Update on Shelter Moratoriu
The process for adopting a moratorium on homeless shelters, which is being pursued by the majority of Lewiston's City Council, is not over.
The moratorium is up for another vote this coming Tuesday, April 5, 2022. If you care about services for the unhoused in our community, come to this City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 5th at 6:30pm.
The moratorium as proposed would:
Stop ALL NEW SHELTERS and ANY EXISTING SHELTER FROM EXPANDING in Lewiston for up to 6 months.
At this April 5 meeting, City Council will vote on the next step in the moratorium process. You have another chance to tell your Councilor how you feel. If they vote against taking the next step, our understanding is that this vote will stop the moratorium.
The information in this post has come from our conversations with City staff, multiple City Councilors including one who voted for the moratorium, the public comments made by Councilors and residents at the March 15 meeting, and the information included in the April 5 agenda. It is accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Summary:
The moratorium is NOT about creating or prohibiting low-barrier shelters in Lewiston. The moratorium would prohibit ALL NEW SHELTERS, low or high-barrier, and would stop ALL EXISTING SHELTERS from expanding their work. Regardless of what kind of shelter you feel is best for our community, this moratorium would prohibit ALL new shelters of ANY type for up to 6 months.
The City Council already has all of the tools it needs to make decisions about the Resource Center, including stopping it from accessing the federal funds Council is concerned about. Council will have another opportunity to vote on whether or not to give the Center these funds, and the Resource Center CANNOT access them without Council’s express permission. The moratorium is NOT NECESSARY to address these concerns.
The moratorium WILL NOT stop the Resource Center, it will only delay it. In the meantime, it will negatively impact all existing shelter service providers in Lewiston and could have untold other impacts, like discouraging investment in shelters in our community, painting Lewiston as opposed to all homeless shelters, restricting the existing service providers in our community and inhibiting their ability to respond to emergencies.
Please read below for more detail.
What does the moratorium do?
The moratorium as proposed by City staff would:
Prohibit any “person or organization” from “develop[ing], construct[ing] or operat[ing] a new shelter or expand[ing] an existing shelter within the City” that was not already approved by the Planning Board before March 28. This means no new shelters or “development proposals” for shelters could be created in Lewiston for up to 6 months AND no existing shelters could expand during that same time.
A homeless shelter is defined as: “a facility operated by a for-profit entity, not-for-profit corporation or a religious organization providing free temporary overnight housing in a dormitory-style, barrack-style, or per-bed arrangement to homeless individuals…”
What unintended consequences could the moratorium have?
The following are illustrative examples of how the moratorium would impact Lewiston under different circumstances, based on the moratorium language proposed in the April 5 City Council agenda.
After a fire in the downtown, 6 families are displaced. A local church decides to use their space to provide temporary housing to these newly-homeless individuals. This would be banned under the moratorium.
COVID-19 rates spike again and a local organization that already operates a shelter wants to put beds in their gymnasium to house COVID-positive clients, so they can keep their COVID-negative clients safe from transmission. This would be banned under the moratorium.
These are not only hypotheticals. In September 2021, a building on Blake Street burned down, displacing 75 people. In response, the Red Cross, in conjunction with other nonprofits and religious organizations, set up temporary shelters at Lewiston Public High School, the Ramada, and other spaces to house people displaced by the fire. If this fire had taken place when the moratorium was in place, all of this activity would have been prohibited by the moratorium.
Didn’t Council already vote on the shelter moratorium?
On March 15th, City Council voted 4-3 to direct City staff to research and propose a moratorium on homeless shelters. The Councilors voting in favor of this motion were Robert McCarthy (Ward 2), Rick LaChapelle (Ward 4), Larry Pease (Ward 5), and Lee Clement (Ward 6). Not sure what ward you’re in? Click here for a ward map. Councilors Linda Scott (Ward 1), Scott Harriman (Ward 3) and Stephanie Gelinas (Ward 7) voted against the motion.
The vote on March 15 did not implement a moratorium. It directed City staff to research and propose a moratorium on homeless shelters for the City Council to vote on. It is important to note that proposing a moratorium also means finding justification for the moratorium. Therefore, the documents created by the City make the case for the moratorium, but do not include any alternatives to a moratorium. This is not necessarily because City staff are in favor of a moratorium. It is because they were directed to produce this justification by City Council.
Why is a moratorium being proposed?
At least one City Councilor who voted for the moratorium told constituents the moratorium was exclusively a reaction to the Resource Center proposal and was intended to stop that proposal, not to impact other service providers. However, the moratorium as proposed will impact all shelter service providers. Councilors who voted for the moratorium at the March 15 meeting said that they were “not against all shelters.” They said they felt like they were being misinterpreted as opposing all homeless shelters. But the moratorium these City Councilors are supporting CAN harm all homeless shelters, including existing homeless shelters, by preventing them from expanding services to improve their work or respond to emergencies.
City Councilors introduced the moratorium because they were concerned about the specifics of the Resource Center proposal. Councilors framed this concern in terms of the federal funding sought by the Resource Center. It is City Council’s job to decide how to use this funding, and City Council will make this decision through another vote at a later date. They do not need a moratorium to stop the Resource Center from accessing these funds if they want to do so.
Councilors have also voiced concerns about whether existing City zoning policies for shelters are stringent enough. Currently, shelters need to be approved by the Planning Board on a case by case basis before moving forward. This is called being “conditionally permitted.” Councilors have said that they need the moratorium in order to review and revise the zoning rules around shelters. However, they can review and revise these zoning policies without a moratorium.
What are they voting on at the April 5 meeting?
On Tuesday, April 5, City Councilors will vote on whether or not to take the next step on the shelter moratorium. The next step in the moratorium process is a public hearing. This may sound like Councilors are giving the public a chance to contribute to the conversation. However, this is the normal next step in a moratorium. If they vote not to move to public hearing, our understanding is that the moratorium cannot move forward.
Shouldn’t the public have a chance to contribute to the conversation?
Absolutely! On March 15, there were almost 2 hours of public comment about the proposal to draft a moratorium on homeless shelters. A total of 42 people spoke. Of those, 5 were in favor of the moratorium. 37 were opposed.
Of note, the Councilors who voted in favor of the moratorium represent wards 2, 4, 5, and 6. Not one constituent from any of these wards spoke in favor of the moratorium. A total of 16 constituents from their wards spoke against the moratorium.
The process of adopting a moratorium is not over. There will be another chance at the April 5 meeting to give public comment and tell your Councilor how you feel about the moratorium. It is our responsibility as citizens to tell our elected representatives how to represent our interests. It can be hard for Councilors to know what their constituents want if we aren’t there to tell them. They may believe the people they hear from the most often (or most loudly) are representative of their constituents as a whole. The more elected representatives hear from the people who they represent, the better they can represent them. The more vocal we are, the more our elected representatives can be held accountable if their actions are clearly contrary to the public feedback they’re receiving.
Please reach out to us if you have questions about this. You can reach us at organizer@growingourtreestreets.com. If you feel strongly about this issue, we encourage you to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 5. The meeting begins at 7:00pm. We encourage you to arrive by 6:30pm.