Candidates pressed on homelessness: mixed views on LifeBridge expansion and encampment response

Homelessness in downtown Salem was a central topic at the Ward 2 forum at Hamilton Hall, with audience members asking candidates whether they supported an expansion of LifeBridge's day center and how the city should handle encampments.

John Newhall, William Legault and Andrew Smith all said they support services to move people from street homelessness into housing, but they differed on whether the LifeBridge expansion as proposed is ready. “I do reluctantly support the LifeBridge building expansion,” Legault said, while also saying he wanted better operations and accountability. Smith said he “do[es] not support the expansion” as presented, while adding he supports LifeBridge’s mission. Newhall urged the city to “lean much harder on LifeBridge” for day programming including career services, mental health and addiction support.

Encampment and storage of belongings: Candidates addressed a recent, controversial encampment clearance along the South River. Legault said he supported the camping ordinance and the Community Impact Unit’s (CIU) role in storing residents’ property when it was safe to do so, but he said storage handling could have been better and that some property was discarded. Newhall supported the dismantling and said a shelter-first, housing-first approach was appropriate but raised concerns about the health risks for people collecting and storing property.

Regional and service coordination: Candidates noted that Salem cannot address the issue alone. Smith said a regional approach is necessary and urged surrounding communities to step up, while Legault recommended a city action team to engage people on the street and coordinate with LifeBridge and the Epstein Mental Health Center. Candidates raised Harbor Light Homes (the permanent housing arm) and LifeBridge (day services/shelter) as different pieces of the system: Legault said Harbor Light is providing housing placements while LifeBridge provides day services and shelter beds.

What candidates said they'd do: Proposals included expanding day-center capacity and outreach, funding more mental health and addiction workers, coordinating with regional providers and insisting on better accountability and reporting from nonprofit partners. No candidate described a specific council action they had already taken; candidates framed their positions as priorities they would pursue if elected.

Ending: The three candidates agreed on the need for more services and better coordination but differed over whether to endorse the LifeBridge expansion as presented, highlighting a split between support for the mission and concerns about operational readiness and regional burden-sharing.