Date   

Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Sean Green
 

I am not speaking for anyone, but some people may not feel comfortable sharing their identity and I think we should respect that. Of course, if you are comfortable sharing, please do!


On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 10:15 PM Donna Cohen <dcohen@...> wrote:
Could people please sign their names to posts? Thanks 
Donna

Donna Cohen
Civics for Adults


On 25 Jul 2020, at 8:24 PM, john_elizalde@... wrote:

A member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association board told me the city has allocated funding for 50 additional outhouses.  She and I had been talking about trying to find one for the 50+/- campers near SW Main/SW 13th.  Nice to have 50 on the way.  I've no idea how they will be allocated.  Squeaky wheel is a standard practice from what I've seen.



--
SEAN GREEN
Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)
Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Re: Outhouses for those in tents

David Dickson
 

I think Houseless First has a great idea.  It will make the process of locating land for the toilets more complex, since it will be harder to establish a larger piece of land to include campers than simply a place for a toilet and washing station.  But the idea of charging the campers with some level of maintenance or simply protection of the toilet makes sense ( I like the idea of Caretaker, suggested by Houseless first.). The campers will need to create a safe environment where people from the larger community will be comfortable using the toilets. The more we can empower camps to operate like communities with self governance and perhaps pay to some members for services to the community, the healthier our campsites will be.  Unlike many of you I have little experience visiting with campsites and talking to campers (and I respect this experience), but I do have 70 years of experience working with people.  And people are people, wherever they live.

One more thought…In the 3 sanctioned Covid campsites the city set up, the porta-potties are all inside the fenced area of the campsite.  It seems that this would not be conducive to outsiders using the toilets (or would it be?)  Could the toilets be located just outside the camp, with campers responsible for its protection?  It seems to me that campers/caretakers could provide some daily maintenance, but the periodic flushing and cleaning would certainly be done by a contractor.  And as long as the porta potties are probably going to get “marked”, how about commissioning a camper or two to do murals on the ports potty?  As Houseless First said, “A guy can dream, right."

On Jul 25, 2020, at 9:02 PM, Houseless First <houselessfirst@...> wrote:

well toilets are nice, but open-to-all toilets left in public places are almost never adequately maintained or feel safe/comfortable for most people to use. 

Howww about the city, to safeguard and maximize this investment in (I imagine) Port-a-Potties, allow a VILLAGE around each one, to take care of it?  Like, some safe space where a few lucky houseless could huddle and self-shelter with a temporary reprieve from threats of sweeps and ticketing and the demolishing/disposal of their homes. For me that'd be like, awesome, spectacular, a ticket to freedom with merely maintenance of an open-pit toilet as the fee. 

Perhaps if part of the toilets contract were diverted to them because of how much less external maintenance might be needed, the caretakers might even eat, or afford bedding. 

Perhaps it could be called something palatable like say, a Local Community Partnership Caretakers Site, to avoid anything terrifying like "Village" or "shelter"?

idk. A guy can dream, plenty of time for that out on the streets while waiting for the crumbs to fall from city council.   


On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:24 PM <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
A member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association board told me the city has allocated funding for 50 additional outhouses.  She and I had been talking about trying to find one for the 50+/- campers near SW Main/SW 13th.  Nice to have 50 on the way.  I've no idea how they will be allocated.  Squeaky wheel is a standard practice from what I've seen.




Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Donna Cohen
 

Could people please sign their names to posts? Thanks 
Donna

Donna Cohen
Civics for Adults


On 25 Jul 2020, at 8:24 PM, john_elizalde@... wrote:

A member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association board told me the city has allocated funding for 50 additional outhouses.  She and I had been talking about trying to find one for the 50+/- campers near SW Main/SW 13th.  Nice to have 50 on the way.  I've no idea how they will be allocated.  Squeaky wheel is a standard practice from what I've seen.


Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Donna Cohen
 

I like your idea. 
Would also love if your name was actually attached!
Donna

Donna Cohen
Civics for Adults


On 25 Jul 2020, at 9:02 PM, Houseless First <houselessfirst@...> wrote:

well toilets are nice, but open-to-all toilets left in public places are almost never adequately maintained or feel safe/comfortable for most people to use. 

Howww about the city, to safeguard and maximize this investment in (I imagine) Port-a-Potties, allow a VILLAGE around each one, to take care of it?  Like, some safe space where a few lucky houseless could huddle and self-shelter with a temporary reprieve from threats of sweeps and ticketing and the demolishing/disposal of their homes. For me that'd be like, awesome, spectacular, a ticket to freedom with merely maintenance of an open-pit toilet as the fee. 

Perhaps if part of the toilets contract were diverted to them because of how much less external maintenance might be needed, the caretakers might even eat, or afford bedding. 

Perhaps it could be called something palatable like say, a Local Community Partnership Caretakers Site, to avoid anything terrifying like "Village" or "shelter"?

idk. A guy can dream, plenty of time for that out on the streets while waiting for the crumbs to fall from city council.   


On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:24 PM <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
A member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association board told me the city has allocated funding for 50 additional outhouses.  She and I had been talking about trying to find one for the 50+/- campers near SW Main/SW 13th.  Nice to have 50 on the way.  I've no idea how they will be allocated.  Squeaky wheel is a standard practice from what I've seen.


Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Houseless First
 

well toilets are nice, but open-to-all toilets left in public places are almost never adequately maintained or feel safe/comfortable for most people to use. 

Howww about the city, to safeguard and maximize this investment in (I imagine) Port-a-Potties, allow a VILLAGE around each one, to take care of it?  Like, some safe space where a few lucky houseless could huddle and self-shelter with a temporary reprieve from threats of sweeps and ticketing and the demolishing/disposal of their homes. For me that'd be like, awesome, spectacular, a ticket to freedom with merely maintenance of an open-pit toilet as the fee. 

Perhaps if part of the toilets contract were diverted to them because of how much less external maintenance might be needed, the caretakers might even eat, or afford bedding. 

Perhaps it could be called something palatable like say, a Local Community Partnership Caretakers Site, to avoid anything terrifying like "Village" or "shelter"?

idk. A guy can dream, plenty of time for that out on the streets while waiting for the crumbs to fall from city council.   


On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 8:24 PM <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
A member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association board told me the city has allocated funding for 50 additional outhouses.  She and I had been talking about trying to find one for the 50+/- campers near SW Main/SW 13th.  Nice to have 50 on the way.  I've no idea how they will be allocated.  Squeaky wheel is a standard practice from what I've seen.


Outhouses for those in tents

John Elizalde
 

A member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association board told me the city has allocated funding for 50 additional outhouses.  She and I had been talking about trying to find one for the 50+/- campers near SW Main/SW 13th.  Nice to have 50 on the way.  I've no idea how they will be allocated.  Squeaky wheel is a standard practice from what I've seen.


Re: opinion in Blake v Grants Pass unhoused camping case, and implications for Portland

Houseless First
 

at Village Collaborative, longtime homelessness activist Mike O'Callaghan (aka Mayor Mike) noted another case challenging Portland's camping ban: his own one O'Callaghan v City of Portland, originally filed in 2012.

It was eventually dismissed in 2018 but along the way won a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding his claim to appeal on 8th Amendment grounds if the case were widened to represent unhoused Portlanders generally rather than just him.

Mike filed suit after officials repeatedly dismantled and confiscated his self-built dwellings on public land underneath the Ross Island Bridge. 

Michael-OCallaghan-camping-challenge.png

more info about this case: 
https://housing.wiki/wiki/Homeless_encampments?#O.27Callaghan_v._City_of_Portland 




On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 9:34 AM Keliferous Goodwoman <kellygoodman65@...> wrote:
This is hopeful news no?, thanks for the info!


On Jul 23, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

In US District Court, Medford, Judge Clarke has issued an opinion affirming the unconstitutionality of criminal or civil penalties for unhoused individuals sleeping or camping in public spaces, if the activity is effectively unavoidable. It affirms and in some ways extends the 2018/19 Martin v Boise ruling of the 9th Circuit. 

<Grants-Pass_It's_the_Climate_sign.jpg>

There are several ways I think Blake extends Martin that could have significant bearing on Portland: 


1.
First, the Blake ruling affirms the unconstitutionality of civil violations and punitive fines in such situations, not just criminal penalties. 


2.
Second, Blake clarifies an ambiguous point in Martin, by holding that the 8th Amendment protects not just sleeping, but "necessary minimal measures" that are "life-sustaining," ie to keep warm and dry. This could plausibly apply to 'structures', the ordinance banning which is apparently City of Portland's current basis for removing campers and campsites. (under City Code 14A.50.050 "Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property" https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28513#cid_15431): 

"this Court finds that it is not enough under the Eight Amendment to simply allow sleeping in public spaces; the Eight Amendment also prohibits a City from punishing homeless people for taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available."


Further, the Court notes (ironically, citing the Oregon League of Cities amicus brief supporting Grants Pass), "Oregon's cities are obligated to provide safe and livable communities for all residents." 


I think given the wide incidence of violent crime against the unhoused, there's a strong and now strengthened argument that 8th Amendment protection of necessary, minimal, life-sustaining self-protective measures includes those for safety of person and of crucial possessions, e.g. by having a secure enclosed space. 


In this Blake opinion, the Court invokes a doctrine less commonly heard in this field, but I think crucial: that at issue is not just what cities are disallowed from doing, but what positively they are obligated to do for all residents, to protect their "safety and welfare"; which is the justification for their state-granted "police power" to regulate land use at all.  This, incidentally, could be an argument against cities allowing informal camps where no minimum provision of safety and welfare is assured.


3.

Thirdly, the Blake ruling explicitly presents as exemplary alternatives, Medford's Hope Village (below left) and Grant's Pass' in-development Foundry Village (below right; both created by non-profit Rogue Retreat). 

<Medford_Hope-Village1.jpg>  <Grants-Pass_Foundry-Village-plan.jpg>  

Portland is in a different federal court District than Medford/Grants Pass, so the Blake ruling is not technically binding, ie having mandatory authority, but it has persuasive authority as a ruling of a parallel jurisdiction. Also, arguably, especially so since it was written directly to clarify a ruling of the 9th Circuit, which does have binding/mandatory authority in Portland. 


More info:

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: opinion in Blake v Grants Pass unhoused camping case, and implications for Portland

Keliferous Goodwoman
 

This is hopeful news no?, thanks for the info!


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 9:00 AM Lea Peace <leapeace@...> wrote:
Wow! 

What’s it going to take to make use of empty units for the unhoused. I’m not convinced we need to build more affordable housing if  we have lots of empty unaffordable units.  

A tax on empty, unused residential and commercial buildings? 

Lea Peace

On Jul 23, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

In US District Court, Medford, Judge Clarke has issued an opinion affirming the unconstitutionality of criminal or civil penalties for unhoused individuals sleeping or camping in public spaces, if the activity is effectively unavoidable. It affirms and in some ways extends the 2018/19 Martin v Boise ruling of the 9th Circuit. 

<Grants-Pass_It's_the_Climate_sign.jpg>

There are several ways I think Blake extends Martin that could have significant bearing on Portland: 


1.
First, the Blake ruling affirms the unconstitutionality of civil violations and punitive fines in such situations, not just criminal penalties. 


2.
Second, Blake clarifies an ambiguous point in Martin, by holding that the 8th Amendment protects not just sleeping, but "necessary minimal measures" that are "life-sustaining," ie to keep warm and dry. This could plausibly apply to 'structures', the ordinance banning which is apparently City of Portland's current basis for removing campers and campsites. (under City Code 14A.50.050 "Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property" https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28513#cid_15431): 

"this Court finds that it is not enough under the Eight Amendment to simply allow sleeping in public spaces; the Eight Amendment also prohibits a City from punishing homeless people for taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available."


Further, the Court notes (ironically, citing the Oregon League of Cities amicus brief supporting Grants Pass), "Oregon's cities are obligated to provide safe and livable communities for all residents." 


I think given the wide incidence of violent crime against the unhoused, there's a strong and now strengthened argument that 8th Amendment protection of necessary, minimal, life-sustaining self-protective measures includes those for safety of person and of crucial possessions, e.g. by having a secure enclosed space. 


In this Blake opinion, the Court invokes a doctrine less commonly heard in this field, but I think crucial: that at issue is not just what cities are disallowed from doing, but what positively they are obligated to do for all residents, to protect their "safety and welfare"; which is the justification for their state-granted "police power" to regulate land use at all.  This, incidentally, could be an argument against cities allowing informal camps where no minimum provision of safety and welfare is assured.


3.

Thirdly, the Blake ruling explicitly presents as exemplary alternatives, Medford's Hope Village (below left) and Grant's Pass' in-development Foundry Village (below right; both created by non-profit Rogue Retreat). 

<Medford_Hope-Village1.jpg>  <Grants-Pass_Foundry-Village-plan.jpg>  

Portland is in a different federal court District than Medford/Grants Pass, so the Blake ruling is not technically binding, ie having mandatory authority, but it has persuasive authority as a ruling of a parallel jurisdiction. Also, arguably, especially so since it was written directly to clarify a ruling of the 9th Circuit, which does have binding/mandatory authority in Portland. 


More info:

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: opinion in Blake v Grants Pass unhoused camping case, and implications for Portland

Lea Peace
 

Wow! 

What’s it going to take to make use of empty units for the unhoused. I’m not convinced we need to build more affordable housing if  we have lots of empty unaffordable units.  

A tax on empty, unused residential and commercial buildings? 

Lea Peace

On Jul 23, 2020, at 7:09 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

In US District Court, Medford, Judge Clarke has issued an opinion affirming the unconstitutionality of criminal or civil penalties for unhoused individuals sleeping or camping in public spaces, if the activity is effectively unavoidable. It affirms and in some ways extends the 2018/19 Martin v Boise ruling of the 9th Circuit. 

<Grants-Pass_It's_the_Climate_sign.jpg>

There are several ways I think Blake extends Martin that could have significant bearing on Portland: 


1.
First, the Blake ruling affirms the unconstitutionality of civil violations and punitive fines in such situations, not just criminal penalties. 


2.
Second, Blake clarifies an ambiguous point in Martin, by holding that the 8th Amendment protects not just sleeping, but "necessary minimal measures" that are "life-sustaining," ie to keep warm and dry. This could plausibly apply to 'structures', the ordinance banning which is apparently City of Portland's current basis for removing campers and campsites. (under City Code 14A.50.050 "Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property" https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28513#cid_15431): 

"this Court finds that it is not enough under the Eight Amendment to simply allow sleeping in public spaces; the Eight Amendment also prohibits a City from punishing homeless people for taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available."


Further, the Court notes (ironically, citing the Oregon League of Cities amicus brief supporting Grants Pass), "Oregon's cities are obligated to provide safe and livable communities for all residents." 


I think given the wide incidence of violent crime against the unhoused, there's a strong and now strengthened argument that 8th Amendment protection of necessary, minimal, life-sustaining self-protective measures includes those for safety of person and of crucial possessions, e.g. by having a secure enclosed space. 


In this Blake opinion, the Court invokes a doctrine less commonly heard in this field, but I think crucial: that at issue is not just what cities are disallowed from doing, but what positively they are obligated to do for all residents, to protect their "safety and welfare"; which is the justification for their state-granted "police power" to regulate land use at all.  This, incidentally, could be an argument against cities allowing informal camps where no minimum provision of safety and welfare is assured.


3.

Thirdly, the Blake ruling explicitly presents as exemplary alternatives, Medford's Hope Village (below left) and Grant's Pass' in-development Foundry Village (below right; both created by non-profit Rogue Retreat). 

<Medford_Hope-Village1.jpg>  <Grants-Pass_Foundry-Village-plan.jpg>  

Portland is in a different federal court District than Medford/Grants Pass, so the Blake ruling is not technically binding, ie having mandatory authority, but it has persuasive authority as a ruling of a parallel jurisdiction. Also, arguably, especially so since it was written directly to clarify a ruling of the 9th Circuit, which does have binding/mandatory authority in Portland. 


More info:

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


opinion in Blake v Grants Pass unhoused camping case, and implications for Portland

Tim McCormick
 

In US District Court, Medford, Judge Clarke has issued an opinion affirming the unconstitutionality of criminal or civil penalties for unhoused individuals sleeping or camping in public spaces, if the activity is effectively unavoidable. It affirms and in some ways extends the 2018/19 Martin v Boise ruling of the 9th Circuit. 

Grants-Pass_It's_the_Climate_sign.jpg

There are several ways I think Blake extends Martin that could have significant bearing on Portland: 


1.
First, the Blake ruling affirms the unconstitutionality of civil violations and punitive fines in such situations, not just criminal penalties. 


2.
Second, Blake clarifies an ambiguous point in Martin, by holding that the 8th Amendment protects not just sleeping, but "necessary minimal measures" that are "life-sustaining," ie to keep warm and dry. This could plausibly apply to 'structures', the ordinance banning which is apparently City of Portland's current basis for removing campers and campsites. (under City Code 14A.50.050 "Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property" https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/28513#cid_15431): 

"this Court finds that it is not enough under the Eight Amendment to simply allow sleeping in public spaces; the Eight Amendment also prohibits a City from punishing homeless people for taking necessary minimal measures to keep themselves warm and dry while sleeping when there are no alternative forms of shelter available."


Further, the Court notes (ironically, citing the Oregon League of Cities amicus brief supporting Grants Pass), "Oregon's cities are obligated to provide safe and livable communities for all residents." 


I think given the wide incidence of violent crime against the unhoused, there's a strong and now strengthened argument that 8th Amendment protection of necessary, minimal, life-sustaining self-protective measures includes those for safety of person and of crucial possessions, e.g. by having a secure enclosed space. 


In this Blake opinion, the Court invokes a doctrine less commonly heard in this field, but I think crucial: that at issue is not just what cities are disallowed from doing, but what positively they are obligated to do for all residents, to protect their "safety and welfare"; which is the justification for their state-granted "police power" to regulate land use at all.  This, incidentally, could be an argument against cities allowing informal camps where no minimum provision of safety and welfare is assured.


3.

Thirdly, the Blake ruling explicitly presents as exemplary alternatives, Medford's Hope Village (below left) and Grant's Pass' in-development Foundry Village (below right; both created by non-profit Rogue Retreat). 

Medford_Hope-Village1.jpg  Grants-Pass_Foundry-Village-plan.jpg  

Portland is in a different federal court District than Medford/Grants Pass, so the Blake ruling is not technically binding, ie having mandatory authority, but it has persuasive authority as a ruling of a parallel jurisdiction. Also, arguably, especially so since it was written directly to clarify a ruling of the 9th Circuit, which does have binding/mandatory authority in Portland. 


More info:

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: ACTION for unsheltered: by Tues 4pm, write or sign up to testify at City Council Weds re $128M funding

Sean Green
 

Video of CARES Act vote. Final Vote: 3/1 (passes).

Highlights:
  • "We have [houseless] people that are in desperate need of resources and I don't believe we did the best job we could of making sure that people would benefit from these limited dollars we have. With sadness, I cast my vote as no." -Commissioner Hardesty
  • "There is a significant level of support going to the JOHS to make sure the most vulnerable people on our streets get the resources they need." -Mayor Wheeler
The Board of NECN met Tuesday night and voted to send the following to Council:

The Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods (NECN) supports allocating more resources, including CARES Act funding, specifically towards helping those who are houseless by creating more alternative shelters and villages and resources to support those efforts (e.g. Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program).

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:59 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
A significant decision point and precedent-setting will occur Weds 9:30am-12pm, with a City Council 2nd hearing and vote: to "accept and appropriate $128M in [Federal CARES Act funds] and delegate authority to the Program Bureau Directors to execute contracts."

In the proposed plan, $19M is slated to go to the Joint Office of Homeless Services (city/county joint agency), without a clear plan for how they will spend it. We share the urgent concern of Commissionar JoAnn Hardesty who has announced her opposition to the plan:
"We continue to spend all of our resources on people who already have some kind of temporary shelter, and almost none on people who [do] not.”

We need to get people testifying and writing in steadily, to push City/County to fairly consider and expand cost-effective, empowering, alternative shelter and village options which the community widely supports. We need new villages soon, as existing C3PO camp permits end, and a mass eviction crisis looms. 

1) Send written testimony:  Email the Council Clerk at cctestimony@.... Say who you are, where you live, how you're involved, and briefly & specifically what you urge.


2) Sign up to testify and get meeting link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_1liDKB38TsCccbZhaBN75A

Specify agenda item 596 as what you're testifying on, this will you called at the right time, which will be sometime after 9:30am Weds. 

Background: 

a) last week's 1st hearing on it:
https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2020/07/15/28642033/city-council-considers-a-114-million-covid-19-relief-proposal
b) the agenda item (No. 596): 

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/article/763917


onward and upward (from street and houselessness)..
Tim.

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 



--
SEAN GREEN
Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)
Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Just thought Id Share the Testimony I Just Submitted to City Council

Andrew Olshin
 







July 22, 2020
Honorable City Council Members:
Thank you for accepting our written testimony.  
Cascadia Clusters hires and trains houseless Portlanders in the construction trades.  We have funded, designed and built several Mobile Hygiene Units to serve the houseless population with dignity.  Each of these units can be deployed within a few days to provide close to 50 showers per 12-hour day.   Some include laundry facilities. 


We would be happy to work directly with any City Bureau, Prosper Portland or Multnomah County to supply these services as part of ongoing efforts to support businesses in Old Town and other locations.  Our units are providing critical services to protect the health and safety of the houseless population and the community at large. 
Hygiene is fundamental to human vitality.  Please help us offer more of these services in and around our community. 

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin
Founder, Pro-Bono Co-Executive Director
Cascadia Clusters is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

EIN#82-5106807

CCB#224780


On Jul 15, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

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):

<Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 5.46.27 PM.png>

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
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:21 AM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:
Tonight, Portland: Neighbors Welcome is hosting an event with Al Burns, the BPS planner for the Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) Project. This is the zoning code project seeks to, among other things, "[a]llow and regulate tent camping facilities and clusters of sleeping pods or “tiny homes.”"The zoom event is from 6:00-7:30pm, here is the link for the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89033872821

Best,
Sean
-- 
SEAN GREEN
Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)
Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO




ACTION for unsheltered: by Tues 4pm, write or sign up to testify at City Council Weds re $128M funding

Tim McCormick
 

A significant decision point and precedent-setting will occur Weds 9:30am-12pm, with a City Council 2nd hearing and vote: to "accept and appropriate $128M in [Federal CARES Act funds] and delegate authority to the Program Bureau Directors to execute contracts."

In the proposed plan, $19M is slated to go to the Joint Office of Homeless Services (city/county joint agency), without a clear plan for how they will spend it. We share the urgent concern of Commissionar JoAnn Hardesty who has announced her opposition to the plan:
"We continue to spend all of our resources on people who already have some kind of temporary shelter, and almost none on people who [do] not.”

We need to get people testifying and writing in steadily, to push City/County to fairly consider and expand cost-effective, empowering, alternative shelter and village options which the community widely supports. We need new villages soon, as existing C3PO camp permits end, and a mass eviction crisis looms. 

1) Send written testimony:  Email the Council Clerk at cctestimony@.... Say who you are, where you live, how you're involved, and briefly & specifically what you urge.


2) Sign up to testify and get meeting link:

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_1liDKB38TsCccbZhaBN75A

Specify agenda item 596 as what you're testifying on, this will you called at the right time, which will be sometime after 9:30am Weds. 

Background: 

a) last week's 1st hearing on it:
https://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2020/07/15/28642033/city-council-considers-a-114-million-covid-19-relief-proposal
b) the agenda item (No. 596): 

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/auditor/article/763917


onward and upward (from street and houselessness)..
Tim.

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: overview of local homelessness programs, from Portland / Multnomah County

Godfrey Merrill
 

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

 

 

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

 

Good afternoon,

 

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

 

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Denis Theriault <denis.theriault@...> wrote:

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.

 

It's here — http://ahomeforeveryone.net/metro-supportive-housing — and can be shared with any and all who are interested. 

 

Thanks!

DT


Denis Theriault (pronouns: him/he/his)

Communications coordinator

Multnomah County

A Home for Everyone | Joint Office of Homeless Services

c. 510.875.8546

 

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:04 PM Godfrey Merrill <godfrey.merrill@...> wrote:

External -

External Sender

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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

Donna Cohen
 

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

 

Good afternoon,

 

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

 

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Denis Theriault <denis.theriault@...> wrote:

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.

 

It's here — http://ahomeforeveryone.net/metro-supportive-housing — and can be shared with any and all who are interested. 

 

Thanks!

DT


Denis Theriault (pronouns: him/he/his)

Communications coordinator

Multnomah County

A Home for Everyone | Joint Office of Homeless Services

c. 510.875.8546

 

 

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:04 PM Godfrey Merrill <godfrey.merrill@...> wrote:

External -

External Sender

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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 Sutton
 

Good afternoon,

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


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 3:07 PM Denis Theriault <denis.theriault@...> wrote:
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.

It's here — http://ahomeforeveryone.net/metro-supportive-housing — and can be shared with any and all who are interested. 

Thanks!
DT

Denis Theriault (pronouns: him/he/his)
Communications coordinator
Multnomah County
A Home for Everyone | Joint Office of Homeless Services
c. 510.875.8546


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:04 PM Godfrey Merrill <godfrey.merrill@...> wrote:
External -
External Sender

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: 
Screen Shot 2020-07-17 at 12.50.40 PM.png

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:
  1. 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.

  2. 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. 

  3. 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

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.

It's here — http://ahomeforeveryone.net/metro-supportive-housing — and can be shared with any and all who are interested. 

Thanks!
DT

Denis Theriault (pronouns: him/he/his)
Communications coordinator
Multnomah County
A Home for Everyone | Joint Office of Homeless Services
c. 510.875.8546


On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 1:04 PM Godfrey Merrill <godfrey.merrill@...> wrote:
External -
External Sender

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: 
Screen Shot 2020-07-17 at 12.50.40 PM.png

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:
  1. 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.

  2. 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. 

  3. 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

Godfrey Merrill
 

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: 
Screen Shot 2020-07-17 at 12.50.40 PM.png

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:
  1. 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.

  2. 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. 

  3. 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

Tim McCormick
 

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):


Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 5.46.27 PM.png

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
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 9:21 AM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:
Tonight, Portland: Neighbors Welcome is hosting an event with Al Burns, the BPS planner for the Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) Project. This is the zoning code project seeks to, among other things, "[a]llow and regulate tent camping facilities and clusters of sleeping pods or “tiny homes.”"The zoom event is from 6:00-7:30pm, here is the link for the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89033872821

Best,
Sean
--
SEAN GREEN
Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)
Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


P:NW Shelter to Housing Continuum Project Event Tonight, 6:00-7:30pm

Sean Green
 

Tonight, Portland: Neighbors Welcome is hosting an event with Al Burns, the BPS planner for the Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) Project. This is the zoning code project seeks to, among other things, "[a]llow and regulate tent camping facilities and clusters of sleeping pods or “tiny homes.”"The zoom event is from 6:00-7:30pm, here is the link for the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89033872821

Best,
Sean
--
SEAN GREEN
Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)
Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO

621 - 640 of 752