Re: COVID Cleanups/Sweeps

Trena Sutton

Tim,  couldn’t agree more and I have tried to get them to be more specific. The city does not listen to me or to most people but who criticize them in anyway.  The problem is with these in accurate postings by the city and others that others get hurt in the fallout.  I find people take sides and do not want to hear another opinion even when it’s based on fact. 


On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:41 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

the cleanup notice Sarah shared is, I think, ambiguous about what action may occur and when. Perhaps we can help by documenting, explaining, and asking for improvement of the notices, and of scheduling procedures - see #3 below. Perhaps this has been proposed, or if not is a good specific area in which to ask for a goodwill response from the City and HUCIRP (Homelessness / Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program, the Manager of which is Lucas Hillier Lucas.hillier@..., Bcc-ed here to invite any reply/clarifications from him). 

1. I am hearing of a "green notice" which may differ than this one posted with white paper. I can't find the picture I had of this, does anyone have more info on this or picture of other cleanup etc notices? 

2. The notice warns sites "will be posted for personal property removal" - not, per se, removal of people (i.e. 'eviction'), closing off area, or prohibiting a future campsite. However, as far as I understand, or can see in HUCIRP's official procedures as described in documents at their site which I've just reviewed, there is only a single defined activity, "cleanup", also described as campsite removal, or sometimes 'clearing' a campsite. See program workflow diagram:

Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 1.10.05 PM.png

In a June 26, 2020 memo from Lucas Hillier, ( describing the planned resumption of cleaning and clearing campsites, he states: 

"HUCIRP has developed a plan for a limited resumption of posting, cleaning, and personal property removal to address situations where the public health and safety risks associated with individuals moving some distance from their current location. " "After 24 hours [from posting], if the campsite still violates the above thresholds, the campsite will be posted to be cleaned and cleared."  [bold added].

The memo implies that action will require "individuals moving some distance from their current location," but as far as I can tell, from the letter of the law, the campsite cleanup process as constrained by the Andersen agreement concerns strictly 'campsites' and property, where campsite is defined as:

"A location where, for the purpose of maintaining or establishing a temporary place to live, any of the following is placed: any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter; any stove or fire; and/or any structure such as a hut, lean-to, tent, or other temporary structure such as carts and/or personal property."

A person isn't a location, sleeping matter, a structure, or personal property, so it isn't clear that 'cleanup' procedure therefore does, or could, include actions taken against persons. By that interpretation, it seems campers and a campsite and perhaps a crew of friendly passers-by could, theoretically, just move their materials aside/offsite when a cleanup is conducted, and move them back afterwards. Is there any enforceable definition of how long a 'cleanup' takes, or how far away is not part of the 'campsite'? Seems kind of sensible, like moving furniture aside when vacuuming. In some places as I've seen in Bay Area, dwellings and camp fixtures are put on castors or wheels precisely to deal with this and with regular street cleaning. Can anyone suggest problems with such an approach? 

3.  It appears that the notice Sarah shared is not quite compliant with the Andersen vs City of Portland legal settlement ( governing campsite cleanups. According to that, the notice must include the words: 

“This campsite will be cleared no less than 24 hours after

and within seven (7) days of [the date and time the site is posted for

cleanup]. Cleanup may take place at anytime within the seven-day period”

Could seem a small point, but points to something bigger: is a seven-day window, or perhaps longer if there's nothing noting that 7-day limit, entirely necessary or appropriate, for a service call that apparently will take away one's home and any possessions you can't carry away in under an hour? I mean, even so despised a tyrant as Comcast Infinity might give you a day or a 4-hour window for taking a look at your cable box; might we hope for the City & Rapid Response Bio-Hazard to do something like that regarding removal of homes? I know scheduling service calls is tricky, work isn't quite predictable, but consider the difficulties of, having no place else to go and being destitute, waiting a week in readiness to disband home and move all possessions in an hour. How about, say, giving a day, and calling an hour ahead of time, then you'd have two hours? 

Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:13 PM Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...> wrote:

Hi Folks,

If you haven't checked out the city's site for HUCIRP, please do.

Reading news is great, but sometimes it's better to go closer to the source.

Is HUCIRP accurate? That's my first question.

My apologies for not making it up to St John's to help. I hope it went well.


My question 

Join to automatically receive all group messages.