Hi Elise
The reference to the situation in Syria served several purpose; first to respond to the real and accurate criticism that we are too Portland centric and do not pay attention to what is going on in the world. Second to identify the danger
in self governing – recognizing the tension that will always exist between individuals (and small collection of people) demanding freedom to do what they want and exclude who they want versus the overreach and autonomy of a government.
I do not believe that the lack of housing is the cause of houselessness. The cause is the fragmentation of our communities. Causes include the 60s. The revelation and atonement for slavery and racism. The infusion of refugees from
all parts of the world (a very very positive thing) bringing their cultures and histories. The diversification and evolution of our cultural tapestry is fundamental. Cultures are not absorbed or blended. We must learn to communicate across cultures.
I believe that the outdoor shelters should operate as “emergency rooms” where people in desperate situations can find a safe place to pause and be nursed.
Outdoor villages; camps; etc. are a form of housing. I was fortunate in being involved with the formation of Dignity Village and have learned much from that brave effort. I see Dignity Village as a form of housing not an emergency shelter.
I recognize that that line is not always clear and requires public debate.
I am concerned that the “emergency room” which is desperately needed will get lost as these become forms of permanent housing and not places of refuge.
Our shelter system is horribly dysfunctional in my opinion. Thirty/twenty years ago I had visited all the shelters in Portland and in San Francisco. In Portland, we aggressively moved away from that with the Homeless Reconfiguration Plan
where the warehouses were broken up in size and become more specific to population. Now, we are evolving much further where the shelters are being reintegrated into the fabric of the community.
This is driven both by the dramatic change in the demographics of the houseless and by the increase in compassion despite searing blow back.
Peter Finley Fry AICP PhD MUP
Land Use Planning
Cultural Anthropologist
303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B
Portland, Oregon 97210
503 703-8033
Sent from
Mail for Windows 10
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 10:59 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.
Hi Peter,
How do you see a connection between Syrian refugee camps and the situation in Portland?
You've detailed before the conceptual distinction between shelter and permanent villages and the need for shelter.
How do you think outdoor shelters are being shoved aside in this instance?
Wanting to understand what you've written further,
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:36 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:
I understand the frustration driven by crisis.
The City is not one perfect and focused entity. It is composed of us and we need to take responsibility for it. The Planning Bureau’s work was evolutionary and updated our “TREATY”
– THE ZONING CODE. This is what is used to enable us to live together. An alternative is the 720 acre approximately 65,000 person refugee village in Syria that is self governed by the strong and loud. This is resulting in the death of women and children.
I know it seems that it can not happen here.
We live together by a rule of common law. Our institutions are evolving to address the very different situations that faces us as people are fleeing to our land.
The evolution is occurring both in the area of human settlement patterns as evidenced by the emerging concepts of communal living – the village. Not a new concept.
And in the institutions that help people who require assistance for what ever personal reason. The outdoor shelter system allows a way to bring people together to aid those who
are suffering. This is not a all the same as a village system of permanent habitation.
These two efforts are being confused.
My concern is that this new outdoor shelter system to provide for the poor and weak is being shoved aside by the agendas of others.
Again, I appreciate how valuable this forum is and thank you for creating and maintaining it.
Peter Finley Fry AICP PhD MUP
Land Use Planning
Cultural Anthropologist
303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B
Portland, Oregon 97210
503 703-8033
Sent from
Mail for Windows 10
In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters. Both have accelerated and deepened the resources
available for these endeavors.
Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership. I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support
development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders. After all, it takes a village.
Please let me know if you’d like to get involved.
Thanks,
Founder, Executive Director
A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to
public transit, parking access, etc:
"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski.
I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly
partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s
of mostly irrelevant lots.
Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for 'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently
or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.
The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed
S2HC. As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than
the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City).
For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages
under their leadership: see
Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers. In
my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing.
[note to all: you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially,
those closest to homelessness].
--
--
Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions
|
