|
Re: overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County
ah, thank you Denis. the big thing I, and probably others in this group, wonder is, will or can this Measure 26-210 solution to regional homelessness fund or enable more housing or shelter? Particularly, alternatives that are not Covid-19 contagion death traps like traditional, congregate shelters -- alternatives such as this initiative in first online forum and list have been discussing? It seems like, with wide and predicted large increase in homelessness, we would need more homes, if I understand this matter right. The title of the page you linked us to refers to " Metro’s Supportive Housing Measure," (yay! Supportive Housing!) but reading further, it appear to fund only services. Where does the needed new housing/shelter come in, how would this funding enable it? Incidentally, it seems this week at City Council, there is a sort of first run at this question, with Council voting Weds on a spending plan to distribute $114 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds, currently slated to give $19M to you guys at JOHS for Homeless Response. I know from your alma mater's fine work https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2020/07/15/28642033/city-council-considers-a-114-million-covid-19-relief-proposal that Councilmember Hardesty is currently a 'No' vote on this: [Hardesty] suggested that money would be better spent creating more temporary housing for people who are currently homeless.
“We continue to spend all of our resources on people who already have some kind of temporary shelter, and almost none on people who are not,” said Hardesty. “We can’t keep ignoring the suffering that’s happening on our streets.” also we heard word that Eudaly is a strong wavery on this, so the vote could split at our current 4-member Council. How might we help you get this dough though Council? Is there a way to tell Hardesty & Eudaly that JOHS will fund new housing or at least shelter? I mean, I don't want to slow or stop the train in such an urgent situation. -Godfrey. On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:56 PM Donna Cohen < dcohen@...> wrote: Trena, the legislature passed a “rent stabilization” bill a couple of years ago [2019?] that allowed increases of 7% plus COLA, I think. Something like that. The idea was to keep landlords from upping rents 20, 30, 40% and more, which has happened, not infrequently. I know it’s a far cry from what we’d like to see but it was a help and the best they could do, given opposition. In fact, it’s the only state-wide rent stabilization law in the country. Donna Donna L Cohen, MLIS, MEd Portland, Oregon 503-737-1425 dcohen@... Civics for Adults – and Others – Workshops: To Enhance Civic Knowledge and Inspire Political Engagement Webpage www.civicthinker.info Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Civics-for-Adults-1490728887922036/ “My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not fair, not right, not just – stand up, say something, speak up!” Rep. John Lewis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6lzPpqc2WY Just an inquiry does the Joint Office monitor the Affordable Housing Units administered by different agencies such as Cascadia or PCRI? I’m specifically interested in rent increases every year? An example is a rent of 9.6% increase when Social Security COLA was 1.6 in 2020. At that rate the average person will be unable to afford an “Affordable” Unit in 3 years without a housing subsidy. Hi, Godfrey Denis here, from the Joint Office. Thank you for sharing the presentation from June 16 and additional context/info with the wider group. I also appreciate that you've mentioned the work around how to invest revenues from Measure 26-210. Last week, we posted a community letter from Marc Jolin on what's next under Metro's requirements that each of the three counties create a Local Implementation Plan. That letter includes a contact form that neighbors can fill out if they'd like to receive updates on the planning work — or even get involved more directly in the community engagement opportunities that Metro and the County will require.
Denis Theriault (pronouns: him/he/his) Communications coordinator 
this group has many ideas about alternative and proposed responses to homelessness in Portland. What is the City / Multnomah County doing about it now, though, that these ideas might be alternative to?
To help give us a baseline, here's a fairly up-to-date, though possibly draft form, 17-slide presentation on that point, which was given at a June 16 online meeting of North Portland group of Neighborhood Associations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/192uqCcSssD_--Wsxneo0BzmszirT-jaD/view?usp=sharing. PDF 4.5MB.
The presentation focuses on shelter and assistance operations, though I think the actual agencies do much in and focus much on rent assistance in part intended to prevent homelessness, not really mentioned here. One of the presenters, Denis Theriault, argued during the event discussion that this preventative activity was better than building more shelter.
kind of a summary slide:
The listed authors/presenters are:
- Denis Theriault, Joint Office of Homeless Services - PR guy for JOHS.
- Seraphie Allen, Office of Mayor Wheeler - homelessness policy lead for Ted? such as there is.
- Zach Kearl, Office of Mayor Wheeler - intern, or 'Fellow'.
I have rescued the presentation from it's original Powerpoint doc form, into PDF, to make it usable by us reg'lur folk working in a 21st-century manner, vs the unfortunate Microsoft Office corporate/govt users out there stuck in the 1990s who might actually have Microsoft Powerpoint installed somewhere to open that.
For those of still learning the landscape, which is all of us since it's ever-changing and infinite in detail: - Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) is a joint agency of the City of Portland and Multnomah County, which oversees much of the funding and programs in this area.
- JOHS in turn is a key part of a larger govt/provider coalition for the area which is call A Home For Everyone (AHFE), which in Federal jargon, is the "Continuum of Care" org for this area, i.e. designated administrator of Federal homelessness funding. The head of JOHS is Marc Jolin.
- AFHE is sort of the presumed, at least self-presumed, lead administrator for Multnomah County's part of the recently passed Metro Measure 26-210, Supportive Housing Services tax measure. This is planned to generate as much as $250M/year for at least ten years, renewable.
So, though we don't live or build by bread alone, basically that's where much of the money is now, and the people deciding where it goes. in the struggle,
-Godfrey.
 This email was encrypted for your privacy and security
|
|
|
Re: overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County
Trena, the legislature passed a “rent stabilization” bill a couple of years ago [2019?] that allowed increases of 7% plus COLA, I think. Something like that. The idea was to keep landlords from upping rents 20, 30, 40% and more, which has happened, not infrequently. I know it’s a far cry from what we’d like to see but it was a help and the best they could do, given opposition. In fact, it’s the only state-wide rent stabilization law in the country. Donna Donna L Cohen, MLIS, MEd Portland, Oregon 503-737-1425 dcohen@... Civics for Adults – and Others – Workshops: To Enhance Civic Knowledge and Inspire Political Engagement Webpage www.civicthinker.info Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Civics-for-Adults-1490728887922036/ “My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not fair, not right, not just – stand up, say something, speak up!” Rep. John Lewis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6lzPpqc2WY
From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trena Sutton Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 3:42 PM To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County Just an inquiry does the Joint Office monitor the Affordable Housing Units administered by different agencies such as Cascadia or PCRI? I’m specifically interested in rent increases every year? An example is a rent of 9.6% increase when Social Security COLA was 1.6 in 2020. At that rate the average person will be unable to afford an “Affordable” Unit in 3 years without a housing subsidy. Hi, Godfrey Denis here, from the Joint Office. Thank you for sharing the presentation from June 16 and additional context/info with the wider group. I also appreciate that you've mentioned the work around how to invest revenues from Measure 26-210. Last week, we posted a community letter from Marc Jolin on what's next under Metro's requirements that each of the three counties create a Local Implementation Plan. That letter includes a contact form that neighbors can fill out if they'd like to receive updates on the planning work — or even get involved more directly in the community engagement opportunities that Metro and the County will require.
Denis Theriault (pronouns: him/he/his) Communications coordinator
this group has many ideas about alternative and proposed responses to homelessness in Portland. What is the City / Multnomah County doing about it now, though, that these ideas might be alternative to?
To help give us a baseline, here's a fairly up-to-date, though possibly draft form, 17-slide presentation on that point, which was given at a June 16 online meeting of North Portland group of Neighborhood Associations.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/192uqCcSssD_--Wsxneo0BzmszirT-jaD/view?usp=sharing. PDF 4.5MB.
The presentation focuses on shelter and assistance operations, though I think the actual agencies do much in and focus much on rent assistance in part intended to prevent homelessness, not really mentioned here. One of the presenters, Denis Theriault, argued during the event discussion that this preventative activity was better than building more shelter.
kind of a summary slide:
The listed authors/presenters are:
- Denis Theriault, Joint Office of Homeless Services - PR guy for JOHS.
- Seraphie Allen, Office of Mayor Wheeler - homelessness policy lead for Ted? such as there is.
- Zach Kearl, Office of Mayor Wheeler - intern, or 'Fellow'.
I have rescued the presentation from it's original Powerpoint doc form, into PDF, to make it usable by us reg'lur folk working in a 21st-century manner, vs the unfortunate Microsoft Office corporate/govt users out there stuck in the 1990s who might actually have Microsoft Powerpoint installed somewhere to open that.
For those of still learning the landscape, which is all of us since it's ever-changing and infinite in detail: - Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) is a joint agency of the City of Portland and Multnomah County, which oversees much of the funding and programs in this area.
- JOHS in turn is a key part of a larger govt/provider coalition for the area which is call A Home For Everyone (AHFE), which in Federal jargon, is the "Continuum of Care" org for this area, i.e. designated administrator of Federal homelessness funding. The head of JOHS is Marc Jolin.
- AFHE is sort of the presumed, at least self-presumed, lead administrator for Multnomah County's part of the recently passed Metro Measure 26-210, Supportive Housing Services tax measure. This is planned to generate as much as $250M/year for at least ten years, renewable.
So, though we don't live or build by bread alone, basically that's where much of the money is now, and the people deciding where it goes. in the struggle,
-Godfrey.
This email was encrypted for your privacy and security
|
|
|
Re: overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County
Just an inquiry does the Joint Office monitor the Affordable Housing Units administered by different agencies such as Cascadia or PCRI? I’m specifically interested in rent increases every year? An example is a rent of 9.6% increase when Social Security COLA was 1.6 in 2020. At that rate the average person will be unable to afford an “Affordable” Unit in 3 years without a housing subsidy.
Thank you for your time,
Trena
Hi, Godfrey
Denis here, from the Joint Office. Thank you for sharing the presentation from June 16 and additional context/info with the wider group. I also appreciate that you've mentioned the work around how to invest revenues from Measure 26-210. Last week, we posted a community letter from Marc Jolin on what's next under Metro's requirements that each of the three counties create a Local Implementation Plan. That letter includes a contact form that neighbors can fill out if they'd like to receive updates on the planning work — or even get involved more directly in the community engagement opportunities that Metro and the County will require.
Thanks! DT Denis Theriault ( pronouns: him/he/his) Communications coordinator Multnomah County
c. 510.875.8546
External -
this group has many ideas about alternative and proposed responses to homelessness in Portland. What is the City / Multnomah County doing about it now, though, that these ideas might be alternative to? To help give us a baseline, here's a fairly up-to-date, though possibly draft form, 17-slide presentation on that point, which was given at a June 16 online meeting of North Portland group of Neighborhood Associations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/192uqCcSssD_--Wsxneo0BzmszirT-jaD/view?usp=sharing. PDF 4.5MB. The presentation focuses on shelter and assistance operations, though I think the actual agencies do much in and focus much on rent assistance in part intended to prevent homelessness, not really mentioned here. One of the presenters, Denis Theriault, argued during the event discussion that this preventative activity was better than building more shelter. kind of a summary slide: The listed authors/presenters are: - Denis Theriault, Joint Office of Homeless Services - PR guy for JOHS.
- Seraphie Allen, Office of Mayor Wheeler - homelessness policy lead for Ted? such as there is.
- Zach Kearl, Office of Mayor Wheeler - intern, or 'Fellow'.
I have rescued the presentation from it's original Powerpoint doc form, into PDF, to make it usable by us reg'lur folk working in a 21st-century manner, vs the unfortunate Microsoft Office corporate/govt users out there stuck in the 1990s who might actually have Microsoft Powerpoint installed somewhere to open that. For those of still learning the landscape, which is all of us since it's ever-changing and infinite in detail: - Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) is a joint agency of the City of Portland and Multnomah County, which oversees much of the funding and programs in this area.
- JOHS in turn is a key part of a larger govt/provider coalition for the area which is call A Home For Everyone (AHFE), which in Federal jargon, is the "Continuum of Care" org for this area, i.e. designated administrator of Federal homelessness funding. The head of JOHS is Marc Jolin.
- AFHE is sort of the presumed, at least self-presumed, lead administrator for Multnomah County's part of the recently passed Metro Measure 26-210, Supportive Housing Services tax measure. This is planned to generate as much as $250M/year for at least ten years, renewable.
So, though we don't live or build by bread alone, basically that's where much of the money is now, and the people deciding where it goes.
in the struggle, -Godfrey.
|
|
|
Re: overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County
Denis Theriault <denis.theriault@...>
Hi, Godfrey
Denis here, from the Joint Office. Thank you for sharing the presentation from June 16 and additional context/info with the wider group. I also appreciate that you've mentioned the work around how to invest revenues from Measure 26-210. Last week, we posted a community letter from Marc Jolin on what's next under Metro's requirements that each of the three counties create a Local Implementation Plan. That letter includes a contact form that neighbors can fill out if they'd like to receive updates on the planning work — or even get involved more directly in the community engagement opportunities that Metro and the County will require.
Thanks! DT Denis Theriault ( pronouns: him/he/his) Communications coordinator Multnomah County
c. 510.875.8546
External -
this group has many ideas about alternative and proposed responses to homelessness in Portland. What is the City / Multnomah County doing about it now, though, that these ideas might be alternative to? To help give us a baseline, here's a fairly up-to-date, though possibly draft form, 17-slide presentation on that point, which was given at a June 16 online meeting of North Portland group of Neighborhood Associations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/192uqCcSssD_--Wsxneo0BzmszirT-jaD/view?usp=sharing. PDF 4.5MB. The presentation focuses on shelter and assistance operations, though I think the actual agencies do much in and focus much on rent assistance in part intended to prevent homelessness, not really mentioned here. One of the presenters, Denis Theriault, argued during the event discussion that this preventative activity was better than building more shelter. kind of a summary slide: The listed authors/presenters are: - Denis Theriault, Joint Office of Homeless Services - PR guy for JOHS.
- Seraphie Allen, Office of Mayor Wheeler - homelessness policy lead for Ted? such as there is.
- Zach Kearl, Office of Mayor Wheeler - intern, or 'Fellow'.
I have rescued the presentation from it's original Powerpoint doc form, into PDF, to make it usable by us reg'lur folk working in a 21st-century manner, vs the unfortunate Microsoft Office corporate/govt users out there stuck in the 1990s who might actually have Microsoft Powerpoint installed somewhere to open that. For those of still learning the landscape, which is all of us since it's ever-changing and infinite in detail: - Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) is a joint agency of the City of Portland and Multnomah County, which oversees much of the funding and programs in this area.
- JOHS in turn is a key part of a larger govt/provider coalition for the area which is call A Home For Everyone (AHFE), which in Federal jargon, is the "Continuum of Care" org for this area, i.e. designated administrator of Federal homelessness funding. The head of JOHS is Marc Jolin.
- AFHE is sort of the presumed, at least self-presumed, lead administrator for Multnomah County's part of the recently passed Metro Measure 26-210, Supportive Housing Services tax measure. This is planned to generate as much as $250M/year for at least ten years, renewable.
So, though we don't live or build by bread alone, basically that's where much of the money is now, and the people deciding where it goes.
in the struggle, -Godfrey.
This email was encrypted for your privacy and security
|
|
|
overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County
this group has many ideas about alternative and proposed responses to homelessness in Portland. What is the City / Multnomah County doing about it now, though, that these ideas might be alternative to? To help give us a baseline, here's a fairly up-to-date, though possibly draft form, 17-slide presentation on that point, which was given at a June 16 online meeting of North Portland group of Neighborhood Associations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/192uqCcSssD_--Wsxneo0BzmszirT-jaD/view?usp=sharing. PDF 4.5MB. The presentation focuses on shelter and assistance operations, though I think the actual agencies do much in and focus much on rent assistance in part intended to prevent homelessness, not really mentioned here. One of the presenters, Denis Theriault, argued during the event discussion that this preventative activity was better than building more shelter. kind of a summary slide: The listed authors/presenters are: - Denis Theriault, Joint Office of Homeless Services - PR guy for JOHS.
- Seraphie Allen, Office of Mayor Wheeler - homelessness policy lead for Ted? such as there is.
- Zach Kearl, Office of Mayor Wheeler - intern, or 'Fellow'.
I have rescued the presentation from it's original Powerpoint doc form, into PDF, to make it usable by us reg'lur folk working in a 21st-century manner, vs the unfortunate Microsoft Office corporate/govt users out there stuck in the 1990s who might actually have Microsoft Powerpoint installed somewhere to open that. For those of still learning the landscape, which is all of us since it's ever-changing and infinite in detail: - Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) is a joint agency of the City of Portland and Multnomah County, which oversees much of the funding and programs in this area.
- JOHS in turn is a key part of a larger govt/provider coalition for the area which is call A Home For Everyone (AHFE), which in Federal jargon, is the "Continuum of Care" org for this area, i.e. designated administrator of Federal homelessness funding. The head of JOHS is Marc Jolin.
- AFHE is sort of the presumed, at least self-presumed, lead administrator for Multnomah County's part of the recently passed Metro Measure 26-210, Supportive Housing Services tax measure. This is planned to generate as much as $250M/year for at least ten years, renewable.
So, though we don't live or build by bread alone, basically that's where much of the money is now, and the people deciding where it goes.
in the struggle, -Godfrey.
|
|
|
Re: P:NW Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Event Tonight, 6:00-7:30pm
In the PDX Shelter Forum online event June 25th, we had a great conversation section about this with Al Burns, project leader for this Shelter to Home Continuum (S2HC) project at the City's Bureau of Planning & Sustainability.
Interesting points were added e.g. by Eli Spevak, Chair of the Planning & Sustainability Commission (fyi, PSC is the citizen volunteer counterpart & advisor to BPS). Such as, how S2HC might and in his opinion should be extended to create new options for vehicle dwellings, like movable accessory dwellings, or vehicles / tiny houses dwellings on private property. That is a practice currently decriminalized via non-enforcement originally via Commissioner Chloe Eudaly's initiative, but not technically legalized, in Portland.
Also, we discussed related "safe parking" programs in Portland and Eugene, and my hypothetical "Parking Dwelling Permit" model (https://housing.wiki/wiki/Parking_Dwelling_Permit) for managing such on a wide scale.
See it in the event video on our YouTube channel (and see that anyway, if you haven't yet): https://youtu.be/lqwpbKvks34?t=3813 (1:03:35 - 1:27:42):
Also, in the post-event follow-up wrap-up message on mailing list (https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/message/10; join here), we highlighted S2HC in Item #4 as one of the key learnings and next-step foci coming from the event. It is possibly the top way PDX Shelter Forum initiative could help shape city policy and achieve stated goals in the foreseeable future. -Tim
-- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:21 AM Sean Green < green@...> wrote:
|
|
|
P:NW Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Event Tonight, 6:00-7:30pm
|
|
|
Re: "Community First" proposal: citywide safe sites, but no other camping
I Attended neighborhood association meetings for years and find that people are very sincere about doing something about it but it never quite seems to get off the ground. The closest I saw was when a homeless woman came in and I was sitting with her and she was beaten to a pulp by one of the predators that they belong the spring water. The neighborhood was in raged to attended neighborhood association meetings for years and find that people are very sincere about doing something about it but it never quite seems to get off the ground. The closest I saw was when a homeless woman came in and I was sitting with her and she was beaten to a pulp by one of the predators that live along the Springwater. The Brentwood-Darlington Neighbor was enraged but again people wait for someone else to address the issue. I hope the good people on this site can I hope the good people on this site can come up with real solutions.
These are good points and worth
examination. Implementation will require negotiation from all
parties, and many details will have to adjust to the local
realities - for instance, some neighborhoods have an abundance
of plausible locations for organized camps and some have few or
none. The idea is based on bringing the cost-benefit equation
down to the local level because that is where cooperation or
resistance occurs. The actual mechanisms of the many possible
solutions should rely on the experience and expertise of those
who have been involved in the struggle for a long time.
The idea of a "no-camp" radius actually seems more plausible at
the beginning of the project, to plant the seeds of success and
cooperation. As the project develops, it either succeeds because
it is an attractive solution to all parties and it grows under
it's own momentum, or it fails long before there are enough
"no-camp" zones to blanket the city.
As the city backs off of its no-sweeps policy, I worry that the
NAs incentive to engage with the problem may dwindle, so our
planning will have to be attractive for its own sake.
Note that the Community First proposal is still in something of
a draft form as we wrestle with some of the details (or leave
for later discussion). A workgroup will be meeting soon to make
sure that the proposal is in alignment with the goals of the
Interfaith Alliance efforts.
On 7/14/2020 10:04 AM, Godfrey Merrill
wrote:
it
doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to get off the
ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods can get on board
one-by-one
thanks Emerson, this is a very interesting point. The
Neighborhood Associations' suggested "Community First" approach
could be seen as a way of solving the collective action problem
of getting many parts/parties of the city to agree, which is
smart.
Two thoughts:
One, would it make more sense for the potential "no-camp"
zone to be the neighborhood district, rather than a radius
around an authorized site? i.e., if the neighborhood district,
as defined by City neighborhood-association system, met let's
say the allotted homeless accommodation goal for a certain
cycle, then enforcement of camping and structures bans would
be enacted in that neighborhood district?
[The reason I wonder this is, I can imagine several problems
with the radius approach. It would be easy to have areas
missed by the radii of authorized sites, even with many of
them. Also, it could be difficult/ambiguous to determine what
areas fall in that radius, let's say for City employees trying
to follow the guidance. Neighborhood districts, on the other
hand, have already tackled the task of covering all areas,
determining boundaries, and probably picking logical
boundaries such as the middle of streets].
Second, why or how might we imagine the City agreeing to
fully enforce camping & structures bans in those
districts, were this tradeoff proposed? The 'bargain' requires
that, but do we have reasons to think the City would take on
this necessary role? Right now, they at least officially have
just a single, citywide policy -- which is that "camping
outside of a City-sanctioned campground is not permitted" -
HUCIRP -- and a single process for responding to camps,
the One Point of Contact System. (tactfully described at
HUCIRP's site as, "the mechanism community members can use to
report issues of illegal camping or related garbage within
Portland.")
Might, perhaps, the One Point of Contact System be amended to
prioritize enforcement action against reported camps within a
"no-camp" district?
-Godfrey.
@Godfrey those were some of
my first questions as well. I think the answer to both
your questions lies in the fact that the "new"
policies/rules are localized to the sites. In this
way, it doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to
get off the ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods
can get on board one-by-one. In this approach, a
neighborhood/area "earns" the right to disallow ad hoc
camping only after it designates a site where unhoused
people are allowed to live (without getting
"swept" or otherwise hassled). The no-camping zone is
a radius around each site. So excluding ad hoc camping
city-wide would only happen in a scenario when there's
a designated site in every single area all
over the city. That may or may not ever happen, but in
the meantime it gives every neighborhood an
opportunity/incentive to participate in the solution.
several people have mentioned here the
" Community First" strategy proposal that some
Neighborhood Associations have been developing.
Here's the latest version I've seen, titled "NA
HOMELESSNESS STRAT DR 7 7 20": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTFe_WPsrW5OHrGd14Ek673UmEj5sWdmuTT8yAtwbOA/edit?usp=sharing.
I think it's interesting, and commendably aiming at
a full-scale answer.
As I comment in the doc, I wonder:
a) how to organize the mapping of possible
sites, especially available public land. (this
seems to be a recurring question/project); and
b) the premise of truly excluding camping
outside of the authorized sites, how
likely/possible is it for the city to do, and
what might it achieve politically? Would it
actually bring in majority support, and might it
repel those people/groups with a current
position opposing all 'sweeps'?
-Godfrey.
|
|
|
Re: "Community First" proposal: citywide safe sites, but no other camping
Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...>
These are good points and worth
examination. Implementation will require negotiation from all
parties, and many details will have to adjust to the local
realities - for instance, some neighborhoods have an abundance
of plausible locations for organized camps and some have few or
none. The idea is based on bringing the cost-benefit equation
down to the local level because that is where cooperation or
resistance occurs. The actual mechanisms of the many possible
solutions should rely on the experience and expertise of those
who have been involved in the struggle for a long time.
The idea of a "no-camp" radius actually seems more plausible at
the beginning of the project, to plant the seeds of success and
cooperation. As the project develops, it either succeeds because
it is an attractive solution to all parties and it grows under
it's own momentum, or it fails long before there are enough
"no-camp" zones to blanket the city.
As the city backs off of its no-sweeps policy, I worry that the
NAs incentive to engage with the problem may dwindle, so our
planning will have to be attractive for its own sake.
Note that the Community First proposal is still in something of
a draft form as we wrestle with some of the details (or leave
for later discussion). A workgroup will be meeting soon to make
sure that the proposal is in alignment with the goals of the
Interfaith Alliance efforts.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On 7/14/2020 10:04 AM, Godfrey Merrill
wrote:
it
doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to get off the
ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods can get on board
one-by-one
thanks Emerson, this is a very interesting point. The
Neighborhood Associations' suggested "Community First" approach
could be seen as a way of solving the collective action problem
of getting many parts/parties of the city to agree, which is
smart.
Two thoughts:
One, would it make more sense for the potential "no-camp"
zone to be the neighborhood district, rather than a radius
around an authorized site? i.e., if the neighborhood district,
as defined by City neighborhood-association system, met let's
say the allotted homeless accommodation goal for a certain
cycle, then enforcement of camping and structures bans would
be enacted in that neighborhood district?
[The reason I wonder this is, I can imagine several problems
with the radius approach. It would be easy to have areas
missed by the radii of authorized sites, even with many of
them. Also, it could be difficult/ambiguous to determine what
areas fall in that radius, let's say for City employees trying
to follow the guidance. Neighborhood districts, on the other
hand, have already tackled the task of covering all areas,
determining boundaries, and probably picking logical
boundaries such as the middle of streets].
Second, why or how might we imagine the City agreeing to
fully enforce camping & structures bans in those
districts, were this tradeoff proposed? The 'bargain' requires
that, but do we have reasons to think the City would take on
this necessary role? Right now, they at least officially have
just a single, citywide policy -- which is that "camping
outside of a City-sanctioned campground is not permitted" -
HUCIRP -- and a single process for responding to camps,
the One Point of Contact System. (tactfully described at
HUCIRP's site as, "the mechanism community members can use to
report issues of illegal camping or related garbage within
Portland.")
Might, perhaps, the One Point of Contact System be amended to
prioritize enforcement action against reported camps within a
"no-camp" district?
-Godfrey.
@Godfrey those were some of
my first questions as well. I think the answer to both
your questions lies in the fact that the "new"
policies/rules are localized to the sites. In this
way, it doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to
get off the ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods
can get on board one-by-one. In this approach, a
neighborhood/area "earns" the right to disallow ad hoc
camping only after it designates a site where unhoused
people are allowed to live (without getting
"swept" or otherwise hassled). The no-camping zone is
a radius around each site. So excluding ad hoc camping
city-wide would only happen in a scenario when there's
a designated site in every single area all
over the city. That may or may not ever happen, but in
the meantime it gives every neighborhood an
opportunity/incentive to participate in the solution.
several people have mentioned here the
" Community First" strategy proposal that some
Neighborhood Associations have been developing.
Here's the latest version I've seen, titled "NA
HOMELESSNESS STRAT DR 7 7 20": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTFe_WPsrW5OHrGd14Ek673UmEj5sWdmuTT8yAtwbOA/edit?usp=sharing.
I think it's interesting, and commendably aiming at
a full-scale answer.
As I comment in the doc, I wonder:
a) how to organize the mapping of possible
sites, especially available public land. (this
seems to be a recurring question/project); and
b) the premise of truly excluding camping
outside of the authorized sites, how
likely/possible is it for the city to do, and
what might it achieve politically? Would it
actually bring in majority support, and might it
repel those people/groups with a current
position opposing all 'sweeps'?
-Godfrey.
|
|
|
Re: "Community First" proposal: citywide safe sites, but no other camping
it doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to get off the ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods can get on board one-by-one thanks Emerson, this is a very interesting point. The Neighborhood Associations' suggested "Community First" approach could be seen as a way of solving the collective action problem of getting many parts/parties of the city to agree, which is smart.
Two thoughts: One, would it make more sense for the potential "no-camp" zone to be the neighborhood district, rather than a radius around an authorized site? i.e., if the neighborhood district, as defined by City neighborhood-association system, met let's say the allotted homeless accommodation goal for a certain cycle, then enforcement of camping and structures bans would be enacted in that neighborhood district?
[The reason I wonder this is, I can imagine several problems with the radius approach. It would be easy to have areas missed by the radii of authorized sites, even with many of them. Also, it could be difficult/ambiguous to determine what areas fall in that radius, let's say for City employees trying to follow the guidance. Neighborhood districts, on the other hand, have already tackled the task of covering all areas, determining boundaries, and probably picking logical boundaries such as the middle of streets].
Second, why or how might we imagine the City agreeing to fully enforce camping & structures bans in those districts, were this tradeoff proposed? The 'bargain' requires that, but do we have reasons to think the City would take on this necessary role? Right now, they at least officially have just a single, citywide policy -- which is that "camping outside of a City-sanctioned campground is not permitted" - HUCIRP -- and a single process for responding to camps, the One Point of Contact System. (tactfully described at HUCIRP's site as, "the mechanism community members can use to report issues of illegal camping or related garbage within Portland.") Might, perhaps, the One Point of Contact System be amended to prioritize enforcement action against reported camps within a "no-camp" district? -Godfrey. @Godfrey those were some of my first questions as well. I think the answer to both your questions lies in the fact that the "new" policies/rules are localized to the sites. In this way, it doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to get off the ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods can get on board one-by-one. In this approach, a neighborhood/area "earns" the right to disallow ad hoc camping only after it designates a site where unhoused people are allowed to live (without getting "swept" or otherwise hassled). The no-camping zone is a radius around each site. So excluding ad hoc camping city-wide would only happen in a scenario when there's a designated site in every single area all over the city. That may or may not ever happen, but in the meantime it gives every neighborhood an opportunity/incentive to participate in the solution.
several people have mentioned here the " Community First" strategy proposal that some Neighborhood Associations have been developing. Here's the latest version I've seen, titled "NA HOMELESSNESS STRAT DR 7 7 20": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTFe_WPsrW5OHrGd14Ek673UmEj5sWdmuTT8yAtwbOA/edit?usp=sharing. I think it's interesting, and commendably aiming at a full-scale answer. As I comment in the doc, I wonder: a) how to organize the mapping of possible sites, especially available public land. (this seems to be a recurring question/project); and
b) the premise of truly excluding camping outside of the authorized sites, how likely/possible is it for the city to do, and what might it achieve politically? Would it actually bring in majority support, and might it repel those people/groups with a current position opposing all 'sweeps'?
-Godfrey.
|
|
|
Re: "Community First" proposal: citywide safe sites, but no other camping
@Godfrey those were some of my first questions as well. I think the answer to both your questions lies in the fact that the "new" policies/rules are localized to the sites. In this way, it doesn't have to be a city-wide coordination to get off the ground. Instead, individual neighborhoods can get on board one-by-one. In this approach, a neighborhood/area "earns" the right to disallow ad hoc camping only after it designates a site where unhoused people are allowed to live (without getting "swept" or otherwise hassled). The no-camping zone is a radius around each site. So excluding ad hoc camping city-wide would only happen in a scenario when there's a designated site in every single area all over the city. That may or may not ever happen, but in the meantime it gives every neighborhood an opportunity/incentive to participate in the solution.
several people have mentioned here the " Community First" strategy proposal that some Neighborhood Associations have been developing. Here's the latest version I've seen, titled "NA HOMELESSNESS STRAT DR 7 7 20": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTFe_WPsrW5OHrGd14Ek673UmEj5sWdmuTT8yAtwbOA/edit?usp=sharing. I think it's interesting, and commendably aiming at a full-scale answer. As I comment in the doc, I wonder: a) how to organize the mapping of possible sites, especially available public land. (this seems to be a recurring question/project); and
b) the premise of truly excluding camping outside of the authorized sites, how likely/possible is it for the city to do, and what might it achieve politically? Would it actually bring in majority support, and might it repel those people/groups with a current position opposing all 'sweeps'?
-Godfrey.
|
|
|
"Community First" proposal: citywide safe sites, but no other camping
several people have mentioned here the " Community First" strategy proposal that some Neighborhood Associations have been developing. Here's the latest version I've seen, titled "NA HOMELESSNESS STRAT DR 7 7 20": https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NTFe_WPsrW5OHrGd14Ek673UmEj5sWdmuTT8yAtwbOA/edit?usp=sharing. I think it's interesting, and commendably aiming at a full-scale answer. As I comment in the doc, I wonder: a) how to organize the mapping of possible sites, especially available public land. (this seems to be a recurring question/project); and
b) the premise of truly excluding camping outside of the authorized sites, how likely/possible is it for the city to do, and what might it achieve politically? Would it actually bring in majority support, and might it repel those people/groups with a current position opposing all 'sweeps'?
-Godfrey.
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
FYI - Andy's last email was referring to the BPS Shelter to Housing Continuum Project. I will note it is interesting and promising that this zoning project–which includes involvement from BPS, the Housing Bureau, and the Joint Office–states as part of its scope of work is to "allow and regulate tent camping facilities." There is not much need to codify tent camping facilities in the zoning code if the understanding is they would only exist during the public health and housing emergency declarations (when zoning rules can be suspended).
I like the idea of significantly scaling up the Maddie’s Cart concept. You are simply designating places where camping is permissible, allowing communities to develop naturally, providing safety and sanitary features and encouraging community building and self governance. As a former VISTA volunteer/community organizer back in the 70s, I think a team of Americord volunteers, with proper training, supervision and boundless energy and belief in human potential, could provide the kind of guidance and support that could help the natural process of community building take place. This is consistent with the concept of Community First which the neighborhood associations are working on.
But Portland needs to not rely on just one option. Projects like the River District Navigation Center (serving 100), Bybee Lakes Hope Center (eventual capacity over 500), re-purposed hotels/motels, tiny houses, parking areas for campers, homeshare, etc all could be part of a multifaceted approach. Multiple approaches consider the unique needs of different people (individuals suffering from PTSD, for example).
Andrew Olshin, do you feel that the current city/county philosophy, which you presented in a recent e-mail, is consistent with this approach? Or do we need to advocate for a change in philosophy/strategy?
david On Jul 12, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Candee Wilson < candee@...> wrote:
I would
like to promote an
alternative solution to the homeless crisis. It isn't a
permanent solution, but
it's better than the chaos we have on our sidewalks today and
can last as long
as the crisis does, or until the city finally gets around to
building "a
home for everyone" which we know won't be for many years yet.
Maddie's
Cart https://maddiescart.org/shelter is something I have been
advocating for
nearly three years now. (This is not my site, but I
wholeheartedly agree with
the idea.) At last the word is getting out that we can't build
our way out of
homelessness and sweeps certainly aren't the answer. This is a
simple solution
-- perhaps too simple for people, and especially government, to
get their heads
around. Government always wants to spend so much more money. It
can't think in
simple terms or finds all sorts of roadblocks to quash a simple
idea. We need
government to now buy into this idea, but we need the voice of
every
Portlander, every Oregonian to sell it to City Hall. What our
government is
doing isn't working, and we are facing a potential influx of
newly homeless due
to the corona virus. The homeless situation is not improving. It
is and will
get worse. We can no longer afford for government to turn a deaf
ear to alternative
solutions. The time is now to bring one simple idea to the
forefront in a
united effort.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 3:21 PM, David Dickson
wrote:
Below is a link to a
November, 2019 message from the mayor of San Diego regarding
that city’s response to the homelessness crisis there. It
is quite relevant to our conversation.
David
The City of Portland is officially resuming
'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on
those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program
(HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents
of these practices, while officials in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the
city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for
example, does it imply that campers are not offered
alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving
belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not
complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and
complex situation. Please give us, especially,
considered thoughts on this situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you
might propose as alternative, or how else to address
concerns of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't,
and how their concerns might be addressed.
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from
Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations
who've particularly raised concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the
PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly invite
comments from them, and thank them for coming together
in this discussion.
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
I like the idea of significantly scaling up the Maddie’s Cart concept. You are simply designating places where camping is permissible, allowing communities to develop naturally, providing safety and sanitary features and encouraging community building and self governance. As a former VISTA volunteer/community organizer back in the 70s, I think a team of Americord volunteers, with proper training, supervision and boundless energy and belief in human potential, could provide the kind of guidance and support that could help the natural process of community building take place. This is consistent with the concept of Community First which the neighborhood associations are working on.
But Portland needs to not rely on just one option. Projects like the River District Navigation Center (serving 100), Bybee Lakes Hope Center (eventual capacity over 500), re-purposed hotels/motels, tiny houses, parking areas for campers, homeshare, etc all could be part of a multifaceted approach. Multiple approaches consider the unique needs of different people (individuals suffering from PTSD, for example).
Andrew Olshin, do you feel that the current city/county philosophy, which you presented in a recent e-mail, is consistent with this approach? Or do we need to advocate for a change in philosophy/strategy?
On Jul 12, 2020, at 3:29 PM, Candee Wilson < candee@...> wrote:
I would
like to promote an
alternative solution to the homeless crisis. It isn't a
permanent solution, but
it's better than the chaos we have on our sidewalks today and
can last as long
as the crisis does, or until the city finally gets around to
building "a
home for everyone" which we know won't be for many years yet.
Maddie's
Cart https://maddiescart.org/shelter is something I have been
advocating for
nearly three years now. (This is not my site, but I
wholeheartedly agree with
the idea.) At last the word is getting out that we can't build
our way out of
homelessness and sweeps certainly aren't the answer. This is a
simple solution
-- perhaps too simple for people, and especially government, to
get their heads
around. Government always wants to spend so much more money. It
can't think in
simple terms or finds all sorts of roadblocks to quash a simple
idea. We need
government to now buy into this idea, but we need the voice of
every
Portlander, every Oregonian to sell it to City Hall. What our
government is
doing isn't working, and we are facing a potential influx of
newly homeless due
to the corona virus. The homeless situation is not improving. It
is and will
get worse. We can no longer afford for government to turn a deaf
ear to alternative
solutions. The time is now to bring one simple idea to the
forefront in a
united effort.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 3:21 PM, David Dickson
wrote:
Below is a link to a
November, 2019 message from the mayor of San Diego regarding
that city’s response to the homelessness crisis there. It
is quite relevant to our conversation.
David
The City of Portland is officially resuming
'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on
those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program
(HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents
of these practices, while officials in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the
city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for
example, does it imply that campers are not offered
alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving
belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not
complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and
complex situation. Please give us, especially,
considered thoughts on this situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you
might propose as alternative, or how else to address
concerns of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't,
and how their concerns might be addressed.
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from
Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations
who've particularly raised concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the
PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly invite
comments from them, and thank them for coming together
in this discussion.
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
I would
like to promote an
alternative solution to the homeless crisis. It isn't a
permanent solution, but
it's better than the chaos we have on our sidewalks today and
can last as long
as the crisis does, or until the city finally gets around to
building "a
home for everyone" which we know won't be for many years yet.
Maddie's
Cart https://maddiescart.org/shelter is something I have been
advocating for
nearly three years now. (This is not my site, but I
wholeheartedly agree with
the idea.) At last the word is getting out that we can't build
our way out of
homelessness and sweeps certainly aren't the answer. This is a
simple solution
-- perhaps too simple for people, and especially government, to
get their heads
around. Government always wants to spend so much more money. It
can't think in
simple terms or finds all sorts of roadblocks to quash a simple
idea. We need
government to now buy into this idea, but we need the voice of
every
Portlander, every Oregonian to sell it to City Hall. What our
government is
doing isn't working, and we are facing a potential influx of
newly homeless due
to the corona virus. The homeless situation is not improving. It
is and will
get worse. We can no longer afford for government to turn a deaf
ear to alternative
solutions. The time is now to bring one simple idea to the
forefront in a
united effort.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 3:21 PM, David Dickson
wrote:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Below is a link to a
November, 2019 message from the mayor of San Diego regarding
that city’s response to the homelessness crisis there. It
is quite relevant to our conversation.
David
The City of Portland is officially resuming
'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on
those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program
(HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents
of these practices, while officials in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the
city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for
example, does it imply that campers are not offered
alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving
belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not
complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and
complex situation. Please give us, especially,
considered thoughts on this situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you
might propose as alternative, or how else to address
concerns of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't,
and how their concerns might be addressed.
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from
Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations
who've particularly raised concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the
PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly invite
comments from them, and thank them for coming together
in this discussion.
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
On 7/12/2020 11:53 AM, Tim McCormick
wrote:
14A.50.020
Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of
Way.
This is the ordinance that is affected by the Boise, ID decision. It
does not affect the other ordinance that does not allow "structures"
to be placed in the public right of way. That is why Portland can do
"sweeps/clean-ups." It does not have to provide an alternative
shelter in the case of tents,etc. It also cannot remove someone
sleeping on the sidewalk as long as he/she is not blocking passage
of the right of way.
These are two separate issues. One does not allow someone to
sleep/lie on a public right of way - which is the ordinance that can
no longer be enforced. The other does not allow structures to be
erected on the public right of way. The Idaho decision does not
affect this ordinance in any way. The city is permitted to clear
these structures by following certain protocols, ie. giving notice,
storage of goods, etc.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
Friends; The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, the Housing Bureau and the Joint City-County Office of Homeless Services are partnering to review and retool City regulations to better address the homelessness crisis." * The Housing Bureau is continuing to build more apartments paired with supportive services for extremely low-income individuals and households * The Joint Office of Homeless Services continues ramping up efforts to meet the increasing demand for emergency and short- term shelter, day storage and hygiene facilities. * Expanding the options in the shelter-housing continuum is also being explored, such as campgrounds with tents or sleeping pods, tiny house villages, and micro-apartments with shared kitchens as well as other group living or housing arrangements. * The Bureau proposals to change certain City Code requirements would expand housing and shelter options for individuals and households with extremely low incomes. * Goals: Improve how the regulatory environment affects for-profit, nonprofit, and public-sector-shelter and housing providers by: - supporting more flexible household living arrangements; removing barriers to evolution of single-room-occupancy (SRO) housing, group living arrangements, or small apartments with shared kitchens; - allowing and regulating tent camping facilities and clusters of sleeping pods or “tiny homes” or "tiny homes on wheels" aka THOWS; - Increasing allowances for “institutional” uses in residential zones - churches, synagogues, and mosques, for example: to provide shelter and services; - Modifying current rules for temporary activities needed to respond to natural disasters and emergencies; - Adjusting the siting regulations for temporary housing and shelters; - Adjusting the siting of day storage and hygiene facilities serving the houseless; - Modifying Design Review guidelines and other procedures for permitting affordable housing. We must continue to focus our efforts strategically to address the homeless crisis. Project steps and timeline Project scoping and research — 2019 Code development — Spring 2020 Discussion Draft and Stakeholder Discussion — Summer 2020 Proposed Draft and Planning and Sustainability Commission hearings — Fall 2020 Recommended Draft and City Council hearings — Winter 2020/21 Effective date — March 2021
On Jul 12, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
about the City of Portland's camping ban, and constitutional (Martin v Boise) objections: Candee mentioned ordinance 14A.50.050 banning unpermitted "Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property". However, there is also section 14A.50.020, Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way (full text below), which bans unpermitted campsites, including use of any type of bedding material for "a temporary place to live." Since in Portland it would often be, for many people, life-threatening to sleep outside with no bedding, it apparently would be -- by the 9th Circuit's 2018/2019 Martin v. Boise holding's reasoning -- unconstitutional, because "cruel and unusual punishment," to punish someone for sheltering/bedding themselves in such circumstances, if that circumstance were unavoidable to them. That is, if there were no other place in the city they were reasonably able to be -- as seems to be to the case, because there is insufficient shelter space, and the camping ban applies to all public property citywide. <Screen Shot 2020-07-12 at 11.51.05 AM.png> I am honestly curious, therefore, how City of Portland officials/staff regard the city's camping ban in light of Martin v Boise. I'm sure they've considered it, and likely received legal counsel on the matter, internal and perhaps external. On the other hand, they may not have resolved the point, and it is common across US cities to have similar camping bans and (for those in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction) to be in some kind of ambiguous/untested state of Martin v Boise compliance. It could be they don't (yet) see a credible threat of any legal action on these grounds. Two weeks ago, I and other PDX Shelter Forum organizers met with Seraphie Allen, Mayor's Office Senior Policy Advisor with " oversight in homelessness", and relatedly asked what the procedure would be in resuming dislodging of unhoused campers. She said, and I'm trying sincerely to correctly paraphrase from memory here, that campers would be advised of shelter availability; and, shelter space would be opening up. When asked how many spaces, she said about seven new ones were expected to open soon. From this it sounds like the City may be planning to have, as defense for dislodging campers, a current availability of shelter beds. This leads to issues of what can be validly considered available to a given camper, how city workers or campers can know this at a given moment, and whether it meets Martin v Boise's test of there being more shelter spaces, or alternative places, available than currently unsheltered persons. Cities as in San Francisco may (or may be accused of) keeping some spaces artificially open, or open only to referral from the relocation crews, etc. One way or another, cities would like to be able to say they have shelter or some alternative place for unhoused residents to go. In the interest of informed discussion, I am going to copy this note to, and invite any comment or clarification about the Martin v Boise point from, Seraphie Allen, and also Zach Kearl of the Mayor's Office, who was also on that call. He's a recent M.P.P. graduate and "Hatfield Resident Fellow serving as a policy advisor on homelessness and urban camping impact programs" -Mayor's office staff page. Thank you to Seraphie and Zach for engaging with us, and any light you can shed on this complicated matter, likewise to anyone on this list who can advise. -Tim
14A.50.020 Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way.
A. As used in this Section: 1. "To camp" means to set up, or to remain in or at a campsite, for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a temporary place to live.
2. "Campsite" means any place where any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter, or any stove or fire is placed, established, or maintained, whether or not such place incorporates the use of any tent, lean-to, shack, or any other structure, or any vehicle or part thereof. B. It is unlawful for any person to camp in or upon any public property or public right of way, unless otherwise specifically authorized by this Code or by declaration by the Mayor in emergency circumstances.
C. The violation of this Section is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 30 days or both.
-- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:32 PM Candee Wilson < candee@...> wrote:
The Idaho case forbids the
city to ticket anyone "camping" in public places if there is
nowhere else for them to go. In other words, they cannot
criminalize homelessness. This simply means that anyone sleeping
or camping on the sidewalk cannot be removed either by ticketing
or forced evacuation unless they provide an alternative place to
go.
Unlike Boise, Portland has an ordinance that reads:
14A.50.050 Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures
on Public Property or Public Rights of Way.
A. It shall be unlawful to
erect, install, place, leave, or set up any type of
permanent or temporary fixture or structure of any
material(s) in or upon non-park public property or public
right-of -way without a permit or other authorization from
the City.
B. In addition to other
remedies provided by law, such an obstruction is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance. The City Engineer, City
Traffic Engineer, or Chief of Police may summarily abate
any such obstruction, or the obstruction may be abated as
prescribed in Chapter 29.60 of this Code.
C. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to merchandise in the course of
lawful receipt or delivery, unless that merchandise
remains upon the public right of way for a period longer
than 2 hours, whereupon the provisions of this Section
apply.
D. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to depositing material in public
right-of-way for less than 2 hours, unless the material is
deposited with the intent to interfere with free passage
or to block or attempt to block or interfere with any
persons(s) using the right-of-way.
Portland, also, cannot ticket someone sleeping in a public
space, but it can remove tents. This is why you will see a
lot of people sleeping in sleeping bags or under blankets or
on cardboard on our sidewalks. The police cannot ticket them
or have them removed unless the are blocking public access
and it does not prevent private security from removing them
from private property. But they can remove tents or
other "structures." Since most of the tents are occupied by
people, both the tents and the people get "swept." BTW, the
city is now referring to the sweeps as "clean-ups."
Due to the Corona Virus, the Mayor has put a halt to the
clean-ups which is why we are seeing all the tents on the
streets, especially in Old Town where it has become an
untenable situation.
Everything else you say, I completely agree with.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 9:46 PM, Jeff Liddicoat
wrote:

There is also the Boise, Id court
decision of 2019. It states that a local jurisdiction
cannot outlaw unsanctioned camping unless it provides
adequate sanctioned alternatives to campers. In December
2019 the US Supreme Court let that ruling stand.
The decision is based on the fact that making unsanctioned
camping illegal without providing an alternative amounts to
cruel and unusual punishment. (I invite other more astute
legal minds to offer additional thoughts here.) Some might
argue that walking past an unsafe and unsanitary camp
that endangers the housed community but even more the
unhoused community is in itself cruel and unusual
punishment.
The plan to provide
sanctioned and humane alternatives to fully meet the needs
of our unhoused population allows the city to free itself
from the terrible situation of unsanctioned camps. This
will take time and be tremendously challenging, but if we
don’t establish this as a goal, we will surely never get
there.
And for those who argue
(rightly) that putting campers "out of sight and out of
mind†, as has been done in jurisdiction like New York
City, it becomes even more critical to link services and a
commitment to self reliance to the alternative sheltering
approach. Mental health and addiction services will be
required and necessary to address the more complex needs
of some campers. Self governance, including agreed upon
rules and the requirement that everyone contributes (cash
or work) to the good of the whole will be important. And
last but not least, there must be a commitment to self
sufficiency and employment through vocational training
and job placement services. Self sufficiency and self
esteem are the products of employment. Without
this “people oriented solution†, a focus on shelter
only will never succeed.
david
Thank you for clarifying.
Andy
The ACLU's most important Supreme
Court case involving the rights of people with
mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth
Donaldson, who had been involuntarily confined
in a Florida State Hospital for 15 years. He
was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental
health law in 1975, a unanimous Supreme Court
ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on
his own, or with help from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led
to the inability to help the mentally ill
unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is
literally nothing a person can do to effect
involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for
their relative to no avail. To date, one has
died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't
live in the housed community due to their
continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35
PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that
were granted to "them" by the ACLU would
you like to see stripped ?
"Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say
more about, "Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want
to help them, they
can’t.† What is
the background here, and what is
the issue you are addressing?
Thank
you.
Andy
Harris
Don't
know if this is how to
respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged
sword. On one hand, they are
disruptive to someone whose
only home is a tent. On the
other hand, tent camping on
sidewalks is a violation of a
city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin
providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a
tent, sweeps will continue
because the campers won't move
unless they are forced to. I
do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are
not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's
wrong to sweep those that have
set up a tent in
out-of-the-way, inconspicuous
places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of
having an alternative place to
go that wouldn't be swept.
There should be legal camping
spots throughout the
city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of
creating communities and
policing themselves if left to
their own devices. Of course,
those with mental health and
addiction issues present an
entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless
community and the general
community at large. Thank the
ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people
want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state
come to terms with the fact
that they cannot build their
way out of the homeless crisis
anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive
housing or shelters, we will
continue to have this
discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06
AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of
Portland is officially
resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of
homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8
or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW
article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of
Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban
Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted
late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at
11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is
generally used by
opponents of these
practices, while officials
in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is
fairly well-defined, as
the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is
less so -- for example,
does it imply that campers
are not offered
alternative acceptable
shelter, or assistance in
moving belongings? or that
they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there
be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers
that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very
polarizing, conflicted,
and complex situation.
Please give us,
especially, considered
thoughts on this
situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what
you might propose as
alternative, or how else
to address concerns of
officials and people who
support them.
If you support them, tell
us why you think others
don't, and how their
concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from
HUCIRP, representatives
from Downtown and N.
Portland neighborhood
associations who've
particularly raised
concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the
Sweeps PDX coalition, at
the PDX Shelter Forum the
other week. We
particularly invite
comments from them, and
thank them for coming
together in this
discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08
at 11.37.57
PM.png>
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png><Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
about the City of Portland's camping ban, and constitutional (Martin v Boise) objections: Candee mentioned ordinance 14A.50.050 banning unpermitted "Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property". However, there is also section 14A.50.020, Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way (full text below), which bans unpermitted campsites, including use of any type of bedding material for "a temporary place to live." Since in Portland it would often be, for many people, life-threatening to sleep outside with no bedding, it apparently would be -- by the 9th Circuit's 2018/2019 Martin v. Boise holding's reasoning -- unconstitutional, because "cruel and unusual punishment," to punish someone for sheltering/bedding themselves in such circumstances, if that circumstance were unavoidable to them. That is, if there were no other place in the city they were reasonably able to be -- as seems to be to the case, because there is insufficient shelter space, and the camping ban applies to all public property citywide. I am honestly curious, therefore, how City of Portland officials/staff regard the city's camping ban in light of Martin v Boise. I'm sure they've considered it, and likely received legal counsel on the matter, internal and perhaps external. On the other hand, they may not have resolved the point, and it is common across US cities to have similar camping bans and (for those in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction) to be in some kind of ambiguous/untested state of Martin v Boise compliance. It could be they don't (yet) see a credible threat of any legal action on these grounds. Two weeks ago, I and other PDX Shelter Forum organizers met with Seraphie Allen, Mayor's Office Senior Policy Advisor with " oversight in homelessness", and relatedly asked what the procedure would be in resuming dislodging of unhoused campers. She said, and I'm trying sincerely to correctly paraphrase from memory here, that campers would be advised of shelter availability; and, shelter space would be opening up. When asked how many spaces, she said about seven new ones were expected to open soon. From this it sounds like the City may be planning to have, as defense for dislodging campers, a current availability of shelter beds. This leads to issues of what can be validly considered available to a given camper, how city workers or campers can know this at a given moment, and whether it meets Martin v Boise's test of there being more shelter spaces, or alternative places, available than currently unsheltered persons. Cities as in San Francisco may (or may be accused of) keeping some spaces artificially open, or open only to referral from the relocation crews, etc. One way or another, cities would like to be able to say they have shelter or some alternative place for unhoused residents to go. In the interest of informed discussion, I am going to copy this note to, and invite any comment or clarification about the Martin v Boise point from, Seraphie Allen, and also Zach Kearl of the Mayor's Office, who was also on that call. He's a recent M.P.P. graduate and "Hatfield Resident Fellow serving as a policy advisor on homelessness and urban camping impact programs" -Mayor's office staff page. Thank you to Seraphie and Zach for engaging with us, and any light you can shed on this complicated matter, likewise to anyone on this list who can advise. -Tim
14A.50.020 Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way.
A. As used in this Section: 1. "To camp" means to set up, or to remain in or at a campsite, for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a temporary place to live.
2. "Campsite" means any place where any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter, or any stove or fire is placed, established, or maintained, whether or not such place incorporates the use of any tent, lean-to, shack, or any other structure, or any vehicle or part thereof. B. It is unlawful for any person to camp in or upon any public property or public right of way, unless otherwise specifically authorized by this Code or by declaration by the Mayor in emergency circumstances.
C. The violation of this Section is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 30 days or both.
-- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:32 PM Candee Wilson < candee@...> wrote:
The Idaho case forbids the
city to ticket anyone "camping" in public places if there is
nowhere else for them to go. In other words, they cannot
criminalize homelessness. This simply means that anyone sleeping
or camping on the sidewalk cannot be removed either by ticketing
or forced evacuation unless they provide an alternative place to
go.
Unlike Boise, Portland has an ordinance that reads:
14A.50.050 Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures
on Public Property or Public Rights of Way.
A. It shall be unlawful to
erect, install, place, leave, or set up any type of
permanent or temporary fixture or structure of any
material(s) in or upon non-park public property or public
right-of -way without a permit or other authorization from
the City.
B. In addition to other
remedies provided by law, such an obstruction is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance. The City Engineer, City
Traffic Engineer, or Chief of Police may summarily abate
any such obstruction, or the obstruction may be abated as
prescribed in Chapter 29.60 of this Code.
C. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to merchandise in the course of
lawful receipt or delivery, unless that merchandise
remains upon the public right of way for a period longer
than 2 hours, whereupon the provisions of this Section
apply.
D. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to depositing material in public
right-of-way for less than 2 hours, unless the material is
deposited with the intent to interfere with free passage
or to block or attempt to block or interfere with any
persons(s) using the right-of-way.
Portland, also, cannot ticket someone sleeping in a public
space, but it can remove tents. This is why you will see a
lot of people sleeping in sleeping bags or under blankets or
on cardboard on our sidewalks. The police cannot ticket them
or have them removed unless the are blocking public access
and it does not prevent private security from removing them
from private property. But they can remove tents or
other "structures." Since most of the tents are occupied by
people, both the tents and the people get "swept." BTW, the
city is now referring to the sweeps as "clean-ups."
Due to the Corona Virus, the Mayor has put a halt to the
clean-ups which is why we are seeing all the tents on the
streets, especially in Old Town where it has become an
untenable situation.
Everything else you say, I completely agree with.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 9:46 PM, Jeff Liddicoat
wrote:

There is also the Boise, Id court
decision of 2019. It states that a local jurisdiction
cannot outlaw unsanctioned camping unless it provides
adequate sanctioned alternatives to campers. In December
2019 the US Supreme Court let that ruling stand.
The decision is based on the fact that making unsanctioned
camping illegal without providing an alternative amounts to
cruel and unusual punishment. (I invite other more astute
legal minds to offer additional thoughts here.) Some might
argue that walking past an unsafe and unsanitary camp
that endangers the housed community but even more the
unhoused community is in itself cruel and unusual
punishment.
The plan to provide
sanctioned and humane alternatives to fully meet the needs
of our unhoused population allows the city to free itself
from the terrible situation of unsanctioned camps. This
will take time and be tremendously challenging, but if we
don’t establish this as a goal, we will surely never get
there.
And for those who argue
(rightly) that putting campers "out of sight and out of
mind†, as has been done in jurisdiction like New York
City, it becomes even more critical to link services and a
commitment to self reliance to the alternative sheltering
approach. Mental health and addiction services will be
required and necessary to address the more complex needs
of some campers. Self governance, including agreed upon
rules and the requirement that everyone contributes (cash
or work) to the good of the whole will be important. And
last but not least, there must be a commitment to self
sufficiency and employment through vocational training
and job placement services. Self sufficiency and self
esteem are the products of employment. Without
this “people oriented solution†, a focus on shelter
only will never succeed.
david
Thank you for clarifying.
Andy
The ACLU's most important Supreme
Court case involving the rights of people with
mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth
Donaldson, who had been involuntarily confined
in a Florida State Hospital for 15 years. He
was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental
health law in 1975, a unanimous Supreme Court
ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on
his own, or with help from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led
to the inability to help the mentally ill
unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is
literally nothing a person can do to effect
involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for
their relative to no avail. To date, one has
died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't
live in the housed community due to their
continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35
PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that
were granted to "them" by the ACLU would
you like to see stripped ?
"Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say
more about, "Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want
to help them, they
can’t.† What is
the background here, and what is
the issue you are addressing?
Thank
you.
Andy
Harris
Don't
know if this is how to
respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged
sword. On one hand, they are
disruptive to someone whose
only home is a tent. On the
other hand, tent camping on
sidewalks is a violation of a
city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin
providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a
tent, sweeps will continue
because the campers won't move
unless they are forced to. I
do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are
not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's
wrong to sweep those that have
set up a tent in
out-of-the-way, inconspicuous
places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of
having an alternative place to
go that wouldn't be swept.
There should be legal camping
spots throughout the
city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of
creating communities and
policing themselves if left to
their own devices. Of course,
those with mental health and
addiction issues present an
entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless
community and the general
community at large. Thank the
ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people
want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state
come to terms with the fact
that they cannot build their
way out of the homeless crisis
anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive
housing or shelters, we will
continue to have this
discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06
AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of
Portland is officially
resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of
homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8
or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW
article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of
Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban
Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted
late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at
11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is
generally used by
opponents of these
practices, while officials
in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is
fairly well-defined, as
the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is
less so -- for example,
does it imply that campers
are not offered
alternative acceptable
shelter, or assistance in
moving belongings? or that
they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there
be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers
that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very
polarizing, conflicted,
and complex situation.
Please give us,
especially, considered
thoughts on this
situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what
you might propose as
alternative, or how else
to address concerns of
officials and people who
support them.
If you support them, tell
us why you think others
don't, and how their
concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from
HUCIRP, representatives
from Downtown and N.
Portland neighborhood
associations who've
particularly raised
concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the
Sweeps PDX coalition, at
the PDX Shelter Forum the
other week. We
particularly invite
comments from them, and
thank them for coming
together in this
discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08
at 11.37.57
PM.png>
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png><Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
The Idaho case forbids the
city to ticket anyone "camping" in public places if there is
nowhere else for them to go. In other words, they cannot
criminalize homelessness. This simply means that anyone sleeping
or camping on the sidewalk cannot be removed either by ticketing
or forced evacuation unless they provide an alternative place to
go.
Unlike Boise, Portland has an ordinance that reads:
14A.50.050 Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures
on Public Property or Public Rights of Way.
A. It shall be unlawful to
erect, install, place, leave, or set up any type of
permanent or temporary fixture or structure of any
material(s) in or upon non-park public property or public
right-of -way without a permit or other authorization from
the City.
B. In addition to other
remedies provided by law, such an obstruction is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance. The City Engineer, City
Traffic Engineer, or Chief of Police may summarily abate
any such obstruction, or the obstruction may be abated as
prescribed in Chapter 29.60 of this Code.
C. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to merchandise in the course of
lawful receipt or delivery, unless that merchandise
remains upon the public right of way for a period longer
than 2 hours, whereupon the provisions of this Section
apply.
D. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to depositing material in public
right-of-way for less than 2 hours, unless the material is
deposited with the intent to interfere with free passage
or to block or attempt to block or interfere with any
persons(s) using the right-of-way.
Portland, also, cannot ticket someone sleeping in a public
space, but it can remove tents. This is why you will see a
lot of people sleeping in sleeping bags or under blankets or
on cardboard on our sidewalks. The police cannot ticket them
or have them removed unless the are blocking public access
and it does not prevent private security from removing them
from private property. But they can remove tents or
other "structures." Since most of the tents are occupied by
people, both the tents and the people get "swept." BTW, the
city is now referring to the sweeps as "clean-ups."
Due to the Corona Virus, the Mayor has put a halt to the
clean-ups which is why we are seeing all the tents on the
streets, especially in Old Town where it has become an
untenable situation.
Everything else you say, I completely agree with.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 9:46 PM, Jeff Liddicoat
wrote:
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text

There is also the Boise, Id court
decision of 2019. It states that a local jurisdiction
cannot outlaw unsanctioned camping unless it provides
adequate sanctioned alternatives to campers. In December
2019 the US Supreme Court let that ruling stand.
The decision is based on the fact that making unsanctioned
camping illegal without providing an alternative amounts to
cruel and unusual punishment. (I invite other more astute
legal minds to offer additional thoughts here.) Some might
argue that walking past an unsafe and unsanitary camp
that endangers the housed community but even more the
unhoused community is in itself cruel and unusual
punishment.
The plan to provide
sanctioned and humane alternatives to fully meet the needs
of our unhoused population allows the city to free itself
from the terrible situation of unsanctioned camps. This
will take time and be tremendously challenging, but if we
don’t establish this as a goal, we will surely never get
there.
And for those who argue
(rightly) that putting campers "out of sight and out of
mindâ€, as has been done in jurisdiction like New York
City, it becomes even more critical to link services and a
commitment to self reliance to the alternative sheltering
approach. Mental health and addiction services will be
required and necessary to address the more complex needs
of some campers. Self governance, including agreed upon
rules and the requirement that everyone contributes (cash
or work) to the good of the whole will be important. And
last but not least, there must be a commitment to self
sufficiency and employment through vocational training
and job placement services. Self sufficiency and self
esteem are the products of employment. Without
this “people oriented solutionâ€, a focus on shelter
only will never succeed.
david
Thank you for clarifying.
Andy
The ACLU's most important Supreme
Court case involving the rights of people with
mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth
Donaldson, who had been involuntarily confined
in a Florida State Hospital for 15 years. He
was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental
health law in 1975, a unanimous Supreme Court
ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on
his own, or with help from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led
to the inability to help the mentally ill
unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is
literally nothing a person can do to effect
involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for
their relative to no avail. To date, one has
died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't
live in the housed community due to their
continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35
PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that
were granted to "them" by the ACLU would
you like to see stripped ?
"Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say
more about, "Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want
to help them, they
can’t.† What is
the background here, and what is
the issue you are addressing?
Thank
you.
Andy
Harris
Don't
know if this is how to
respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged
sword. On one hand, they are
disruptive to someone whose
only home is a tent. On the
other hand, tent camping on
sidewalks is a violation of a
city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin
providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a
tent, sweeps will continue
because the campers won't move
unless they are forced to. I
do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are
not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's
wrong to sweep those that have
set up a tent in
out-of-the-way, inconspicuous
places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of
having an alternative place to
go that wouldn't be swept.
There should be legal camping
spots throughout the
city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of
creating communities and
policing themselves if left to
their own devices. Of course,
those with mental health and
addiction issues present an
entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless
community and the general
community at large. Thank the
ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people
want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state
come to terms with the fact
that they cannot build their
way out of the homeless crisis
anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive
housing or shelters, we will
continue to have this
discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06
AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of
Portland is officially
resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of
homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8
or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW
article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of
Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban
Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted
late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at
11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is
generally used by
opponents of these
practices, while officials
in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is
fairly well-defined, as
the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is
less so -- for example,
does it imply that campers
are not offered
alternative acceptable
shelter, or assistance in
moving belongings? or that
they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there
be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers
that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very
polarizing, conflicted,
and complex situation.
Please give us,
especially, considered
thoughts on this
situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what
you might propose as
alternative, or how else
to address concerns of
officials and people who
support them.
If you support them, tell
us why you think others
don't, and how their
concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from
HUCIRP, representatives
from Downtown and N.
Portland neighborhood
associations who've
particularly raised
concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the
Sweeps PDX coalition, at
the PDX Shelter Forum the
other week. We
particularly invite
comments from them, and
thank them for coming
together in this
discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08
at 11.37.57
PM.png>
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png><Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Re: Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
This forum was started with those who opted to join while registering for the Portland Forum on Alternative Shelters & Villages organized by NECN and the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty. I do not feel comfortable sharing the list of individuals who are on the forum, but will say there are folks with lived experience, representing government (both elected officials and program staff), nonprofits, religious insitutitions, neighborhood organizations, and interested non-affiliated individuals. Given this diverse group, I would like to remind people to be respectful and thoughtful as you participate. I have found it useful to have an open mind and to really listen to those with different experiences. It is possible to do all these things while also being critical and advocating for a particular position.
For those folks without lived or first-hand experience engaging with those who are houseless, I would recommend that you spend some time acquiring that experience and knowledge. This is not an easy task and I'm not sure there is a right way to do it, but I feel it is important. I have done this by volunteering at shelters, listening to interviews with folks who have lived experience, and spending time in areas where folks are living. Last night, for example, I spent about five hours walking around Downtown and Old Town/Chinatown. I generally do not feel comfortable imposing on people, but just by being in a common space and being friendly, people will engage with you. Most people appreciate being asked how they are doing.
Some might have safety concerns. I can only speak for myself, but I have never felt that my safety was at risk because of folks who are houseless. One does need to be prepared for the emotional trauma of seeing people in very difficult situations. There are other safety considerations especially being Downtown and Old Town/Chinatown at night. For example, I experienced several individuals who were in vehicles intimidating folks in the Old Town/Chinatown area. They were driving erratically. One individual was in a large pickup truck. He would stop in the middle of the street or in a parking lot, engage his parking break and "spin out" his rear tires creating a lot of smoke and noise. He would then disengage his parking brake and speed away in an extremely dangerous fashion. As someone who was on my bike/walking it was especially disturbing. I cannot say for certain, but I think this was racially motivated because I saw him do this near people of color. I saw him do this three or four times in different parts of the neighborhood and that was only what I saw. There were other folks in vehicles who also made me feel uncomfortable. From my first-hand experience I can say there are white supremists coming from all over, many have Washington license plates, who target downtown because of the BLM protesters and the diverse group of folks who are out and about.
I'm open to people joining me on my walks.
There is a group of folks who bring food and provide a space to relax and charge devices most evenings. I'm not sure of the exact hours, but I would say they are at SW 1st Ave between Ankeny and Burnside from 9:00pm-1:00am. The group brings pop-up tents, tables, and chairs. This would be a great and safe environment to get to talk to folks. One might consider bringing a camping chair with you if you go. If you are not prepared to see folks who are in some of the most difficult circumstances, I would suggest approaching from the south and avoiding the Skidmore Fountain MAX station and the block just north of it.
My experience is that folks have different levels of need. When I advocate for creating more alternative shetlers and villages, especially those that are self-governed, I'm thinking about those individuals who desire and are capable of living in that type of situation. To be honest, we are seeing some of this self-organizing happen in areas like Old Town/Chinatown already. Last night I spent over an hour on a block near the Chinese Gardens that had a group of folks who were helping each other. They were sharing food and keeping their block clean. They had a community. If that small group of people wants to move to a different piece of public land that is not a sidewalk and can live together safely, why wouldn't we allow that?
I'm already overwhelmed and we are only asking for folks to be in a place without fear of being forced to move and to provide them with a bathroom. With the Maddie's Cart project proposal, there isn't even a request for funds to operate it, just for permission to use different public land (I understand there are liability considerations).
What is the point of talking about mental health and wifi when so many people do not even have access to a bathroom? This is obviously a rhetorical question and I value folks thinking/advocating for other needs, but it is truly overwhelming, especially for those of us who are volunteers. It breaks my heart to meet people who want to be in a better place and to follow successful models (e.g. R2DToo) and the barrier to people being in a position to help themselves is not a lack of resources, but political will and collaboration.
Sean
Hello Forum folks,
I was wondering who do you all have at the table. People with lived experiences that are helping you guide Safety on the Streets, Safety in Shelter, and Safety to Supportive housing. I just see that I've not heard from folks from those groups. With over 10,000 open vacancies, why is there not support behind housing as well as on the car and RV camping? I have so much to ask and just don't want to overwhelm people with not getting support from the city and the county for support these movements.
I have attempted several times to find someone to talk to there. If you have a contact or know of a contact please post it. Darlene Urban Garrett
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------- Date: 7/10/20 10:28 PM (GMT-08:00) Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
Hi everyone,
I‘ve been wondering why Concordia university is not being looked at as a facility for the houseless. The possibility there seems endless on many levels. Cost, I know plays a large factor, but... --
--
Art Rios Sr. National Health Care for the Homeless Council - Nation Consumer Advisory Board (Chair) Multnomah County Adult Mental Health Substance Abuse Advisory Council (Ex. Co-Chair)
Main # 503-290-8199
"May No One Human Being Go With~Out" by ars
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” — Mahatma Gandhi
“Wars of nations are fought to change maps. But wars of poverty are fought to map change.” ― Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
