Date   

MOLTO BENE!!!!!!!] Mobile Solar Powered Propane-Fueled ShowerPod thanks to LaQuida

Will Denecke
 

The mobile solar powered shower pod is VERY COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Will Denecke

 

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io [mailto:pdxshelterforum@groups.io] On Behalf Of Andrew Olshin
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 4:32 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Mobile Solar Powered Propane-Fueled ShowerPod in use from noon-6pm today, Sunday 7,26 thanks to LaQuida

 


Thanks, 

Andy Olshin



On Jul 26, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Andrew Olshin <andrew.olshin@...> wrote:



Thanks, 

Andy Olshin



On Jul 26, 2020, at 3:16 PM, Darlene Urban Garrett <darleneurbangarrett@...> wrote:



Barb,

 

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

 

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

 

Best

Darlene

 

 

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 

 

-------- Original message --------

From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>

Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)

To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io

Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

 

Hi there,

 

 

Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

 

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?

I'd happily follow this up if need be.

 

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

 

Barb.

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:

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.

 

 

 

<Video.mov>


Mobile Hygiene Units

Andrew Olshin
 

Cascadia Clusters is ready to lease our ADA Single Shower/Single ADA Laundry Unit capable of 50 showers/ 12 hrs.   We have not had as chance to accurately predict laundry usage but would live to connect with the Block R folks re their experience, data.  

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Jul 26, 2020, at 5:34 PM, Lisa Marandas <lmarandas@...> wrote:

I will also include Oregon Harbor of Hope as previously mentioned .

Oregonharborofhope.org, 

Schedule under mobile hygiene.

  Operating six days a week all over the city.  Staff operating since launch are folks living outside.  

Launched last September and has been successfully operating since.


Mobile Hygiene to include five showers to include one ADA. 

- Laundry truck as well on specific days.

Lisa M. Marandas
Deputy Director & Operations Manager
Oregon Harbor of Hope
1616 NW 13th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97209 
503-799-4216
lmarandas@...

On Jul 26, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:


a Hygiene Working Group was one of the top priority directions identified at the June 25 Forum, as described in item #3 of the post-event wrapup post here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/message/10.

With this conversation we could say it is now in action -- subproject to examine current hygiene needs & responses, help and develop them or perhaps new ones. Thanks for suggestions, everyone, and let's keep in mind we're here to surface and share ideas, we shouldn't feel like we have to be already expert-level informed or have complete solutions, for it to be constructive discussion.  

Despite the thread subject line, I'd ask: need this be only for 'those in tents'? perhaps they could be, for anyone in public, run as a revenue-making service by houseless caretakers. Public toilets are a general need, just like housing is a general need, and I'm in favor of approaches that assume we're all in the same boat and make use of that equation. What if we conceived some kind of 2.0 version of the Portland Loo, designed for agile street-community deployment & maintenance? [also, why need the unhoused be in tents? Let's get/build better, safer dwelling setups].  

Also, could they be composting, or exploring/demonstrating something other than our standard, biohazardous & industrialized sewage-pumpout method? There is loads of work going on globally, and keen interesting locally/regionally, to develop new more sustainable & efficient ways to do facilities like this.

Q #1:  can anyone with leads/contacts at Downtown Neighborhood Association, City, etc try to find out for us what is this recent funding of 50 additional outhouses?  Who's been funded, is it a budget allocation or a contract, what stipulations are on it as to how it's done? This seems like the current boat in the water, let's see if/how it might be steered.


Meanwhile, significant existing community-driven efforts include:

1) Hygiene4All project led by Sandra Comstock (Sandra@..., Bcc-ed here), as mentioned by Barb.
This aims to create a prototype 2-toilet, houseless-designed & -run hygiene facility in the Central Eastside.
h4apdx.org.
facebook.com/HygieneForA/.

2) Cascadia Clusters, led by Andy Olshin who presented at the Forum and proposed there this as near-term focus.
They are currently focusing on ShowerPod units, solar/propane powered, including one currently deployed at times in Old Town as Andy's picture on other thread shows.

ANDY any ideas/plans for toilet/outhouse structures? I imagine it's been suggested or discussed.

Personally, mobile bathrooms designed/build/run like CC does seem WAY more appealing and appropriate than Port-a-Potties, everything about which signals emergency/temporary / non-housed / outcasting. I'd rather we avoided things we can't imagine a Commissioner / senior official / leader putting in their own back yard or vacation property.  

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


On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 3:16 PM Darlene Urban Garrett <darleneurbangarrett@...> wrote:
Barb,

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

Best
Darlene


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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

Lisa Marandas
 

I will also include Oregon Harbor of Hope as previously mentioned .

Oregonharborofhope.org, 

Schedule under mobile hygiene.

  Operating six days a week all over the city.  Staff operating since launch are folks living outside.  

Launched last September and has been successfully operating since.


Mobile Hygiene to include five showers to include one ADA. 

- Laundry truck as well on specific days.

Lisa M. Marandas
Deputy Director & Operations Manager
Oregon Harbor of Hope
1616 NW 13th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97209 
503-799-4216
lmarandas@...

On Jul 26, 2020, at 5:14 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:


a Hygiene Working Group was one of the top priority directions identified at the June 25 Forum, as described in item #3 of the post-event wrapup post here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/message/10.

With this conversation we could say it is now in action -- subproject to examine current hygiene needs & responses, help and develop them or perhaps new ones. Thanks for suggestions, everyone, and let's keep in mind we're here to surface and share ideas, we shouldn't feel like we have to be already expert-level informed or have complete solutions, for it to be constructive discussion.  

Despite the thread subject line, I'd ask: need this be only for 'those in tents'? perhaps they could be, for anyone in public, run as a revenue-making service by houseless caretakers. Public toilets are a general need, just like housing is a general need, and I'm in favor of approaches that assume we're all in the same boat and make use of that equation. What if we conceived some kind of 2.0 version of the Portland Loo, designed for agile street-community deployment & maintenance? [also, why need the unhoused be in tents? Let's get/build better, safer dwelling setups].  

Also, could they be composting, or exploring/demonstrating something other than our standard, biohazardous & industrialized sewage-pumpout method? There is loads of work going on globally, and keen interesting locally/regionally, to develop new more sustainable & efficient ways to do facilities like this.

Q #1:  can anyone with leads/contacts at Downtown Neighborhood Association, City, etc try to find out for us what is this recent funding of 50 additional outhouses?  Who's been funded, is it a budget allocation or a contract, what stipulations are on it as to how it's done? This seems like the current boat in the water, let's see if/how it might be steered.


Meanwhile, significant existing community-driven efforts include:

1) Hygiene4All project led by Sandra Comstock (Sandra@..., Bcc-ed here), as mentioned by Barb.
This aims to create a prototype 2-toilet, houseless-designed & -run hygiene facility in the Central Eastside.
h4apdx.org.
facebook.com/HygieneForA/.

2) Cascadia Clusters, led by Andy Olshin who presented at the Forum and proposed there this as near-term focus.
They are currently focusing on ShowerPod units, solar/propane powered, including one currently deployed at times in Old Town as Andy's picture on other thread shows.

ANDY any ideas/plans for toilet/outhouse structures? I imagine it's been suggested or discussed.

Personally, mobile bathrooms designed/build/run like CC does seem WAY more appealing and appropriate than Port-a-Potties, everything about which signals emergency/temporary / non-housed / outcasting. I'd rather we avoided things we can't imagine a Commissioner / senior official / leader putting in their own back yard or vacation property.  

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


On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 3:16 PM Darlene Urban Garrett <darleneurbangarrett@...> wrote:
Barb,

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

Best
Darlene


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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

Tim McCormick
 

a Hygiene Working Group was one of the top priority directions identified at the June 25 Forum, as described in item #3 of the post-event wrapup post here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/message/10.

With this conversation we could say it is now in action -- subproject to examine current hygiene needs & responses, help and develop them or perhaps new ones. Thanks for suggestions, everyone, and let's keep in mind we're here to surface and share ideas, we shouldn't feel like we have to be already expert-level informed or have complete solutions, for it to be constructive discussion.  

Despite the thread subject line, I'd ask: need this be only for 'those in tents'? perhaps they could be, for anyone in public, run as a revenue-making service by houseless caretakers. Public toilets are a general need, just like housing is a general need, and I'm in favor of approaches that assume we're all in the same boat and make use of that equation. What if we conceived some kind of 2.0 version of the Portland Loo, designed for agile street-community deployment & maintenance? [also, why need the unhoused be in tents? Let's get/build better, safer dwelling setups].  

Also, could they be composting, or exploring/demonstrating something other than our standard, biohazardous & industrialized sewage-pumpout method? There is loads of work going on globally, and keen interesting locally/regionally, to develop new more sustainable & efficient ways to do facilities like this.

Q #1:  can anyone with leads/contacts at Downtown Neighborhood Association, City, etc try to find out for us what is this recent funding of 50 additional outhouses?  Who's been funded, is it a budget allocation or a contract, what stipulations are on it as to how it's done? This seems like the current boat in the water, let's see if/how it might be steered.


Meanwhile, significant existing community-driven efforts include:

1) Hygiene4All project led by Sandra Comstock (Sandra@..., Bcc-ed here), as mentioned by Barb.
This aims to create a prototype 2-toilet, houseless-designed & -run hygiene facility in the Central Eastside.
h4apdx.org.
facebook.com/HygieneForA/.

2) Cascadia Clusters, led by Andy Olshin who presented at the Forum and proposed there this as near-term focus.
They are currently focusing on ShowerPod units, solar/propane powered, including one currently deployed at times in Old Town as Andy's picture on other thread shows.

ANDY any ideas/plans for toilet/outhouse structures? I imagine it's been suggested or discussed.

Personally, mobile bathrooms designed/build/run like CC does seem WAY more appealing and appropriate than Port-a-Potties, everything about which signals emergency/temporary / non-housed / outcasting. I'd rather we avoided things we can't imagine a Commissioner / senior official / leader putting in their own back yard or vacation property.  

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


On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 3:16 PM Darlene Urban Garrett <darleneurbangarrett@...> wrote:
Barb,

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

Best
Darlene


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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: Mobile Solar Powered Propane-Fueled ShowerPod in use from noon-6pm today, Sunday 7,26 thanks to LaQuida

Sue Gemmell
 

I’d like more deets on this shower pod - does anyone have a link handy? TIA

Sue

On Jul 26, 2020, at 4:32 PM, Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:


<image1.jpeg>

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Jul 26, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Andrew Olshin <andrew.olshin@...> wrote:



Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Jul 26, 2020, at 3:16 PM, Darlene Urban Garrett <darleneurbangarrett@...> wrote:


Barb,

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

Best
Darlene


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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.



<Video.mov>


Mobile Solar Powered Propane-Fueled ShowerPod in use from noon-6pm today, Sunday 7,26 thanks to LaQuida

Andrew Olshin
 



Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Jul 26, 2020, at 4:26 PM, Andrew Olshin <andrew.olshin@...> wrote:



Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Jul 26, 2020, at 3:16 PM, Darlene Urban Garrett <darleneurbangarrett@...> wrote:


Barb,

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

Best
Darlene


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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.



<Video.mov>


Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Darlene Urban Garrett
 

Barb,

I don't think we are reinventing anything or even inventing anything. We are saying more safe, clean, sanitary options need to be made available and funding needs to be allocated for this.Camping on the sidewalks is literally doing nothing for no one. 

I believe those that are unsheltered should be involved, espicially doing camp oversight , management, helping to find sites, and  moving people to safe sanitary locations.

I also believe that just because a person does not have lived experience, does not mean they cannot help. A wise doctor once told me that you don't have to have the problem in order to know how to cure it.

Best
Darlene


Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:52 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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

Darlene Urban Garrett
 

The squeaky wheel only works if you know what your talking about,  it makes sense, and is legal.



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Sean Green <green@...>
Date: 7/26/20 2:39 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents

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

Barb Rainish
 

Hi there,


Have you looked at the shower and toilet facilities at Harbor of Hope? Have you checked in with H4A ( HYGIENE for all)?

I love your goals, but without people with lived experience ( living outside, not only providers) it's hard for the housed to even imagine being houseless.

 It looks like too much reinventing the wheel.  What type of toilets is the city ordering 50 of?? Where are they being located?
I'd happily follow this up if need be.

Thanks for all the work you all are putting into this.

Barb.





On Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 PM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
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

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

601 - 620 of 741