toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
We accept the lie that somehow humans are different and special. Humans have enormously negative impacts on the ecology of the earth. The goal of planning is to minimize and eliminate these impacts through providing sewer systems; landfills;
homes; etc. that allow us to contain the pollution that each of us cause.
These impacts can be contained in a home or a camp site or within a person. The problem is that things get political, loud, noisy, and harmful as individuals seek to dominate others and demand privaleged. The
reduction of impact is the reduction of impact on the earth not the precious sensibility of some perceived other rich undeserving selfish human.
Peter Finley Fry AICP BS PhD MUP
Land Use Planning
303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B
Portland, Oregon 97210
Mail for Windows 10
From: Joseph Purkey via groups.io
Wednesday, May 19, 2021 4:49 PM
Re: [pdxshelterforum] Portland announces it will aggressively clean or remove homeless encampments
This is very frustrating. What "Impact" is the Impact Reduction Team "Reducing"? It certainly seems like the priority is the comfort of the housed population to the detriment of the unhoused population, which then will exacerbate the very
impacts they intend to reduce. If the focus could be on reducing the impact of homelessness on the homeless population there could be some positive movement. This new policy really feels like kowtowing to the political power base instead of truly serving the
public, which makes the unanimous Mayor/Council statement all the more confusing. Am I missing where this will actually improve the situation?
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:51 AM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
the Oregonian's lead politics writer, clarifies that a reader is wrong in pointing out something possibly wrong about an article if the paper has or does subsequently alter it online.
One must grant, ongoing maintenance work is to be expected from, not protested to, the local ministry of news, to keep the public discussion and first draft of history going smoothly.
I mean, it's hard work, the truth business! Reminds me of this story by. oh, forgot the name.
"With the deep, unconscious sigh which not even the nearness of the telescreen could prevent him from uttering when his day's work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles.
Then he unrolled and clipped together four small cylinders of paper which had already flopped out of the pneumatic tube on the right-hand side of his desk.
In the walls of the cubicle there were three orifices. To the right of the speakwrite, a small pneumatic tube for written messages, to the left, a larger one for newspapers; and in the side wall, within easy reach of Winston's arm, a large
oblong slit protected by a wire grating. This last was for the disposal of waste paper. Similar slits existed in thousands or tens of thousands throughout the building, not only in every room but at short intervals in every corridor. For some reason they were
nicknamed memory holes. When one knew that any document was due for destruction, or even when one saw a scrap of waste paper lying about, it was an automatic action to lift the flap of the nearest memory hole and drop it in, whereupon it would be whirled away
on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces which were hidden somewhere in the recesses of the building.
Winston examined the four slips of paper which he had unrolled. Each contained a message of only one or two lines, in the abbreviated jargon -- not actually Newspeak, but consisting largely of Newspeak words -- which was used in the Ministry
for internal purposes. They ran:
times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify
times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue
times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify
times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
With a faint feeling of satisfaction Winston laid the fourth message aside. It was an intricate and responsible job and had better be dealt with last. The other three were routine matters, though the second one would probably mean some
tedious wading through lists of figures.
Winston dialled 'back numbers' on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes' delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news items which
for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, as the official phrase had it, to rectify. For example, it appeared from The Times of the seventeenth of March that Big Brother, in his speech of the previous day, had predicted that the South
Indian front would remain quiet but that a Eurasian offensive would shortly be launched in North Africa. As it happened, the Eurasian Higher Command had launched its offensive in South India and left North Africa alone. It was therefore necessary to rewrite
a paragraph of Big Brother's speech, in such a way as to make him predict the thing that had actually happened. Or again, The Times of the nineteenth of December had published the official forecasts of the output of various classes of consumption goods in
the fourth quarter of 1983, which was also the sixth quarter of the Ninth Three-Year Plan. Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify
the original figures by making them agree with the later ones. As for the third message, it referred to a very simple error which could be set right in a couple of minutes. As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a 'categorical
pledge' were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed
was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April..."
No, Tim, you've got it wrong: The reporter went out and GOT the quotes/reaction from folks camping on the streets. It's been added. We wanted to post the city's change in tactic as soon as it was
Joint statement from all 5 members of City Council, from 9:05am:
"Portland announces it will aggressively clean or remove homeless encampments."
little more than the City press release, except put behind Oregonian subscribers-only paywall, and with an aggressive tendentious headline.
"The city released the new rules at 9 a.m. The Oregonian|OregonLive is seeking comment from people experiencing homelessness and others likely to be affected by the change."
[but what a bad idea, from a public standpoint, to suggest that people submit comment privately into an unaccountable & opaque mailbox drop, to possibly be allegedly referred to hours or days later. When they could send it to PDX Shelter
Forum and assuredly have it be instantly seen by hundreds of the people in city most interested to hear and ready to act, and also the newspapers].
"City Updates Guidelines for Clearing Homeless Camps During COVID."
Policy annlouncement from HUCIRP department which overseas this:
No story or post I've seen mentions the crucial context that Oregon bill #HB3115 looks to be on the verge of passing, which would make OR cities subject to legal action for having (like Portland) on the books a camping/sleeping prohibition
endorceable even without adequate alternative places available to sleep/camp: