Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allentown council reviews draft encampment policy amid public pleas for youth violence prevention funding
Summary
Council reviewed a draft encampment policy that includes a risk-assessment rubric; administration warned solicitor concerns (including a cited Supreme Court case) about promising alternative housing and flagged operational issues with storing personal items. Public commenters—nonprofit leaders and youth—urged council to invest in grassroots programs and immediate supports.
At the June 10 special meeting, Allentown City Council heard an administration presentation on a proposed encampment policy intended to guide outreach and responses to unhoused encampments.
Managing director Frank Kane summarized the policy's expanded purpose and the attached risk-assessment rubric and said administration legal staff raised concerns about language that would categorically promise alternative housing during removals, citing the Grant v. Grant Pass Supreme Court precedent. Kane told council that the solicitor recommended replacing absolute promises with language describing efforts to offer alternatives to reduce legal exposure. He also flagged operational challenges around collecting and storing personal items from encampments (chain of custody, identity and liability concerns).
Council members and advocates discussed scope thresholds (the draft uses 5 tents/structures as a reference point) and the rubric's mitigation steps. Several council members emphasized the need to have the solicitor and department heads fully vet the redlined policy before codification; the administration agreed to deliver a redline list of objections and suggested edits prior to additional hearings.
During the meeting the dais paused to let representatives of local nonprofits and youth speak. Paul Pinnock, founder of the Lehigh Valley Pound for Pound youth program, described an underfunded program that serves about 35–40 youth and said a previously approved van grant went unused because of insurance costs; Pinnock and others asked for immediate, small-scale civic grants (the civic fund can offer up to $2,000 to eligible 501(c)(3) groups) and help with insurance or shared transportation to keep activities running. Multiple young participants described violence in their neighborhoods and credited the coach and program with reducing risky behavior.
Council and administration proposed next steps: the administration will circulate a redlined draft listing solicitor and departmental objections, schedule a follow-up meeting for detailed review (including solicitor and chiefs), and consider mentorship and nonprofit-support programs to help smaller organizations build capacity. No ordinance vote occurred at the June 10 meeting.
