Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter urges Klamath County to address homelessness, policing and alleged labor abuses
Summary
A public commenter told commissioners about personal and community experiences with homelessness, alleged exploitative labor practices and policing responses, urging the county to help people experiencing homelessness and stop local harassment.
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public comment at the Sept. 2 Klamath County Board of Commissioners meeting, Ren Shockey described personal experience with homelessness and raised concerns about policing, exploitative labor conditions and harassment by property managers.
Shockey told the board they arrived in Klamath County in June 2020 and described work and living instability, including recounting a co‑worker named David who lost housing and later disappeared after a sequence of events the commenter described as involving unpaid labor, a DUI and loss of his vehicle. “They'd get him drunk,” Shockey said of the workplace; “Whenever David would ask to be paid for his work, they would sit him down and take turns berating him.”
Shockey also described long hours and hazardous work at a CNC mill for $13.50 an hour and said ongoing back injuries limit their ability to busk. The commenter told commissioners that a California property manager regularly shines lights into tenants’ windows and that police interactions have sometimes escalated, including an account about a neighbor in mental distress who was threatened with arrest after reporting a perceived theft.
Shockey asked the police to help people like David and others who are vulnerable and called for an end to bullying and harassment of people experiencing homelessness. The commenter also recounted an incident during a community event in which another homeless woman, Lucy, was repeatedly reported to police by an organizer and said the reports did not appear to be taken seriously earlier when the caller perceived a threat.
The board heard the public comment during the agenda’s public‑comment period; no formal action was taken during the meeting on the matters raised.

