Neighborhood associations expanded a demand for residents of Safe Rest Villages near schools to undergo criminal background checks in a May 16 email to Mayor Ted Wheeler and city commissioners obtained by Street Roots.
A demand for background checks for residents of the Queer Affinity Village at 2300 SW Naito Parkway, in addition to two other core demands, was made public in early May when non-homeless stakeholders near the site rescinded support for the village. Ten business and neighborhood associations throughout Portland, as well as two downtown private schools, are now demanding officials enact the policies citywide, the May 16 email shows.
Legal experts say a background check policy will likely result in discrimination and possible legal troubles for the city if allowed to go into effect. However, proponents say the city needs to agree to the proposals for neighborhood associations to support Safe Rest Villages, or SRVs.
Commissioner Dan Ryan, who’s responsible for the sleeping pod sites, declined to say if the city plans to meet the demands.
Street Roots spoke with two attorneys about the legal and social equity implications of the city requiring background checks for unhoused people seeking shelter at SRVs. There are no laws against requiring background checks for people in temporary housing, but background checks could violate anti-discrimination laws.
Kelly Simon, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, said the regulations could present unequal challenges for people from marginalized communities.
“We have laws that say places that are providing housing to people can't discriminate,” Simon said. “I think the risk for the city and others involved in providing this type of housing — in having kind of blanket background check policies, and blanket bans, based on certain history that a person might bring with them to a shelter space — is that those policies have a disparate impact on people of color or people with disabilities; people who are protected by our nondiscrimination and housing laws.”
Simon said housing laws prohibit policies with disproportionate impacts on people with physical and mental health disabilities, a group of people overrepresented in unhoused populations. Housing laws also prohibit racial discrimination, and the proposed background check would likely translate to discrimination in practice, according to Simon.
“We know, for example, in the city of Portland, that the arrest rate for people who are unhoused is significantly high, and that a disproportionate number of the people who are arrested and prosecuted and ultimately convicted in Oregon's criminal justice system are people of color,” Simon said. “So in particular, Black, Latino and Indigenous people. So the likelihood that … criminal background prohibitions will disproportionately impact people of color is high.”
Walter Fonseca, a lawyer with the Oregon Justice Resource Center, argues the requirement would unfairly target people simply because they were unhoused.
“Those same requirements don't exist for people that were just going to rent an apartment within 500 feet of a school, or who live in a house within 500 feet of a school,” Fonseca said. “If they were just going to rent an apartment, and you had a property (crime), it wouldn't necessarily disqualify you from being able to live in that apartment. I don't understand why the rules need to be different just because the person is living in a safe rest village versus living in an apartment.”
A background check requirement could also pose logistical hurdles impeding the function of the SRVs, Fonseca notes, because background checks are costly and can take weeks to complete.
“There's a question of who's going to pay for it, or they're going to require the folks applying to live in the Safe Rest Village to pay the 30 bucks or whatever it is to get a background check done?” Fonseca said. “It's another process that takes a week to two, depending on who the city is contracting with to do the background check.”
Fonseca worries the requirement could also dissuade unhoused people from trying to get housed if they have a criminal record, even if their record wouldn’t exclude them.
“It’s just another barrier that someone has to kind of deal with and it could certainly dissuade some people,” Fonseca said. “‘Well, why would I even try to get in there, I heard they have background checks, and I have something (on my criminal record).’ That (criminal record) maybe wouldn't even exclude them, but they just have heard the incorrect information that goes around.”
Maybe in my backyard
On May 16, Stanley Penkin, president of the Pearl District Neighborhood Association sent an email bearing the subject line “Community Response to Safe Rest Villages” to city officials expanding a call for background checks. The proposal garnered substantial support from neighborhood associations throughout the city.
As of May 26, the Downtown Neighborhood Association, South Portland Neighborhood Association, South Portland Business Association, Pearl District Neighborhood Association, Hazelwood Neighborhood Association, University Park Neighborhood Association, East Columbia Neighborhood Association, Bridgeton Neighborhood Association, Arbor Lodge Neighborhood Association and the Old Town Community Association have all signed on to demand the conditions be adopted for potential SRV residents.
International School of Portland and Bridges Middle School, two private schools located downtown, also signed on. International School of Portland and Bridges Middle School are located in close proximity to the relocated Queer Affinity Village site at 2300 SW Naito Parkway and were involved in opposing the site.
The conditions include a 1,000-foot minimum buffer zone around SRVs (increased from the current buffer of 150 feet), the establishment of Safe Rest Village advisory boards, and required background checks for people in Safe Rest Villages within 500 feet of a school.
The passage regarding schools reads as follows:
“The Safety and wellbeing of young school children and school staff is of the utmost priority.
For any Safe Rest Village within (500 feet) of a school conditions must include:
Strict enforcement of existing laws and any new standards
A requirement for low-barrier background checks for those with felony convictions of violent crimes against a person, sex crimes, and property crimes within past seven years which are major criminal convictions and are commonly screened out across many transitional and low barrier housing facilities.”
Penkin, a lead author of the neighborhood association demands, says the requirements are an attempt to negotiate better agreements with the city to help minimize neighborhood resistance to SRVs so they can succeed.
“In the first six months or so between Dan Ryan's team and downtown stakeholders, the (2300 SW Naito Stakeholder Group), the collaboration wasn't what it should have been,” Penkin said. “My fear was that if it goes in that direction, the neighborhoods are going to be more opposed to Safe Rest Villages.”
The email sent to city officials requesting SRV requirements said the city’s collaboration with the 2300 SW Naito Stakeholder Group, “is a good start towards all parties working together,” and goes on to list the three requirements and the stakeholders backing them.
The 2300 SW Naito Stakeholder Group withdrew support in early May for the Queer Affinity Village recently relocated to 2300 SW Naito Parkway. The withdrawal of support prompted a public response from Ryan, who said the Safe Rest Village team made consistent efforts to take recommendations from the group into account, including a previous list of requests that included establishing a “good neighbor agreement” between the city and the Portland Downtown Neighborhood Association before an SRV was placed at 2300 SW Naito Parkway.
Penkin said while some members of neighborhood associations are opposed to SRVs in their communities, many neighborhood leaders support them and understand their importance. What’s pivotal for their success, Penkin said, is the city ensuring they will uphold “good neighbor agreements” and enforce the agreed-upon rules.
“Well, my concern is, if we can't make it work for everyone, it will just create a divide between the housed and unhoused,” Penkin said. “This is a humanitarian problem that affects everybody. So we don't want to create (division) by making it difficult, having a village that makes it uncomfortable for people in the neighborhood. That just doesn't work. It just creates a greater divide.”
Street Roots contacted Ryan’s office and asked about the process for adopting or opposing the requests, and sought comment on the requests and the possible impacts of background checks. Ryan’s office declined to answer direct questions regarding the city’s intent, or lack thereof, to meet the demands outlined in the letter.
Bryan Apketar, project communications liaison with Ryan’s office emailed the following statement:
“Our conversation with the representatives of those who shared their requests are ongoing. Our conversation is focused on considerations for villages close to schools. We’re close to agreement, but would like to finish those discussions and then share the outcome. The Commissioner is keenly aware of inequities in the criminal justice system, particularly regarding issues of race and class. We are focused on safety concerns for new villages being established in close proximity to schools, and will work to ensure we do not perpetuate inequities in that process.”
Street Roots is an award-winning weekly publication focusing on economic, environmental and social justice issues. The newspaper is sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity. Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy and is a part of the Street Roots organization. Learn more about Street Roots. Support your community newspaper by making a one-time or recurring gift today.
© 2022 Street Roots. All rights reserved. | To request permission to reuse content, email editor@streetroots.org or call 503-228-5657, ext. 404
