toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
great idea Andy, and thanks so much for pulling that list of RFPQ respondents. I didn't realize this was possible from the procurement site, I was waiting for more from procurement analyst, Kathi Braeme-Burr.
we've been discussing ways to gather and cross-support proposers (and new collaborators) since before the last forum, this good movement forward.
Here's an open doc for this on the PDX Shelter Forum site (an unfolding experiment in open, collaborative, decentralized 'site' form using GDocs / Google Drive, by the way):
I've added to it the list of proposers from Andy.
If anyone here knows more about the proposals, or whom/how to contact the proposers, please share or add to document. We should be able to get a project listing, whats-needed, how-can-i-help, and discussion going here!
How about hosting a call asking all applicants to share their proposals and see what the community can do to come together around this important work
Event Number RFPQ-76-2021
Event Name: Alternative Shelter (Reissue)
ALL GOOD NORTHWEST
Bridges to Change, Inc.
CITY REPAIR PROJECT
Courtesy inn motel
Dignity Village, Inc.
ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON
EQUITABLE GIVING CIRCLE
FAMILY PROMISE OF METRO EAST
GREATER GOOD NORTHWEST
HELPING HANDS REENTRY OUTREACH
Holistic Healing Behavioral Healthcare
Matthew Suplee LLC
N/A (Hazelnut Grove)
Oregon Trail of Hope
Pause for the Cause Creating Change
POD the People
Portland New Generations Rotary Club
RIGHT 2 DREAM TOO
RISING PHOENIX HOMES LLC
SELF ENHANCEMENT, INC.
SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Volunteers of America Oregon, Inc.
I also received negative knee jerk reactions from people who only saw the word parks, but I do think the initial narrative could have been better defined.
I wish people would educate themselves and watch the city council meetings to get a better understanding.
This is frustrating because neighbors don't understand that the willy nilly camping they see and complain about can't be stopped unless there are acceptable and available (sanctioned) for them to go.
Thanks for all the advocacy!
Earlier this week I posted on Nextdoor Woodstock the OPB article on S2HC and almost immediately received a bunch of negative replies. My neighbors who posted, with one or two exceptions, are all convinced that the central idea is to put camps in parks. I argued with them to no avail, which was discouraging to say the least.
Interfaith Alliance on Poverty
On Friday, March 26, 2021, 03:33:52 PM PDT, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
To: PDX Shelter Forum
Bcc: Nicole Hayden, reporter, The Oregonian
Laura Gunderson, public editor, The Oregonian
followup article after Weds City Council meeting on Shelter to Housing Continuum: "Portland City Council assures residents that homeless quarters will not be allowed in parks"
Accompanied, like our Op-ed, by one of the most dismal-looking pictures I have ever seen of a permitted camp for the unhoused. It's also completely out of date, taken in November before these tents and pallets were fully replaced by Pallet Shelter units.
My comments posted on it:
1. the headline, opening, and tweet are misleading to inaccurate. Council is upholding use of parks Community Centers, parking lots, paved areas, this is not "not allowed in parks." 1/n
2. the reporter has repeatedly characterized proposals as for "semi-permanent structures". But tiny houses on wheels are permanent structures, also the @PDXshelterforum coalition in testimony over past year & Op-ed yesterday has called for allowing permanent structures & housing in
3. the reporter say "a handful of residents" opposed RV hookup reqs. But that opposition includes the Planning & Sustainability Commission & very wide community support including @PNWelcome, @catoregon, @SunrisePDX,
@PDXshelterforum etc. Why are *only* officials/staff's views presented? 3/3
Once again, as has been generally true of local news coverage of S2HC and related issues organized community/citizen advocacy has been largely erased from the story.