Hi Emerson and all,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I am pleased you like it too, not living in
Oregon currently, i have not done that (housing crisis) homework
for Oregon. I bet it would not be hard to find out however.
Also I think you are very much on the right track
longer term regarding composting toilets or what many codes call
waterless toilets. There is a code outlining in what ways one may
use such systems and be code compliant. As well as a code, to get
around the code!
Sorry i did my homework in Ca and I am
speaking with a bunch of people in Oregon.
On 5/25/2021 10:34 AM, Emerson This
@Jayme That’s super interesting! I’d love to know
more details about if/how that law applies in Oregon!
On May 25, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Elise
Aymer <elise@...> wrote:
There it is!!! Thanks, Jayme.
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at
12:28 PM Jayme Delson <jayme@...
Hi Tom and all,
Just a note about liability. In California and
perhaps Oregon cities and counties may declare a
shelter crisis, and as a result by law, the localities
may provide property to people in need, liability
Also after meeting with two separate insurers to
develop a quote (non government) for a village's
liability insurance, i found while challenging, its
not out of reach.
On 5/24/2021 4:26 PM, Tom Hickey 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:
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!
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@...
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
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.
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This
sharing this, Tim!
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?
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
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.
WW interviewed me, I
wrote it up:
"The houseless vs
the settlement: interview with
County Chair Deborah
Research & Action
Collaborative director Dr. Marisa
founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
[note to WW staff
or others receiving this email:
you can reply to PDX Shelter
Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to firstname.lastname@example.org
Co-founder, Critical Diversity
Thanks for your message!