Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles


Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...>
 

Elise,

You are correct. NAs do not have control over the residents in their community in any meaningful way. But they ARE conduits for communication and negotiation with those communities, just like local religious congregations and other civic organizations.They represent one aspect of the voice of the neighbors and are one tool to reach agreement between community members and the government. A cooperative NA would likely be not enough to guarantee a stable encampment, but it would be part of the solution.

The broader suggestion is that when people try to ram their demands down the throats of their neighbors they rarely succeed. I mean that equally to refer to NIMBY housed people who want the unsheltered to just go away and leave them alone, and to the encampments that disregard the concerns of the broader community. The only way for public opinion to supersede government policy is through unity.

On 5/24/2021 9:08 PM, Elise Aymer wrote:
Emerson and Tom:

Tom - I think you are right about sanctioned villages and liability. Official encampments mean the City agreeing to guarantee their safety. This does seem a major, if unnamed sticking point. 

Re negotiating with neighborhood associations for unsanctioned camps -- the associations don't speak for all of the housed residents. Couldn't sweeps happen triggered by complaints from just a few of those residents who are unaware of or not on board with the association's agreement with the encampment? This question isn't meant to shoot down your idea - just thinking it through...

Emerson - Obviously the money that the City and County have is significant and they have it earmarked for some housing use, however, I don't think it's true that money for these efforts doesn't exist elsewhere. There are a lot of people on this listserv, many of them representing organizations that work on housing and homelessness, who have funding or could get it. Fundraising for specific efforts also seems a possibility. What I notice in reading through the listserv messages though is that most of these folks are working independently and often on a solution that they think of as "the one." It seems like, as Tom was saying, more would get done acting together -- pooling resources, access to funding and integrating approaches.

There is definitely more interest at City Hall and at the County in talking about these issues and in seeming to do something about them (even if it's not what the people most affected say they need) but as Mimi said, in the meantime (and especially if there are significant reasons like liability why we won't see official villages) people will die.

Elise

Elise

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 8:27 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
Well said, Tom.

I like the bottom-up / “guerrilla” approach, too. The impasse I see is that NAs don’t have any money. The kinds of immediate, high-impact solutions we’re talking about would be a rounding error for the city budget, but very tough for ordinary citizens to self-fund from their own pockets.

Maybe the big question is how to get funding from the city while still giving them plausible deniability. Essentially allowing the NAs (or whoever) act as a liability shield for the politicians. Are we on to something here?



On May 24, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:

 I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

<hickeyt+bna_pdx.vcf>


--
Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions
Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!

Virus-free. www.avast.com

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