Re: Tent Camping Solution


Trena Sutton
 

For R2D2 set up on privately owned land the owner insisted that they had their own liability insurance. This covered everything that could cause issues.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:21 PM Tom Hickey <hickeyt@...> wrote:
I think there is an even larger concern that, if you provide a place for someone on your property, whether as an individual or as a government, you become liable for their safety and well-being. This is why the city takes the most expensive path in the camps it has set up - to show it has done its best to defray risk. 

Countering that is the recent opinion from Comm. Meieran that there is a liability inherent in doing nothing as well.  

Tom Hickey

On 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: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...>


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


To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>


Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Tent Camping Solution


 






John,







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.




Then:












  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 pdxshelterforum@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.