote.

Councilmember Fox: I want to comment. This policy does not end homelessness. It sounds good to some people who have homes.

Councilmember Cournoyer: It’s not intended to stop homelessness but to deal with the encampments, filth, and trash.

Councilmember Fox: When those people are nowhere to be found, that’s what we want? It’s about getting rid of people.

Councilmember Cournoyer: No, it isn’t.

Councilmember Fox: Really? Look at who’s clapping for this.

Councilmember Dubois: It’s about putting them in a safe environment.

Councilmember Fox: It’s not a safe environment. We’re allowing them to get caught up in the carceral system. You guys want to act like all this is going to mean is, “Oh well, they get a little on the wrist and everything’s going to be fine and they’re going to turn their life around.” That is not going to happen. Maybe we should listen to the people. We didn’t listen to the passion of the woman who came here and the people who came here who said, “A few months ago, I lived in a tent here. Please don’t pass this.” The people that you want to make happy are the people who refer to our fellow human beings as feral and trash. That’s what we’ve done.

Murmurs and sounds from the audience.

Councilmember Fox: And y’all can groan as much as you want. I see some people now tapping their feet like little kids, because they’re so happy. How many people will be crying and terrified because of the message we sent them tonight?

Councilmember Sierra: I agree that we should and can meet before we do the second passage. Is there any way that we can agree on a schedule to hash it out? I have a couple of concerns.

Council President Gendron: I’ll schedule it for next Monday.

Councilmember Sierra: I think we can all reach a point where we’re comfortable taking action without delaying it.

Mayor Beauchamp: I appreciate everybody’s comments. Here’s where I’m at. As the city's mayor, I have a budget weighing me down. I have a wastewater plant that’s weighing me down. We need to move this. I give Councilwoman Gonzalez much credit for doing what she’s done in the last two years. I’ve been on that task force with her, but I got very frustrated last year when I was on the council in ‘22, when we tabled things five meetings in a row and nothing got done. I am not in that camp anymore.

It was so frustrating when you talked to somebody on the council, and they told you that this was on the docket. We’re good, and then it got tabled. It was like a game after a while. I’m not saying this is that, but I have so many things that we have to tackle. I want to make sure that Open Doors is here. It’s going to be great. They will do great with their 50 beds, but we must move on to bigger things. I’m not saying this isn’t important. It is. But again, I get tired of talking and talking about it.

Council President Gendron: I’m going to end with this: I think this does exactly what so many people want, that this does more to protect the people in the encampments than what we have on the books right now. For the simple reason that the numbers - the 72 hours is a minimum, the $250 is a maximum. It sets thresholds, floors, and ceilings, and guides the administration. It does not force the administration. It assists. We will discuss this next Monday, but I want to be clear: I support this because I agree with its present form. I’m willing to discuss what we need to change at a work session if that comes up, but I’m not voting on this, saying that I think it needs a change. I’m voting on this because I believe in it. It’s the right thing to do, and it’s the perfect companion to what we did by establishing a 50-bed homeless shelter. This works perfectly with that rule.

The legislation passed on a 5-2 vote. Councilmembers Fox and Gonzalez voted against.

1