HomeMy WebLinkAboutCashman-Crane 12.10.20From: Winter Cashman-Crane <winter.cashman@gmail.com>
To: eprince@rentonwa.gov; rmcirvin@rentonwa.gov; Randy Corman <rcorman@rentonwa.gov>; Ruth Pérez
<rperez@rentonwa.gov>; vohalloran@rentonwa.gov; kvan@rentonwa.gov; abenedetti@rentonwa.gov
Date: 2020-12-10 18:53
Subject: Revised Shelter Ordinance
CAUTION:ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsidetheCityofRenton.Donotclicklinks,replyoropenattachmentsunlessyouknowthecontentissafe.
Hello Honorable Council,
First, I appreciate the staff's work at removing a lot of the prejudicial and segregationist language included in the first and second draft. And I am extremely
relieved with the councilmembers who have publicly made their concerns about the ordinance known. However, I am still disturbed by the overall bill as it stands
in the latest revision.
I would like to imagine some day I could work with others to buy property to help host displaced LGBTQIA+ folks. There is nothing in this language which would
suggest that communities could come together and solve homelessness this way, in fact many of my LGBTQIA+ friends in the area are extremely perturbed by
the language in the ordinance which states this applies even to "unrelated individuals living together as a 'family'", knowing that many of our relationship statuses
and families were only federally recognized in the last five years and don't feel secure with the new Supreme Court. Additionally, LGBTQIA+ communities often
come together and survive in this way, and it feels like this policy, perhaps accidentally, is targeting us.
Furthermore, it has been said "one size fits all" doesn't work for regional solutions, but this ordinance treats all shelters the same, and seems draconian based on
the city's experiences with one particularly taxing facility. As a former individual who has faced housing insecurity at age 18 after being outed, my stomach turns
reading this ordinance. When we have a perception of others based on one or limited experiences with a group of people, this is called stereotyping, and it is what
this ordinance does to unhoused communities. It would treat a small LGBTQIA+ shelter serving a handful of people the same as a large facility serving one
hundred high-needs individuals (unfortunately more beds are not allowed than this with the bill, despite the thousands of people in Renton's streets and parks and
highway passes).
I would be extremely hesitant to invite others to Renton to build LGBTQ+ spaces if they would be subjected to "code of conduct" agreements, pressure to
volunteering when they're trying to get on their feet (potentially with unfriendly people), and neighborhood residents demanding "resolutions and reports",
potentially targeting them after learning the shelter is LGBTQ-oriented (or other) due to the "neighborhood meeting" requirement. I don't believe the drafters of this
ordinance wholistically thought through what housing and homelessness solutions look like for the diverse communities disproportionately facing it. This bill would
be unrealistic for LGBTQIA+, women's, and shelters for refugees, placing a large target on them by law.
Altogether it seems like these policies are unwarranted, overreaching, and in many ways overtly prejudiced. I am pleading that the council reject this
ordinance. If a zone is required simply pass the zone without all the additional constraints. I know it was said we should pass this and fix it as it goes along, but I
feel passing this would only encourage those vocal about this issue which have tended to demonstrate clear prejudices against the owners of the hotel, and the
residents living there. We should instead pass an emergency ordinance which treats housing and homelessness as the crises they are and takes an approach of
cooperation, compassion, and regional leadership.
Thank you,
Winter Cashman-Crane (they/them)
winter.cashman@gmail.com
(206)471-5568
LR - 000782