Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...>
These are good points and worth
examination. Implementation will require negotiation from all
parties, and many details will have to adjust to the local
realities - for instance, some neighborhoods have an abundance
of plausible locations for organized camps and some have few or
none. The idea is based on bringing the cost-benefit equation
down to the local level because that is where cooperation or
resistance occurs. The actual mechanisms of the many possible
solutions should rely on the experience and expertise of those
who have been involved in the struggle for a long time.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
The idea of a "no-camp" radius actually seems more plausible at
the beginning of the project, to plant the seeds of success and
cooperation. As the project develops, it either succeeds because
it is an attractive solution to all parties and it grows under
it's own momentum, or it fails long before there are enough
"no-camp" zones to blanket the city.
As the city backs off of its no-sweeps policy, I worry that the
NAs incentive to engage with the problem may dwindle, so our
planning will have to be attractive for its own sake.
Note that the Community First proposal is still in something of
a draft form as we wrestle with some of the details (or leave
for later discussion). A workgroup will be meeting soon to make
sure that the proposal is in alignment with the goals of the
Interfaith Alliance efforts.
On 7/14/2020 10:04 AM, Godfrey Merrill
doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to get off the
ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods can get on board
thanks Emerson, this is a very interesting point. The
Neighborhood Associations' suggested "Community First" approach
could be seen as a way of solving the collective action problem
of getting many parts/parties of the city to agree, which is
One, would it make more sense for the potential "no-camp"
zone to be the neighborhood district, rather than a radius
around an authorized site? i.e., if the neighborhood district,
as defined by City neighborhood-association system, met let's
say the allotted homeless accommodation goal for a certain
cycle, then enforcement of camping and structures bans would
be enacted in that neighborhood district?
[The reason I wonder this is, I can imagine several problems
with the radius approach. It would be easy to have areas
missed by the radii of authorized sites, even with many of
them. Also, it could be difficult/ambiguous to determine what
areas fall in that radius, let's say for City employees trying
to follow the guidance. Neighborhood districts, on the other
hand, have already tackled the task of covering all areas,
determining boundaries, and probably picking logical
boundaries such as the middle of streets].
Second, why or how might we imagine the City agreeing to
fully enforce camping & structures bans in those
districts, were this tradeoff proposed? The 'bargain' requires
that, but do we have reasons to think the City would take on
this necessary role? Right now, they at least officially have
just a single, citywide policy -- which is that "camping
outside of a City-sanctioned campground is not permitted" -
HUCIRP -- and a single process for responding to camps,
the One Point of Contact System. (tactfully described at
HUCIRP's site as, "the mechanism community members can use to
report issues of illegal camping or related garbage within
Might, perhaps, the One Point of Contact System be amended to
prioritize enforcement action against reported camps within a
@Godfrey those were some of
my first questions as well. I think the answer to both
your questions lies in the fact that the "new"
policies/rules are localized to the sites. In this
way, it doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to
get off the ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods
can get on board one-by-one. In this approach, a
neighborhood/area "earns" the right to disallow ad hoc
camping only after it designates a site where unhoused
people are allowed to live (without getting
"swept" or otherwise hassled). The no-camping zone is
a radius around each site. So excluding ad hoc camping
city-wide would only happen in a scenario when there's
a designated site in every single area all
over the city. That may or may not ever happen, but in
the meantime it gives every neighborhood an
opportunity/incentive to participate in the solution.
several people have mentioned here the
" strategy proposal that some
Neighborhood Associations have been developing.
Here's the latest version I've seen, titled "NA
HOMELESSNESS STRAT DR 7 7 20": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTFe_WPsrW5OHrGd14Ek673UmEj5sWdmuTT8yAtwbOA/edit?usp=sharing
I think it's interesting, and commendably aiming at
a full-scale answer.
As I comment in the doc, I wonder:
a) how to organize the mapping of possible
sites, especially available public land. (this
seems to be a recurring question/project); and
b) the premise of truly excluding camping
outside of the authorized sites, how
likely/possible is it for the city to do, and
what might it achieve politically? Would it
actually bring in majority support, and might it
repel those people/groups with a current
position opposing all 'sweeps'?