Re: Portland announces it will aggressively clean or remove homeless encampments

Mimi German

One more thing.

We filed a tort claim against Rabid Response for a sweep they conducted months ago. We will be filing lawsuits and/or tort claims for every sweep that goes down in St Johns. If there are any lawyers on this list, please come forward to help out. There is a lot to learn about the process of sweeps. We can teach you every single thing you need to know in order to win the lawsuits. My first wish is that the unhoused get housing and/or temp villages to live in, but my second wish is that people help the houseless sue the city and RR for each and every sweep.


On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 6:06 AM Mimi German via <> wrote:
I'll be writing up what we're doing at Jason Barns Landing and will send it to Sharon Meieran and asking for her help to keep JBL where it is, at least until the trucks are absolutely ready to start their dig for the so-called new housing they'll be building in some far off unknown future. At that point, we can discuss moving if the build is, in fact, a build for low-income displaced BIPOC families who were gentrified out of the city. This latter piece is what they say the housing is allocated for, but so far, no proof of that has been shown to us. If that's truly the case, we will, in good faith, move the tarpee village when the trucks are scheduled to dig.

My partner and I remove the trash that is now hauled up to the corner of Oberlin so we can access it w/ our truck/trailer. Sarah Iannaorone has been facilitating donations that pay for the dump runs. We do the work for free, which is egregious since Rabid Response and Central City Concern are paid millions of dollars for actual trash removal, by which I do not mean, "people!" 

Speaking of Rabid Response and CCC, I was talking w/ one of our tarpee builders yesterday about how the public does NOT know that the toilets all over town that  have PR about them being a human right, are all filled to the brim with feces and are overflowing. These "toilets" are toxic bio hazard that should be removed, if not cleaned. The PR from Ted Wheeler is truly a full-on propaganda machine. And how do I know about the toilets? Because we actually talk to unhoused people daily, something Ted has never done in his life, at least meaningfully. And it's the same reason the city keeps throwing money at "shelters" instead of homes for unhoused people. How do some of us know that unhoused people don't want shelters for myriad reasons? Because we talk with them about what they want and what they need, how they are doing, what is actually happening re services or more like, services are just PR and never really show up.

The language used with this "new" PR campaign against the houseless reminds me of one thing as I am a Jewish queer activist. The language Wheeler and the City Council are using is from Mein Kampf ideology. Hitler wanted to "clean" the country/world of those whom he deemed beneath him, of those who were dirty, of those with whom the white elite should never have to see...ever. I am disgusted, freaked out, appalled and horrified by the language and actions against the houseless by the Council.

Things we need at JBL. We want to get toilets brought in. We'll pay for them if a contractor will bring them. The contractors (Sani Can, etc) were threatened by Nick Fish with loss of contracts if they put toilets at JBL again. Nick is dead now, but did he start a precedence w/ contractors only bringing toilets to "sanctioned/permitted" sites? I'd like to find out. I also sent a 2nd letter to the housing authority to talk with them about who we are at JBL and why we should be allowed to stay until the build. No response.  Clearly, they are just waiting for us to be swept.

Apologies for the meandering email. It's early and the only time I have to write. I'll be over at JBL today. If anyone wants to meet, come on by. We'll be working on Tarpee 5 next week. We have some adjustments to make on one of the tarpees today. We need more heavy duty trash bags if you want to bring anything...And water. Thanks to Tim for coming by yesterday.


On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:09 PM Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:
So beautifully written, Jeff.

On Thu, May 20, 2021, 9:59 PM Jeff Liddicoat, <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
Speaking of impacts and impact reduction...
The fact is the homeless are practically saints when it comes to the environment and climate change. We have very little, we buy very little, even if we have a car we mostly use bikes or tri met. Bottom line the homeless have a very low carbon footprint.
If everyone had their carbon impacts down at the level of the homeless the human species would be much more likely to survive.
So yeah, some of the homeless do an inadequate job of keeping their garbage concealed from public view. But even then it’s lack of fair and equal public support that makes it an apparent problem. Why not extend public garbage removal for those who lack the ability to transport and remove solid waste. The fact is if it weren’t for a garbage pail on every corner downtown and an army of street cleaners plus the fleet of specialized trucks for street garbage the downtown core would be neck deep in McDonalds wrappers and Oregonian newspapers in about two weeks.
And yes what little trash is visible at homeless camps could be dealt with better. But consider what would happen if you were to see all the garbage produced by all the housed people - if it doesn’t make you sick to your stomach it should. Hiding it doesn’t make it go away - the giant plastic patches in the oceans should be proof enough of that.
Again the reality of negative impacts don’t indicate homeless people as guilty. When you see a pile of garbage next to a homeless encampment it’s usually not their garbage, instead for the most part it’s waste material the homeless have diverted from the waste stream of housed people - all in an attempt to squeeze some value out of the scraps that fall from the table of plenty to the poor down below.
 It’s the same the  world over. It is exactly the same haves that complain about and victimize the have nots. And so for impact reduction perhaps rather than sweeping the homeless, what we need to do is sweep away those who have a nasty, sickening, planet threatening, future destroying high carbon footprint.
Seriously, from City Hall to some shifty house in Lents get off our backs. And keep in mind when it comes to a street fight those who know the streets will eventually win. Why? Because we know where you live.
Jeffrey Liddicoat
(503) 482-3188
1227 S.E. Burnside
 Portland Oregon

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 4:49 PM Joseph Purkey <jpurkey@...> wrote:
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..."

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:31 AM Betsy Hammond <betsyhammond@...> wrote:
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 made public.

Betsy Hammond

Betsy Hammond

Editor, politics, education and Portland team

o. 503.294.7623




From: Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 11:25 AM
To: <>
Cc: Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...>
Subject: Portland announces it will aggressively clean or remove homeless encampments
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]. 
Portland Mercury:
"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:


Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

Join to automatically receive all group messages.