Quick Q&A: "Smaller Shelters" Website

I recently received the email below from a constituent who, based on the information they had found at the Smaller Shelters website, was planning to vote for Option A on Question 1 on Portland's November 2021 ballot. At left below is the original constituent email; at right is my response; and below it all is the constituent's reply back. 

​I hope this exchange will encourage others considering Option A to reconsider their votes. It may also be helpful to take a look at the side by side comparison of Option A, Option B, and Option C.

Dear Belinda Ray, 

As a 32-year resident of Portland, the homeless shelter topic has been of great concern to me.  I was totally prepared, or so I thought, to vote for option C. I read your Maine Voices column and was then leaning toward B.  I told myself I needed to do more research.

I then read the attached [smaller shelters website] and have been convinced that neither B nor C is the right option for the city of Portland, and Option A is the only way to go.

In my opinion, Portland shelters.Org thought through all of the issues you raised in your column. This is the first place I have seen any numbers applied to any of the plans. The large shelter on Riverside Street seems absolutely unattainable and has a budget that will not be sustainable over the years. I'm now convinced that plan is doomed and prime for failure. And that will be a HUGE financial hole for the city of Portland residents to have to bear.

The importance of taking the burden off the shoulders of Portland residents and spreading it to other parts of the state is critical. I believe that "A" is the right way to vote. Based on just the financial picture alone of option C, it is hard for me to understand how the Portland City Council can possibly support that plan. The taxpayers of Maine and particularly Portland will be buried in debt. That is not a viable option and it's shocking that the city is putting that forward. 

I understand why you thought it was wise to present another option, "B", but it still doesn't solve the problem and it's only going to cause confusion at the polls in my opinion. (Thus, the reason I had to dig deeper for more information.)

I am so glad I read all this information so I did not make the wrong decision at the polls on November 2nd.  Your column pushed me to research this deeper. So I thank you for that.  If you have not read the information in the link below, I believe it would be wise for all of the city councilors to be aware of all of this information. It seems hard to justify either B or C. And now I only wish you did not present option B but instead got behind option A as a city council member.

[NAME REDACTED]
Portland, ME

​Hi, [NAME REMOVED]. 

Obviously I'm dismayed that you will be voting for Option A. I am quite aware of the website and the information you've cited. There is much misinformation and misdirection here. One clear example of this is the following quote:

“…. Running a 24/7/365 shelter [will require] constant attention to funding and problem-solving and staffing and funding and working with neighbors and funding and setting security and safety protocols and funding and working with police and training staff and keeping staff and funding and securing enough Narcan and funding? (Can you tell I’m concerned about the ongoing funds it will take to do this right?)”
 – Shelter Provider in Portland

You'll notice the website and the proponents of Option A never discuss how much it would cost to run multiple 24/7/365 shelters or how they would be funded or staffed. (Or when or where they would be built, or by whom.)

The cost of operating multiple smaller shelters is is a question that has been addressed and answered by multiple task forces over the years, and it has been found - again and again - that multiple smaller shelters would cost a great deal more, require more staff, and make it impossible for providers of valuable services to be able to get to all the people at all of the locations requiring their assistance. And the worst part is that there are no plans for any of these shelters to be built. 

Even if the city were to stop, switch gears, and redirect all available funding to creating these smaller shelters - or if the state or other communities were to do so - the result would be a much higher cost in terms of building, staffing, and operating from year to year as well as a dilution of available services. 

Meanwhile, the very well thought out Homeless Services Center, for which we have county and state funding pledged, is ready to go. 

The price tag the smaller shelter website has placed on this facility is also incorrect. They are basing it on a "not to exceed" building expense which currently tops out at $25,000,000, but the lease based on this building cost has not yet been fully negotiated. The smaller shelter's page link titled "as accepted by the Council" is false. This hasn't yet come before the Council. It is scheduled to be voted on in early November. 

Meanwhile, the NTE expense I've mentioned is likely to come down before the agreement is signed. But even if it stayed at $25,000,000, we already have $5,000,000 in federal money and a promise of county and state funding to assist as well. The lease payments from month to month are comparable with what we currently pay for the Oxford Street Shelter and far less than we would pay to lease or own multiple smaller facilities.

At present, with the aid of the state, we are spending $1,000,000 per month on hotels to provide emergency shelter to people. That number will increase if Option A passes and we are unable to create the HSC as planned. 

I agree with you that we need more county and state collaboration on this issue, and we continue to work toward increasing the contributions from those entities as well as surrounding communities. 

I certainly hope you will re-consider your vote for Option A, as all that A will do is hamstring our social services network and potentially prevent the construction of a much needed, ready to go, state-of-the-art, best practices facility endorsed by every social services provider in the City. You'll notice that the organizations endorsing Option A are all political groups who have no role in creating, funding, staffing, or sustaining shelters or in working with people experiencing homelessness. 

One last thing. I think a vote for C is a valid option as well. I am advocating for B because I like the changes it makes to the City Code (see below). However, if C passes, we can work to make those changes through the regular Council process instead of via referendum. Option A is the only bad choice here - the only choice that hurts people experiencing homelessness. I hope you will reconsider. 

 Best,

Belinda
-------------------
​THE CHANGES OPTION B MAKES
I like B because it corrects a few problems I see in the existing code. 

1. It requires day space for residents in all new shelters, not just those that are greater than 1/4 mile away from public transit, which is how it's written into the code right now. 
2. It cleans up the "clear sightlines" requirement so that it doesn't apply to apartment style shelters. Our family shelter is apartment style in that it has multiple private units with closing doors available for families. Domestic violence shelters are often set up with private rooms for guests as well. In those instances, it isn't appropriate or feasible to require clear sight lines. In typical emergency shelters, however, it is important to have clear sightlines to sleeping areas so everyone feels safe, so Option B allows an exception for apartment style shelters but keeps the sightlines requirements for other shelters.
3.  It makes it clear that all shelters - not just those more than 1/4 mile from METRO service must implement strategies to help clients access public transit. 

The other thing B does is to place a limit on the number of emergency shelter beds that could be located in any one area of the city. B limits the total number of emergency shelter beds to 300 in any 1 mile radius. It also requires individual shelters to be located at least 1000 feet from one another measured between property lines. There are no such limits on shelter density or location in the code right now, and A, though its proponents talk about smaller *scattered* shelters, does nothing to prevent say, ten 50-bed shelters from all being placed in the same neighborhood. 
​

Thank you very much for your long and detailed reply. I very much appreciate the information.  You are right. I am going to look more deeply and possibly reconsider. This is a complex issue and getting the facts hasn't always been easy.

I very much appreciate your taking the time to send all this valuable and helpful information to me.

Warm regards,

[NAME REMOVED]