Re: Tent Camping Solution

Trena Sutton

 That was forgotten realms. It was on PBOT  property near Emmanuel hospital. One of the residence was firing up her Coleman stove to make her husband coffee and it caught on fire. I had a temp there for when I was going to spend time working with the people but I only stayed there a couple times because it was such a violent  drug fueled sewer.  I was there to try to help people but they weren’t interested. That said not every tent city is that way. Right to Dream Too had a  reasonable code of  conduct Which included no violence or drugs or alcohol on the property. When a code of conduct is in place that doesn’t mean you will not have issues  but if the code of conduct is enforced it can be very workable. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:21 PM Les Wardenaar <Wardenaar@...> wrote:

I believe that the City is currently fighting a lawsuit brought by   a neighbor who suffered fire and smoke damage from a camper "cooking"

their food on City property (i.e. embers of flames caught the adjoining house on fire). I am probably distorting the story badly but I think in general "liability" in this context covers actions taken by "campers" that cause damage to property or persons.

From: <> on behalf of Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...>

Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:24 AM

To: <>

Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Tent Camping Solution



This is great, thank you.

What does it mean to assume liability as described in #3 below?  Can anyone give examples of situations where liability has come into play?  There’s a plan floating around the Neighborhood Associations that would involve asking private land owners

to allow small groups to camp on their land and I know liability will come up but don’t really understand what it means in this context.

Thank you!

-Matt Lembo

On Sep 24, 2020, at 8:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.

A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.


  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer

    a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space

    for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of

    expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with

    the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps

    up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.

Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde

503 740 9810

Join to automatically receive all group messages.