Council Directs Exemption of Homeless Service Limitations for Davis Community Church

One of the key provisions of the MOU was a 25 person limitation on services provided both in terms of cold weather shelter and in terms of a Brown Bag Lunch Program.

“DCC, in conjunction with Grace House, may continue to operate the Brown Bag Lunch Program a maximum of five days per week, during weekdays (Monday- Friday) for one hour periods each day. The Brown Bag Lunch Program shall not exceed an average of 14 persons per day, and shall not serve more than 25 persons on any given day.”

Furthermore the MOU limits the cold weather shelter to 25 persons as well.

“DCC may continue to operate the Interfaith Winter Rotating Shelter Program only during the winter months from November through March and at a maximum of four one-week periods (Sunday to Saturday) may be located on DCC properties. The IRWS Program shall not serve more than 25 persons on any given day that it is located at DCC properties. Intake for the program is to be located at an off-site location. DCC also participates with the administration of the IRWS Program. DCC will count the number of adult and children participants in the Winter Rotating Shelter Program each day that it is held on DCC property and will report those numbers monthly to the City.”

Controversy arose last week during the cold snap when apparently people were turned away from the cold weather shelter.  According to an explanation last week provided by the city manager, there is to be a process by which people are to be redirected, sometimes as far away as the Wayfarer Center in Woodland.

A few community members spoke out last week about this and far more this week.  The council chambers were packed with members of the public, many of them young advocates of the homeless committed to this issue.

Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Sue Greenwald served on the subcommittee that looked into this issue and worked with Davis Community Church and the neighbors on the MOU regarding the policy under which this service would operate.  As Mayor Asmundson said following nearly 40 minutes of public comment,

“The city is very supportive of the interfaith rotating cold weather shelter.  The number 25 actually was the number on the application when they asked for a conditional use permit.  So that’s been in place the last two years.”

She went on to say that the MOU was specifically between the city and the Davis Community Church regarding the issue to rezone the Davis Community Area like the other churches in town.  She did point out that under extraordinary circumstances those numbers could be raised and be waived.

This controversy arose as individuals seeking shelter last week during a bitter cold spell were turned away.

Mayor Asmundson expressed regret that this happened.

“It was unfortunate that those individuals had been turned down, there was some miscommunication there.”

Councilmember Sue Greenwald:

“As Ruth said, we’ve always been supportive of the shelter and the meals program.  The issue here was the impact on one neighborhood with so many services involved.”

She continued,

“We’re determined that nobody does have to sleep outside.  We’re hoping to increase the number of churches involved, if we can’t, then we’re willing to open up city property in order to do it. We are cognizant of the fact that there is a burden if one neighborhood is constantly craving social services of this nature.”

The council then led by Councilmember Lamar Heystek and Stephen Souza would later ask the city manager to consider it extraordinary circumstances until January when the council could consider the broader issue more fully.  First, he directed the subcommittee to complete their scope of work, particularly the issue of determining the level of service needed.

Second, he directed the staff to create a policy to allow Davis Community Church to declare a temporary exemption on site subject to a final determination by the city manager.  This would allow the church to take in more people at the time and then discuss with the city manager at a later point about the appropriateness of the action.  Until that time, he asked the City Manager to use his discretion to exempt DCC from the service caps.  The item would be taken up on January 12.

Because it was not noticed, they could not vote on action, but it was the clear desire of the members of the council to declare an exemption during the winter break and allow DCC to take more than 25 individuals at a time.

The city council had heard during public comment from numerous members of the community.

Emily Henderson, among the organizers said,

“I’d like to ask the council to please waive the limits placed on Davis Community Church for the next three weeks and re-open the issue for consideration at the January 5 council meeting.”

She asked the council to consider whether the MOU really addresses the neighbors concerns.

“If they are uncomfortable with 26 homeless folks, aren’t they still uncomfortable with 24?  Don’t the neighbors deserve to feel comfortable on their own street?  Shouldn’t we be working with the neighbors to increase their comfort level rather than decreasing services to the community?”

She went on to point out that the council’s subcommittee only dealt with the first step, addressing the complaints of neighbors, but they have yet to address the broader issue, that of level of service need.

“As a result the MOU only curtails and constrains existing services, and does nothing to assure that the homeless are served.”

Nathan Strickland a long time Davis resident also spoke asking that the limits of the MOU be suspended for the next three weeks.

“A 25 person limit does not seem that bad on paper, but the human realities are a bit different.  Imagine that you’re a volunteer at an interfaith shelter, the temperature is 35 degrees.  You’re checking people in and you reach your cap of 25.  There’s some spare cots in the closet and you could probably stretch it if you had to, but no, 25 is the limit.  In walks another person, you know their name, they stayed at the shelter last night, they’re not on drugs or mentally ill, just an ordinary person who has fallen on hard times.  How do you turn them away?  How do you say, sorry, it’s not cold enough tonight?  Would you find that hard to do and would you think twice about volunteering tomorrow and having to say that to someone else?  I know I would.”

Linda Barelack (apologies if this is misspelled) gave an impassioned plea.

“In quoting Martin Luther King, Jr. famous speech, I Have a Dream.  I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are create equal.  In quoting, “all men are created equal,” I was raised in Davis, fervently believe that this city has the potential to shine as a beacon of inclusion to the rest of society.  Where all men are indeed created equal, where all people are valued and upheld as essential to the fabric of this town.

I have experience racial prejudice first hand as a child.  The city of Davis has made great strides in leading the community to overcome racial issues.  Now we’re presented with an opportunity to overcome prejudice against another group—the un-housed in our community.

So tonight I am here before you to say that I have a dream.  A dream that one day all of us can unite under one cause and with one purpose, to serve those less fortunate.  And also to recognize the obvious human need in those living homeless.  We should not use those living homeless to stroke our egos.  Those living homeless are not statistical numbers that satisfy an organizational paradigm.  They are a direct result of our society and its non-attenuation into the basic needs of the society members.  We must no clear our conscience with numbers alone.  Numbers represent real people.

My father used to tell me that a man is not measured by his words, but by how he acts.  Everyday that we argue about needs, numbers, necessities, and insidious issues, is another day that those living homeless go without a voice.  When we cannot put into action our servitude to their needs, it is another day that we fail as a group.  We cannot ignore the needs of those living homeless for fear of impunity.  You may ask why I would use impunity and my answer is simple because it is a travesty that we as a people can reduce those living homeless to mere figures and not see them as whole.  I use impunity at the end of the day to chalk one up for those for what our definition is of a job well done, when in fact our homeless guests struggle over pre-registrations and standby lists.  We can go to our warm beds while those living homeless have no idea where they’re going to sleep and only the luck few can get in.

I say we are impudent because shame on us for saying we care, but not acting upon our words, the faith communities have been and continue to be central to societies safety net in our community.  Every single social service for those living homeless or low income was started by the faith community.  These services are offered at no cost to the city.  I therefore implore you to support the faith community in its effort to care for the most vulnerable in our city.  And last to effect change, is to have trust that those outside your council can make a difference, a difference that serves the greater good of the community.  It is my hope that together we can strengthen the bonds of coloration and partnership to build a stronger community.  Please help us, help others.”

The council’s direction should prevent a repeat of what happened last week.  There still needs to be some determination as to whether this is a tenable policy.  The city needs to obviously weigh the needs of a group of individuals who are homeless against the needs of the neighbors.

However, the suggestion for the start has been that the city itself needs to do more for the homeless people.  The fact remains that the faith community has stepped up to the fill the void that the city has left.  If the city wishes to place limits on the ability of faith groups to help, the city needs to do far more.  This is an unfortunate issue that clearly still needs to be worked out.  Until it is, it seems reasonable to allow churches and non-profits to continue to provide services to our community.

—David M. Greenwald reporting