Date   

oversight committee for supportive housing services

Mary Jaron Kelley <mary@...>
 

https://mailchi.mp/97abb2b47457/apply-to-serve-on-metros-oversight-committee-for-supportive-housing-services-measure-due-oct-2690661?e=f72496f5cc


Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Marissa Donovan
 

There is some shelters set up for our house less folks to go to get out of the smoky air. The one I know most about is living hope church in south east portland.


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Wayne Martin via groups.io <waynechaplain@...>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 11:18:23 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Outhouses for those in tents
 
[This email is from someone outside CCC]

www.centralcityconcern.org

Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here

The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.

If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.


Re: Outhouses for those in tents

Wayne Martin <waynechaplain@...>
 


Library services

Diane Rivera
 


Please see below for an update from Multnomah County Library.


Multnomah County Library is now offering wireless printing and temporary outdoor computer labs to all community members.


Computer Labs

  • Computer labs are open at the Gresham, Rockwood and Midland Libraries for 1-hour sessions for walk-up or by appointment. Labs are expected to operate until October 1, depending on the weather. 

  • Computers are physically distanced, under tents. Staff are not available for one-on-one assistance.

  • An outdoor porta potty and water station is open for patrons or community members to use during lab hours.


Wireless printing

  • Patrons can send items to the library's printers from almost any device or location with an internet connection, during open hours. 

  • Visit the library's mobile / wireless printing website to send prints and learn more. Patrons can also email their prints to their library and use the PrinterOn app. 

  • Prints are available for pick up at the library for up to five hours. No appointment is necessary. Prints are free.



Diane Rivera, Career Advisor

Career Boost (for SNAP recipients)

Direct phone number (503) 972-3243

Worksource Portland Metro - SE / SE Works

www.seworks.org



 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system.

 



Re: Retired max cars

Keliferous Goodwoman
 

This is a great idea!! I have been feeling more fired up about the housing crisis. I work in an ER in Gresham as a Soc worker, and there are no shelters I can direct homeless women to : / 
Why can't the govn set up big canvas tent villages? They sure figured out how to "house" (intern) Japanese Americans during WWII. It is rediculous to me that we can't set up organized, sanitary, self regulated  villages for houseless folks, with on site services or regular transpo to. Is there not enough political will yet? It seems ridiculous to me that something organized isn't being done right now. It could provide some much needed jobs as well. Thanks for letting me vent, Kelly


Re: Retired max cars

Jim Krauel
 

 thanks for sharing this Mary.
I keep having this silly notion of trying to get local car dealers to donate old vans to start a village so this was great to see. 
blessings to all of you for your tireless work.


Retired max cars

Mary Jaron Kelley <mary@...>
 


Re: R2DToo rest area continues despite funding denial, C3PO camps face closure

Marilyn Mauch
 

Tim, It seems that collecting data on residents so that the City can get Federal dollars is a major stumbling block in R2DToo getting financial support.  Is that so?  Or, am I being too simplistic! Marilyn

On 08/27/2020 11:17 AM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:


To: PDXshelterforum list

Bcc: Denis Theriault, Raven Drake, Victory LaFara, Village Coalition (responses, comments, clarifications, corrections, welcome).


Last week there was a feature article in the Portland Tribune discussing Right to Dream Too (R2DToo)'s ongoing struggle to get operating funds for its resident-managed, independent, refuge and safe rest area. The nine-year-old R2DToo operates on a 'pittance' $2500/month budget, according to the article, and in non-Covid-19 times hosts around 100 or more people per day. In November its application for funding was denied by the city/county Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS). 

[photo: Mack McKenzie outside his tiny home at R2DToo. PMG Photo: Jonathan House]. https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/477462-385387-funding-woes-hit-portland-homeless-camp-right-2-dream-too

By contrast to Right To Dream Too's bare-bones operating budget, JOHS has been funding $175,000/month for three Covid-19 emergency shelters known as Creating Conscious Communities with People Outside, or C3PO, which are managed by nonprofit JOIN, and have a capacity for about 100 people total. Raven Drake, the Medical Coordinator for the C3PO camps and former Street Roots vendor, spoke about the design and management of them at our June 25 online forum event (see event video: https://youtu.be/lqwpbKvks34?t=1890 starting at 31:45). 


The apparent main reason for the huge difference in operating costs between R2DToo and the C3PO camps is that most duties at C3POs are performed as paid work, much of it by camp residents themselves. Presumably, this has been a very welcome financial boost to them. However, as Raven noted in the June 25 forum, this is a quite unusual and costly model for a village.


The cost level of C3PO camps seems to be a main factor driving JOHS and JOIN towards imminent termination of their support for the camps, earlier than the planned end date of Covid-19 Emergency Declaration. In a July 21 memo entitled "C3PO Exit Strategy Planning" from JOHS Director Marc Jolin, a goal is set to "Identify site(s) for transferring C3PO campers (no later than end of August 2020)." JOIN, the non-profit managing the sites under a little-compensated "fiscal sponsor" arrangement, has also communicated its intent to end involvement, on a similar schedule. 


The article quotes PDX Shelter Forum co-organizer Adam Lyons, executive director of Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, who wrote the funding qualification application (RFPQ) for R2DToo. 


Please also Right 2 Dream Too's own web site http://right2dreamtoo.blogspot.com/ and its most recent article discussing their situation, "Love in the Time of Coronavirus", from March 14, 2020. 


--
Tim McCormick
Co-organizer of  PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at  HousingWiki, Organizer at  Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: R2DToo rest area continues despite funding denial, C3PO camps face closure

Lisa Hawash
 

Thank you for sharing this information, Tim. 

As a community - individuals, nonprofits, county/city agencies - we continue to show our truest selves in our lack of financial support of an entity that has provided so much to so many, as Right 2 Dream/Right 2 Survive has through its efforts over the past nine years. 

It is shameful that the Right 2 Dream community has never been appropriately compensated nor have the individuals who are performing the labor to create a space for folks to sleep. Aren't the unhoused community members performing that physical and emotional labor at R2D deserving of livable wages? I sure think they are. 

--lisa
Lisa Hawash, MSW
Associate Professor of Practice
MSW Online Option Coordinator  
PSU School of Social Work
1800 SW 6th Avenue, #600
Portland, Oregon 97207
503.725.5018






On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:18 AM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

To: PDXshelterforum list

Bcc: Denis Theriault, Raven Drake, Victory LaFara, Village Coalition (responses, comments, clarifications, corrections, welcome).


Last week there was a feature article in the Portland Tribune discussing Right to Dream Too (R2DToo)'s ongoing struggle to get operating funds for its resident-managed, independent, refuge and safe rest area. The nine-year-old R2DToo operates on a 'pittance' $2500/month budget, according to the article, and in non-Covid-19 times hosts around 100 or more people per day. In November its application for funding was denied by the city/county Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS). 

[photo: Mack McKenzie outside his tiny home at R2DToo. PMG Photo: Jonathan House]. https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/477462-385387-funding-woes-hit-portland-homeless-camp-right-2-dream-too

By contrast to Right To Dream Too's bare-bones operating budget, JOHS has been funding $175,000/month for three Covid-19 emergency shelters known as Creating Conscious Communities with People Outside, or C3PO, which are managed by nonprofit JOIN, and have a capacity for about 100 people total. Raven Drake, the Medical Coordinator for the C3PO camps and former Street Roots vendor, spoke about the design and management of them at our June 25 online forum event (see event video: https://youtu.be/lqwpbKvks34?t=1890 starting at 31:45). 


The apparent main reason for the huge difference in operating costs between R2DToo and the C3PO camps is that most duties at C3POs are performed as paid work, much of it by camp residents themselves. Presumably, this has been a very welcome financial boost to them. However, as Raven noted in the June 25 forum, this is a quite unusual and costly model for a village.


The cost level of C3PO camps seems to be a main factor driving JOHS and JOIN towards imminent termination of their support for the camps, earlier than the planned end date of Covid-19 Emergency Declaration. In a July 21 memo entitled "C3PO Exit Strategy Planning" from JOHS Director Marc Jolin, a goal is set to "Identify site(s) for transferring C3PO campers (no later than end of August 2020)." JOIN, the non-profit managing the sites under a little-compensated "fiscal sponsor" arrangement, has also communicated its intent to end involvement, on a similar schedule. 


The article quotes PDX Shelter Forum co-organizer Adam Lyons, executive director of Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, who wrote the funding qualification application (RFPQ) for R2DToo. 


Please also Right 2 Dream Too's own web site http://right2dreamtoo.blogspot.com/ and its most recent article discussing their situation, "Love in the Time of Coronavirus", from March 14, 2020. 


--
Tim McCormick
Co-organizer of PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


R2DToo rest area continues despite funding denial, C3PO camps face closure

Tim McCormick
 

To: PDXshelterforum list

Bcc: Denis Theriault, Raven Drake, Victory LaFara, Village Coalition (responses, comments, clarifications, corrections, welcome).


Last week there was a feature article in the Portland Tribune discussing Right to Dream Too (R2DToo)'s ongoing struggle to get operating funds for its resident-managed, independent, refuge and safe rest area. The nine-year-old R2DToo operates on a 'pittance' $2500/month budget, according to the article, and in non-Covid-19 times hosts around 100 or more people per day. In November its application for funding was denied by the city/county Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS). 

[photo: Mack McKenzie outside his tiny home at R2DToo. PMG Photo: Jonathan House]. https://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/477462-385387-funding-woes-hit-portland-homeless-camp-right-2-dream-too

By contrast to Right To Dream Too's bare-bones operating budget, JOHS has been funding $175,000/month for three Covid-19 emergency shelters known as Creating Conscious Communities with People Outside, or C3PO, which are managed by nonprofit JOIN, and have a capacity for about 100 people total. Raven Drake, the Medical Coordinator for the C3PO camps and former Street Roots vendor, spoke about the design and management of them at our June 25 online forum event (see event video: https://youtu.be/lqwpbKvks34?t=1890 starting at 31:45). 


The apparent main reason for the huge difference in operating costs between R2DToo and the C3PO camps is that most duties at C3POs are performed as paid work, much of it by camp residents themselves. Presumably, this has been a very welcome financial boost to them. However, as Raven noted in the June 25 forum, this is a quite unusual and costly model for a village.


The cost level of C3PO camps seems to be a main factor driving JOHS and JOIN towards imminent termination of their support for the camps, earlier than the planned end date of Covid-19 Emergency Declaration. In a July 21 memo entitled "C3PO Exit Strategy Planning" from JOHS Director Marc Jolin, a goal is set to "Identify site(s) for transferring C3PO campers (no later than end of August 2020)." JOIN, the non-profit managing the sites under a little-compensated "fiscal sponsor" arrangement, has also communicated its intent to end involvement, on a similar schedule. 


The article quotes PDX Shelter Forum co-organizer Adam Lyons, executive director of Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods, who wrote the funding qualification application (RFPQ) for R2DToo. 


Please also Right 2 Dream Too's own web site http://right2dreamtoo.blogspot.com/ and its most recent article discussing their situation, "Love in the Time of Coronavirus", from March 14, 2020. 


--
Tim McCormick
Co-organizer of PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Shelter to Housing Continuum Project (S2HC) - *key* initiative from PDX Planning

Tim McCormick
 
Edited

To: PDX Shelter Forum list
An article just out in Portland Monthly discusses the recently-passed Residential Infill Project begun 5+ years ago, and foregrounds (at end) an important next step, central to addressing lowest-cost and houseless-oriented dwellings: the Shelter to Housing Continuum Project (S2HC): https://www.pdxmonthly.com/home-and-real-estate/2020/08/city-deals-a-big-blow-to-single-family-zoning-in-portland.

Well-organized and broad advocacy is needed NOW to maximize the ways S2HC might help us broadly, quickly, and creatively help everyone unsheltered. In particular, by 
  1. Applying it broadly across city, vs only in certain areas with the least political power & amenities; 
  2. Legalizing vehicle dwelling (e.g. RVs, tiny houses on wheels) on private property, which is current decriminalized but not legalized. 
  3. Allowing a full range of dwelling types to be used in alternative shelters/villages, including RVs, THOWs, and dwellings usable as or adaptable into Accessory Dwelling Units. Movable dwellings are now allowed as ADUs in many cities including Los Angeles and San Jose, Portland has fallen behind in enabling this very low-cost, flexible, scalable, and independently-ownable approach. 

Screen Shot 2020-08-20 at 7.15.10 PM.png
Like RIP, this is led by the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability; it is in discussion now and slated for Planning Commission hearing this Fall. We have been tracking this project closely, and it was brought up by PSC Chair Eli Spevak at our Forum on June 25, and discussed by BPS project lead Al Burns also in attendance. (see in the event video https://youtu.be/lqwpbKvks34?t=3804 starting at 1:03:30).  This was apparently the first public description of S2HC offered by BPS.

While the article doesn't quite connect these dots, the 2014 letter by Eli Spevak, co-signed by other advocates, credited as what 'conceived' RIP, included additional proposals not in RIP as passed. It had in its seven sections one on temporary, interim, and movable dwellings, and one on cottage clusters.

The former is not addressed at all in RIP, but could be by S2HC, to what degree depending on our advocacy efforts.

The second, cottage clusters, is only partly addressed by RIP, because a) RIP does not enable clusters by right (unlike *plexes), and b) allows no more of them on a site than it allows other unit types. This undercuts low-cost possibilities that would be enabled by higher unit count, and it means RIP does not yet bring the city to compliance on this with 2019 state zoning reform HB2001. Cottage clusters, of course, could be a form for permanent, low-cost village housing creation at potentially many sites, with per-unit cost much below that of conventional multi-unit development -- as is being done by SquareOne Villages of Eugene, and other organizations around the country.

An 'RIP 2' initiative is under way to bring Portland code to HB2001 compliance, which will include new rules for clusters, and also extending *plex by-right provisions to single-family zoned areas which RIP excluded (including large parts of the West side).

Anyway, set your sights on SH2C and get ready to think big, write in, and testify, so we can make the most of this rare opportunity, and enable radically low-cost and creative housing in Portland. 
-Tim. 

Bcc: Eli Spevak, Al Burns

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


Re: COVID Cleanups/Sweeps

Jeff Liddicoat
 

In terms of changes in the sweep/cleanup postings back when Margie Hendrickson was the Ombudsman we made several complaints about the way postings were being done including for example  the whole matter of an area being declared a no camp area - who makes that declaration, what amount of space is included, how are those boundaries described for campers?Margie went on maternity leave before  
much discussion occurred, but she did act on one of our complaints which was that without inclusion of the exact time a posting was put up - the camper would have no idea when the clock started on the 24 or 48 hour warning period. She spoke with the police and there for awhile all sweeps postings were getting a notation about the specific time the posting was made. It wasn’t much of an improvement, but it was an improvement. The more important point is that the Ombudsman’s office has the power to act in this area and might be willing to do more.
Jeff L.


On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:41 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

the cleanup notice Sarah shared is, I think, ambiguous about what action may occur and when. Perhaps we can help by documenting, explaining, and asking for improvement of the notices, and of scheduling procedures - see #3 below. Perhaps this has been proposed, or if not is a good specific area in which to ask for a goodwill response from the City and HUCIRP (Homelessness / Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program, the Manager of which is Lucas Hillier Lucas.hillier@..., Bcc-ed here to invite any reply/clarifications from him). 


1. I am hearing of a "green notice" which may differ than this one posted with white paper. I can't find the picture I had of this, does anyone have more info on this or picture of other cleanup etc notices? 


2. The notice warns sites "will be posted for personal property removal" - not, per se, removal of people (i.e. 'eviction'), closing off area, or prohibiting a future campsite. However, as far as I understand, or can see in HUCIRP's official procedures as described in documents at their site which I've just reviewed, there is only a single defined activity, "cleanup", also described as campsite removal, or sometimes 'clearing' a campsite. See program workflow diagram: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/680698

Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 1.10.05 PM.png


In a June 26, 2020 memo from Lucas Hillier, (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/763279) describing the planned resumption of cleaning and clearing campsites, he states: 

"HUCIRP has developed a plan for a limited resumption of posting, cleaning, and personal property removal to address situations where the public health and safety risks associated with individuals moving some distance from their current location. " "After 24 hours [from posting], if the campsite still violates the above thresholds, the campsite will be posted to be cleaned and cleared."  [bold added].

The memo implies that action will require "individuals moving some distance from their current location," but as far as I can tell, from the letter of the law, the campsite cleanup process as constrained by the Andersen agreement concerns strictly 'campsites' and property, where campsite is defined as:

"A location where, for the purpose of maintaining or establishing a temporary place to live, any of the following is placed: any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter; any stove or fire; and/or any structure such as a hut, lean-to, tent, or other temporary structure such as carts and/or personal property."


A person isn't a location, sleeping matter, a structure, or personal property, so it isn't clear that 'cleanup' procedure therefore does, or could, include actions taken against persons. By that interpretation, it seems campers and a campsite and perhaps a crew of friendly passers-by could, theoretically, just move their materials aside/offsite when a cleanup is conducted, and move them back afterwards. Is there any enforceable definition of how long a 'cleanup' takes, or how far away is not part of the 'campsite'? Seems kind of sensible, like moving furniture aside when vacuuming. In some places as I've seen in Bay Area, dwellings and camp fixtures are put on castors or wheels precisely to deal with this and with regular street cleaning. Can anyone suggest problems with such an approach? 


3.  It appears that the notice Sarah shared is not quite compliant with the Andersen vs City of Portland legal settlement (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/738924) governing campsite cleanups. According to that, the notice must include the words: 

“This campsite will be cleared no less than 24 hours after

and within seven (7) days of [the date and time the site is posted for

cleanup]. Cleanup may take place at anytime within the seven-day period”


Could seem a small point, but points to something bigger: is a seven-day window, or perhaps longer if there's nothing noting that 7-day limit, entirely necessary or appropriate, for a service call that apparently will take away one's home and any possessions you can't carry away in under an hour? I mean, even so despised a tyrant as Comcast Infinity might give you a day or a 4-hour window for taking a look at your cable box; might we hope for the City & Rapid Response Bio-Hazard to do something like that regarding removal of homes? I know scheduling service calls is tricky, work isn't quite predictable, but consider the difficulties of, having no place else to go and being destitute, waiting a week in readiness to disband home and move all possessions in an hour. How about, say, giving a day, and calling an hour ahead of time, then you'd have two hours? 

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


On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:13 PM Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...> wrote:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/562211


Hi Folks,

If you haven't checked out the city's site for HUCIRP, please do.

Reading news is great, but sometimes it's better to go closer to the source.

Is HUCIRP accurate? That's my first question.

My apologies for not making it up to St John's to help. I hope it went well.

--barb.

My question 


Re: COVID Cleanups/Sweeps

Jeff Liddicoat
 

Tim,
I’ve got to say not just in this post but in others I’ve seen you have really got your thinking cap on. I mean really have your thinking cap on. Good man!!!

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:41 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

the cleanup notice Sarah shared is, I think, ambiguous about what action may occur and when. Perhaps we can help by documenting, explaining, and asking for improvement of the notices, and of scheduling procedures - see #3 below. Perhaps this has been proposed, or if not is a good specific area in which to ask for a goodwill response from the City and HUCIRP (Homelessness / Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program, the Manager of which is Lucas Hillier Lucas.hillier@..., Bcc-ed here to invite any reply/clarifications from him). 


1. I am hearing of a "green notice" which may differ than this one posted with white paper. I can't find the picture I had of this, does anyone have more info on this or picture of other cleanup etc notices? 


2. The notice warns sites "will be posted for personal property removal" - not, per se, removal of people (i.e. 'eviction'), closing off area, or prohibiting a future campsite. However, as far as I understand, or can see in HUCIRP's official procedures as described in documents at their site which I've just reviewed, there is only a single defined activity, "cleanup", also described as campsite removal, or sometimes 'clearing' a campsite. See program workflow diagram: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/680698

Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 1.10.05 PM.png


In a June 26, 2020 memo from Lucas Hillier, (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/763279) describing the planned resumption of cleaning and clearing campsites, he states: 

"HUCIRP has developed a plan for a limited resumption of posting, cleaning, and personal property removal to address situations where the public health and safety risks associated with individuals moving some distance from their current location. " "After 24 hours [from posting], if the campsite still violates the above thresholds, the campsite will be posted to be cleaned and cleared."  [bold added].

The memo implies that action will require "individuals moving some distance from their current location," but as far as I can tell, from the letter of the law, the campsite cleanup process as constrained by the Andersen agreement concerns strictly 'campsites' and property, where campsite is defined as:

"A location where, for the purpose of maintaining or establishing a temporary place to live, any of the following is placed: any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter; any stove or fire; and/or any structure such as a hut, lean-to, tent, or other temporary structure such as carts and/or personal property."


A person isn't a location, sleeping matter, a structure, or personal property, so it isn't clear that 'cleanup' procedure therefore does, or could, include actions taken against persons. By that interpretation, it seems campers and a campsite and perhaps a crew of friendly passers-by could, theoretically, just move their materials aside/offsite when a cleanup is conducted, and move them back afterwards. Is there any enforceable definition of how long a 'cleanup' takes, or how far away is not part of the 'campsite'? Seems kind of sensible, like moving furniture aside when vacuuming. In some places as I've seen in Bay Area, dwellings and camp fixtures are put on castors or wheels precisely to deal with this and with regular street cleaning. Can anyone suggest problems with such an approach? 


3.  It appears that the notice Sarah shared is not quite compliant with the Andersen vs City of Portland legal settlement (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/738924) governing campsite cleanups. According to that, the notice must include the words: 

“This campsite will be cleared no less than 24 hours after

and within seven (7) days of [the date and time the site is posted for

cleanup]. Cleanup may take place at anytime within the seven-day period”


Could seem a small point, but points to something bigger: is a seven-day window, or perhaps longer if there's nothing noting that 7-day limit, entirely necessary or appropriate, for a service call that apparently will take away one's home and any possessions you can't carry away in under an hour? I mean, even so despised a tyrant as Comcast Infinity might give you a day or a 4-hour window for taking a look at your cable box; might we hope for the City & Rapid Response Bio-Hazard to do something like that regarding removal of homes? I know scheduling service calls is tricky, work isn't quite predictable, but consider the difficulties of, having no place else to go and being destitute, waiting a week in readiness to disband home and move all possessions in an hour. How about, say, giving a day, and calling an hour ahead of time, then you'd have two hours? 

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


On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:13 PM Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...> wrote:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/562211


Hi Folks,

If you haven't checked out the city's site for HUCIRP, please do.

Reading news is great, but sometimes it's better to go closer to the source.

Is HUCIRP accurate? That's my first question.

My apologies for not making it up to St John's to help. I hope it went well.

--barb.

My question 


Re: COVID Cleanups/Sweeps

Tim McCormick
 

I am reposting a message below by Jeff Liddicoat (Stop the Sweeps PDX, etc) that was on thread earlier in the month but got caught in moderation review on the listserv because the topic was paused for cool-off. 

I would like to also uplift these issues raised and the topic, and emphasize that for many to most unsheltered people and advocates, these are at the top of all concerns: living areas being 'cleaned' or 'cleared', being displaced with nowhere to go, and losing important possessions and community contacts. 

While fully resolving these crucial points is a big project, I think recent conversations here and with officials have foregrounded that there might be some quite helpful smaller steps forward we could make together soon, in reviewing, improving, and educating around the City's clean/clear notices and policies. I am now fairly sure that the City's current "Posted" notices do not include text they are legally required to under the "Andersen settlement", so ought to be updated anyway, so this we could see as a helpful prompt to improve and better explain them also. 
-Tim 

----------------------------

I hope that a review of Trena Sutton’s bit here will [be considered in the] stark reality of what has happened in the area she told us all wasn’t targeted for removal. See things have been removed. That’s the bottom line.

People who had sheltered together for many months have been moved along by the earlier posting. Anyone who is anything but a tourist knows that all postings are just for cleaning right up until they aren’t.  It’s kind of complex so people whose minds are occupied with what slobs the homeless are may not get it But here goes...

     First of all the old cleanup poster never said you would be cleaned it always only said you may be cleaned within 7 days. Everyone knows though that once they start writing and posting about cleaning what comes next is you get cleaned out. And I’d need a stronger word than  naive to describe anyone who thinks keeping your space clean is going to keep you safe from being swept. ...[it's not clear that there is] some big difference between the standard sweep notice and the ones recently posted in St. John’s it was inevitable that most people living the experience would feel compelled to move. Understand that when they start posting they may or may not sweep in that 7 day window and there is a risk of not seeing or hearing about subsequent notices. These fine distinctions that factor into how the homeless decide to react to postings [..].

And some just don’t get it the downside to a wrong choice is huge - you may be left with nothing - no shelter from the rain, no protection from the cold, no phone to stay in touch, no cart to carry on towards the next place you cannot be. When that happens enough times you begin to have less concern for how your place looks, you start to carry less and less with you - including fewer cleaning supplies garbage bags, brooms, work gloves, buckets. And why should you it doesn’t really matter how grand your place looks you’ll still be swept cleaned out set adrift again.

Besides which their cover story for all the harassment is that they will make it all clean. They will undo the eye sore of homeless slobs. You know what? Most of the garbage you see associated with the homeless isn’t even their garbage. Instead it’s items thrown out by the housed then temporarily diverted from the waste stream by poor folks trying to put it all to some use. The trash at a particular camp or even of all campers is minuscule compared to the planet threatening trash producing activities of the housed class. [...] ..it’s an endless list. The trash of the homeless give a few people something to talk about. Meanwhile those very same people are responsible for trashing the planet. The comparative carbon footprints aren’t even close. We all owe the homeless a debt of gratitude for how little waste they produce. [..]

Related is this: There seems to be just a general attitude that the homeless with their tarps and pallets and bike parts are an eyesore a drag on the visual quality and house values in a given neighborhood. What I don’t get is what is so [aesthetically] appealing about all the cars, the tar roads, the [creosote] soaked telephone poles or all the power lines strung here there and everywhere. Compared to the homeless that whole scene is a visual nightmare. Whatever my feelings about the world of the housed I don’t dial 911 to complain about. The citizens who file complaints about the homeless need more self reflection and to dial back the complaining and name calling.

Sorry about the typos but if you wrote such long pieces you probably wouldn’t want to proofread either. I promise to make these more concise.
[-Jeff Liddicoat]
------------------



On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 PM Verna Dunlap <lct4vets@...> wrote:
Spot on 


On Jul 27, 2020, at 3:08 PM, Trena Sutton <thegirlsok@...> wrote:


Tim,  couldn’t agree more and I have tried to get them to be more specific. The city does not listen to me or to most people but who criticize them in anyway.  The problem is with these in accurate postings by the city and others that others get hurt in the fallout.  I find people take sides and do not want to hear another opinion even when it’s based on fact. 

Trena

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:41 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

the cleanup notice Sarah shared is, I think, ambiguous about what action may occur and when. Perhaps we can help by documenting, explaining, and asking for improvement of the notices, and of scheduling procedures - see #3 below. Perhaps this has been proposed, or if not is a good specific area in which to ask for a goodwill response from the City and HUCIRP (Homelessness / Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program, the Manager of which is Lucas Hillier Lucas.hillier@..., Bcc-ed here to invite any reply/clarifications from him). 


1. I am hearing of a "green notice" which may differ than this one posted with white paper. I can't find the picture I had of this, does anyone have more info on this or picture of other cleanup etc notices? 


2. The notice warns sites "will be posted for personal property removal" - not, per se, removal of people (i.e. 'eviction'), closing off area, or prohibiting a future campsite. However, as far as I understand, or can see in HUCIRP's official procedures as described in documents at their site which I've just reviewed, there is only a single defined activity, "cleanup", also described as campsite removal, or sometimes 'clearing' a campsite. See program workflow diagram: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/680698

Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 1.10.05 PM.png


In a June 26, 2020 memo from Lucas Hillier, (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/763279) describing the planned resumption of cleaning and clearing campsites, he states: 

"HUCIRP has developed a plan for a limited resumption of posting, cleaning, and personal property removal to address situations where the public health and safety risks associated with individuals moving some distance from their current location. " "After 24 hours [from posting], if the campsite still violates the above thresholds, the campsite will be posted to be cleaned and cleared."  [bold added].

The memo implies that action will require "individuals moving some distance from their current location," but as far as I can tell, from the letter of the law, the campsite cleanup process as constrained by the Andersen agreement concerns strictly 'campsites' and property, where campsite is defined as:

"A location where, for the purpose of maintaining or establishing a temporary place to live, any of the following is placed: any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter; any stove or fire; and/or any structure such as a hut, lean-to, tent, or other temporary structure such as carts and/or personal property."


A person isn't a location, sleeping matter, a structure, or personal property, so it isn't clear that 'cleanup' procedure therefore does, or could, include actions taken against persons. By that interpretation, it seems campers and a campsite and perhaps a crew of friendly passers-by could, theoretically, just move their materials aside/offsite when a cleanup is conducted, and move them back afterwards. Is there any enforceable definition of how long a 'cleanup' takes, or how far away is not part of the 'campsite'? Seems kind of sensible, like moving furniture aside when vacuuming. In some places as I've seen in Bay Area, dwellings and camp fixtures are put on castors or wheels precisely to deal with this and with regular street cleaning. Can anyone suggest problems with such an approach? 


3.  It appears that the notice Sarah shared is not quite compliant with the Andersen vs City of Portland legal settlement (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/738924) governing campsite cleanups. According to that, the notice must include the words: 

“This campsite will be cleared no less than 24 hours after

and within seven (7) days of [the date and time the site is posted for

cleanup]. Cleanup may take place at anytime within the seven-day period”


Could seem a small point, but points to something bigger: is a seven-day window, or perhaps longer if there's nothing noting that 7-day limit, entirely necessary or appropriate, for a service call that apparently will take away one's home and any possessions you can't carry away in under an hour? I mean, even so despised a tyrant as Comcast Infinity might give you a day or a 4-hour window for taking a look at your cable box; might we hope for the City & Rapid Response Bio-Hazard to do something like that regarding removal of homes? I know scheduling service calls is tricky, work isn't quite predictable, but consider the difficulties of, having no place else to go and being destitute, waiting a week in readiness to disband home and move all possessions in an hour. How about, say, giving a day, and calling an hour ahead of time, then you'd have two hours? 

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


On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:13 PM Barb Rainish <whatisright88@...> wrote:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/562211


Hi Folks,

If you haven't checked out the city's site for HUCIRP, please do.

Reading news is great, but sometimes it's better to go closer to the source.

Is HUCIRP accurate? That's my first question.

My apologies for not making it up to St John's to help. I hope it went well.

--barb.

My question 


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

Marilyn Mauch
 

Does AHFE understand the clarification/interpretation that you bring to the Martin v Boise ruling? Marilyn

On 08/12/2020 9:16 AM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:


Thanks for this well-thought-out interpretation, Tim.  Very timely and helpful.

david

On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:12 PM, Tim McCormick < tmccormick@...> wrote:

To: PDX Shelter Forum (pdxshelterforum.org) Bcc: The Oregonian - Public Editor; Maxine Bernstein (Federal courts & law-enforcement reporter); Molly Harbarger (reporter). There was article today from The Oregonian / Molly Harbarger on the Blake v City of Grants Pass ruling (three weeks after we and Street Roots covered it): "Cities cannot fine homeless people for living outside, U.S. judge rules in Grants Pass case." 11 August 2020.

The article, & headline & tweet, I think crucially misrepresent this & the earlier Martin v Boise ruling; also the article plainly gives the view of and quotes sources from only one side in the case, and it provides no links to public versions of the actual rulings. Finally in my opinion the article misses perhaps the most significant part of ruling: an asserted constitutional right to "necessary minimal measures" to self-shelter. This note discusses issues with the article, and more importantly, how a more accurate interpretation and the Blake ruling itself support key ideas of PDX Shelter Forum vs current practices. What The Oregonian gets wrong:
Headline and tweet text: " Cities cannot fine homeless people for living outside, U.S. judge rules in Grants Pass case". 
<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.54.55 PM.png> 
or in article:  "Martin v. City of Boise case that said cities cannot make it illegal to sleep or rest outside without providing people with sufficient indoor alternatives."

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.14.31 PM.png>
Neither Martin v Boise (1st below) nor Blake v GrantsPass (2nd below) say cities can't ban or fine unhoused people for living outside, or without providing indoor alternatives. Both say cities can limit where, i.e. can ban in places if alternative space is available. Space does not have to be shelter or affordable housing, it just needs to be some alternative place the person could be, so that sleeping/camping in the banned area is not reasonably unavoidable. This follows logically from the 8th Amendment basis of argument, that only criminalization of unavoidable conduct or status is unconstitutional. Here's from Martin v Boise majority opinion:


<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.04.13 PM.png>

or, as restated in Blake v Grants Pass ruling: 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.09.03 PM.png>

Harbarger is, consciously or not, promoting an interpretation that is offered publicly by many homelessness advocacy groups, particularly the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC, until recently the NLCHP) but which doesn't stand up to close legal scrutiny, as even the founder of the NLCHP, Maria Foscarinis, admitted. Or see analysis in "Hiding Homelessness" by Sara Rankin of Seattle University's Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, an expert on this topic.

Cities all over the country, having studied Martin v Boise, have concluded they are not enjoined against all arresting, banning, or fining people for sleeping/camping in public, because the rulings affirm various admissible reasons to do so, and/or because the city's ordinances do not apply to all public areas. 

Why does misinterpretation of this matter? Because for years it has, I'd say, widely encouraged homelessness advocates in a strategy of opposing all prohibition or removal of public camps, with the idea that there is a good constitutional argument for this. That goal, however, seems to be unacceptable to most local governments and, I'd say, many  publics, and it doesn't consider local governments' state-granted "police power", responsibility, and liability to ensure all residents' "safety and welfare" (including the unhoused's; as the Blake v Grants Pass ruling notes). It's at odds with commonplace and commonsensical practices of regulating location and manner of activities in public space (where and what you can drive, for example). It's been rejected by a long line of rulings such as Martin and Blake. It's led to an ongoing impasse where advocacy is focused on a goal that most local governments are unlikely to accept and don't see a legal obligation to. 

I would suggest, rather than this costly and inhumane impasse which leaves so many unsheltered and criminalized, we'd be better off building on the logic of Martin, Blake, etc rulings, and developing policies to assure all residents places to live with at least "minimum core" dwelling rights. This I believe is the fundamental point of PDX Shelter Forum: that, rather than just gradually adding costly, regulated-affordable new housing to serve a fraction of need, we should and fairly easily could, far sooner, also "raise the floor" for and bring the neediest up off the streets, achieve minimum living standards for all, to start with.

This is an alternative and pragmatic form of " right to housing"-based advocacy, seeking progress via achievable "minimum core" rights for all rather than just an aspirational rights argument, and asserting positive rights rather than just "right to remain" defensive rights.

This angle is where the I think Blake v Grants Pass ruling may be most significant, because it extends  Martin to assert (on constitutional grounds) a right to "taking necessary minimal measures" to stay warm, dry, and (I'd say implicitly) safe when self-sheltering by necessity in public: 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.11.59 PM.png>


I think the persuasive precedent of this adjacent Federal District Court suggests an approach for Portland: as part of a new "right to dwell" regime of citywide safe dwelling areas / villages, define minimal dwelling measures and rights assured to even the neediest. We can well afford to extend such basic human rights to all among us, and we incur deep civic, financial, and ethical damages now by failing to do so. 

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


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:16 PM Houseless First via groups.io <houselessfirst= gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
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

David Dickson
 

Thanks for this well-thought-out interpretation, Tim.  Very timely and helpful.

david

On Aug 11, 2020, at 10:12 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

To: PDX Shelter Forum (pdxshelterforum.org) Bcc: The Oregonian - Public Editor; Maxine Bernstein (Federal courts & law-enforcement reporter); Molly Harbarger (reporter). There was article today from The Oregonian / Molly Harbarger on the Blake v City of Grants Pass ruling (three weeks after we and Street Roots covered it): "Cities cannot fine homeless people for living outside, U.S. judge rules in Grants Pass case." 11 August 2020.

The article, & headline & tweet, I think crucially misrepresent this & the earlier Martin v Boise ruling; also the article plainly gives the view of and quotes sources from only one side in the case, and it provides no links to public versions of the actual rulings. Finally in my opinion the article misses perhaps the most significant part of ruling: an asserted constitutional right to "necessary minimal measures" to self-shelter. This note discusses issues with the article, and more importantly, how a more accurate interpretation and the Blake ruling itself support key ideas of PDX Shelter Forum vs current practices. What The Oregonian gets wrong:
Headline and tweet text: "Cities cannot fine homeless people for living outside, U.S. judge rules in Grants Pass case". 
<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.54.55 PM.png> 
or in article:  "Martin v. City of Boise case that said cities cannot make it illegal to sleep or rest outside without providing people with sufficient indoor alternatives."

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.14.31 PM.png>
Neither Martin v Boise (1st below) nor Blake v GrantsPass (2nd below) say cities can't ban or fine unhoused people for living outside, or without providing indoor alternatives. Both say cities can limit where, i.e. can ban in places if alternative space is available. Space does not have to be shelter or affordable housing, it just needs to be some alternative place the person could be, so that sleeping/camping in the banned area is not reasonably unavoidable. This follows logically from the 8th Amendment basis of argument, that only criminalization of unavoidable conduct or status is unconstitutional. Here's from Martin v Boise majority opinion:

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.04.13 PM.png>

or, as restated in Blake v Grants Pass ruling: 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.09.03 PM.png>

Harbarger is, consciously or not, promoting an interpretation that is offered publicly by many homelessness advocacy groups, particularly the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC, until recently the NLCHP) but which doesn't stand up to close legal scrutiny, as even the founder of the NLCHP, Maria Foscarinis, admitted. Or see analysis in "Hiding Homelessness" by Sara Rankin of Seattle University's Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, an expert on this topic.

Cities all over the country, having studied Martin v Boise, have concluded they are not enjoined against all arresting, banning, or fining people for sleeping/camping in public, because the rulings affirm various admissible reasons to do so, and/or because the city's ordinances do not apply to all public areas. 

Why does misinterpretation of this matter? Because for years it has, I'd say, widely encouraged homelessness advocates in a strategy of opposing all prohibition or removal of public camps, with the idea that there is a good constitutional argument for this. That goal, however, seems to be unacceptable to most local governments and, I'd say, many publics, and it doesn't consider local governments' state-granted "police power", responsibility, and liability to ensure all residents' "safety and welfare" (including the unhoused's; as the Blake v Grants Pass ruling notes). It's at odds with commonplace and commonsensical practices of regulating location and manner of activities in public space (where and what you can drive, for example). It's been rejected by a long line of rulings such as Martin and Blake. It's led to an ongoing impasse where advocacy is focused on a goal that most local governments are unlikely to accept and don't see a legal obligation to. 

I would suggest, rather than this costly and inhumane impasse which leaves so many unsheltered and criminalized, we'd be better off building on the logic of Martin, Blake, etc rulings, and developing policies to assure all residents places to live with at least "minimum core" dwelling rights. This I believe is the fundamental point of PDX Shelter Forum: that, rather than just gradually adding costly, regulated-affordable new housing to serve a fraction of need, we should and fairly easily could, far sooner, also "raise the floor" for and bring the neediest up off the streets, achieve minimum living standards for all, to start with.

This is an alternative and pragmatic form of "right to housing"-based advocacy, seeking progress via achievable "minimum core" rights for all rather than just an aspirational rights argument, and asserting positive rights rather than just "right to remain" defensive rights.

This angle is where the I think Blake v Grants Pass ruling may be most significant, because it extends Martin to assert (on constitutional grounds) a right to "taking necessary minimal measures" to stay warm, dry, and (I'd say implicitly) safe when self-sheltering by necessity in public: 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.11.59 PM.png>

I think the persuasive precedent of this adjacent Federal District Court suggests an approach for Portland: as part of a new "right to dwell" regime of citywide safe dwelling areas / villages, define minimal dwelling measures and rights assured to even the neediest. We can well afford to extend such basic human rights to all among us, and we incur deep civic, financial, and ethical damages now by failing to do so. 

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


On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:16 PM Houseless First via groups.io <houselessfirst=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
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

Tim McCormick
 
Edited

To: PDX Shelter Forum (pdxshelterforum.org)
Bcc: The Oregonian - Public Editor; Maxine Bernstein (Federal courts & law-enforcement reporter); Molly Harbarger (reporter).

There was article today from The Oregonian / Molly Harbarger on the Blake v City of Grants Pass ruling (three weeks after we and Street Roots covered it): "Cities cannot fine homeless people for living outside, U.S. judge rules in Grants Pass case." 11 August 2020.

The article, & headline & tweet, I think crucially misrepresent this & the earlier Martin v Boise ruling; also the article plainly gives the view of and quotes sources from only one side in the case, and it provides no links to public versions of the actual rulings. 

Finally in my opinion the article misses perhaps the most significant part of ruling: an asserted constitutional right to "necessary minimal measures" to self-shelter. This note discusses issues with the article, and more importantly, how a more accurate interpretation and the Blake ruling itself support key ideas of PDX Shelter Forum vs current practices.

What The Oregonian gets wrong:

Headline and tweet text: "Cities cannot fine homeless people for living outside, U.S. judge rules in Grants Pass case". 
Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.54.55 PM.png 
or in article:  "Martin v. City of Boise case that said cities cannot make it illegal to sleep or rest outside without providing people with sufficient indoor alternatives."
 
Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.14.31 PM.png

Comment: neither the Martin v Boise nor the Blake v Grants Pass ruling says cities can't ban or fine unhoused people for living outside, or without providing indoor alternatives. Both say cities can limit where, i.e. can ban in some places if alternative space is available.

Alternative space available does not have to be shelter or affordable housing, it just needs to be some alternative place the person could be, so that sleeping/camping in the banned area is not reasonably unavoidable. This follows logically from the 8th Amendment basis of argument, that only criminalization of unavoidable conduct or status is unconstitutional.

Here's from Martin v Boise majority opinion:

Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.04.13 PM.png

or, as restated in Blake v Grants Pass ruling: 

Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.09.03 PM.png
 

Harbarger is, consciously or not, promoting an interpretation that is offered publicly by many homelessness advocacy groups, particularly the National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC, until recently the NLCHP) but which doesn't stand up to close legal scrutiny, as even the founder of the NLCHP, Maria Foscarinis, admitted. Or see analysis in "Hiding Homelessness" by Sara Rankin of Seattle University's Homeless Rights Advocacy Project, an expert on this topic.

Cities all over the country, having studied Martin v Boise, have concluded they are not enjoined against all arresting, banning, or fining people for sleeping/camping in public, because the rulings affirm various admissible reasons to do so, and/or because the city's ordinances do not apply to all public areas. 

Why does misinterpretation of this matter? Because for years it has, I'd say, widely encouraged homelessness advocates in a strategy of opposing all prohibition or removal of public camps, with the idea that there is a good constitutional argument for this. That goal, however, seems to be unacceptable to most local governments and, I'd say, many publics, and it doesn't consider local governments' state-granted "police power", responsibility, and liability to ensure all residents' "safety and welfare" (including the unhoused's; as the Blake v Grants Pass ruling notes).

Opposing any restriction or removal of camps is at odds with commonplace and commonsensical practices of regulating location and manner of activities in public space (where and what you can drive, for example). It's been rejected by a long line of rulings such as Martin and Blake. It's led to an ongoing impasse where advocacy is focused on a goal that most local governments are unlikely to accept and don't see a legal obligation to. 

I would suggest, rather than this costly and inhumane impasse which leaves so many unsheltered and criminalized, we'd be better off building on the logic of Martin, Blake, etc rulings, and developing policies to assure all residents places to live with at least "minimum core" dwelling rights.

This I believe is the fundamental point of PDX Shelter Forum. Rather than just gradually adding costly, regulated-affordable new housing to serve a fraction of need, we should and fairly easily could, far sooner, also "raise the floor" for all. That is, bring the neediest up off the streets, achieve minimum living standards for all, to start with.

This is an alternative and pragmatic form of "right to housing"-based advocacy, seeking progress via achievable "minimum core" rights for all rather than just an aspirational rights argument, and asserting positive rights rather than just "right to remain" defensive rights.
 
This angle is where the I think Blake v Grants Pass ruling may be most significant, because it extends Martin to assert (on constitutional grounds) a right to "taking necessary minimal measures" to stay warm, dry, and (I'd say implicitly) safe when self-sheltering by necessity in public: 
 
Screen Shot 2020-08-11 at 6.11.59 PM.png
 
I think the persuasive precedent of this adjacent Federal District Court suggests an approach for Portland: as part of a new "right to dwell" regime of citywide safe dwelling areas / villages, define minimal dwelling measures and rights assured to even the neediest.

We can well afford to extend such basic human rights to all among us, and we incur deep civic, financial, and ethical damages now by failing to do so. 
 
--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 3:16 PM Houseless First via groups.io <houselessfirst=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
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: Alternative Shelter Presentation To City/County August 5th. BRAVO!!!!!!!!

Tim McCormick
 

thanks Will. 
The Maddie's Cart Micro Landings proposal you mention, is there a more recent shareable version than the one dated March 20 2019 posted at https://maddiescart.org/shelter ? and if so, might you share it to the list, or to me? 

As I see it, collectively we want to build up a toolbox of documentation & research on various existing or proposed approaches. Including, updating/developing them based on new learning. Often there are elements common to many or all, such as what current codes/laws allow, and what might be possible under future reforms (e.g. Shelter to Housing Continuum Project, or Oregon #HB2001 implementation). 

[incidentally, both Village Collaborative and HousingWiki projects I work on do such collaborative researching/authoring, in a shareable way, so it is possible we could use or pool effort with them]. 

Some questions about the proposal:
1) Are you suggesting use of City right-of-way areas generally, or is it just the proposed pilot site is such? 
In any case, others such as Keith Jones (of Lloyd Community Association & PDX Green Loop) have recommended looking at public right-of-way as a good option, building on earlier practices such as food carts. So generally, do you or others see particularl advantages, possibilities, and difficulties with using City of Portland right-of-way, vs say other City land that isn't ROW. Is State i.e. ODOT land or right-of-way also a possibility? 

2) the proposed pilot site at 1988 SE 3rd Ave, Portland, OR 97214. Isn't this zoned for industrial use, like the parcel across the street inititially proposed for Right 2 Dream Too siting, which the Central Eastside Industrial Council successfully challenged at Land Use Board of Appeals as being non-allowed "community facility" use? Does your proposal employ a different planned zoning/land-use permitting? 

thanks, Tim. 

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 
tjm.org/about / @tmccormick

#microlandings #MaddiesCart 


On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:43 AM Will Denecke <willdenecke@...> wrote:

Tim:

 

I agree… BRAVO!!!!.....you did a very good job on the slide presentation. I am keeping track of the work via Sean Green and his work with the NECN.  We (Maddie’s Cart) have a “managed camping” proposal we are reviewing with the City for 15-20 residents as Sean has probably reviewed with you. Waiting for more feedback from the Mayor’s office.

 

One small step at a time with the City!!!!

 

 

Will Denecke

 

Summer Lake LLC

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io [mailto:pdxshelterforum@groups.io] On Behalf Of David Dickson
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:31 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] tune in Weds 3-5pm to see PDX Shelter Forum introduced at MultCo AHFE policy board

 

Outstanding work, Tim!!!  I am very impressed with this presentation and your ability to capture it, as well as your focus on building broader coalitions and making this plan a “win-win” for elected officials and people engaged in homeless services.  Thank you!

 

David



On Aug 10, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

as mentioned last week, we presented on Weds Aug 5 a "Community Proposal on Alternative Shelter & Villages" to Portland / Multnomah County's homelessness policy board, A Home For Everyone (to the Coordinating Board, 28-member board which advises the Executive Committee. ). 

The presentation is posted at AHFE Coordinating Board page under meetings, and at: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/CB_Community_Proposal_20200805.pdf. Below are the first two of the 12 slides. 

It seemed to get a good response. Joint Office of Homeless Services director Marc Jolin discussed it with us, we had many follow-up questions from the AHFE board at the meeting, and in writing from MultCo Commissioner Meieran's and MultCo Co-chair Kafoury's office inviting further conversation. 

This presentation was pulled together on the day of the meeting, and was titled so just because it's how the AHFE's agenda had it -- so this certainly isn't the last word on plans or messaging. It gave us a helpful prompt to make a concise and clear published expression for one point in time, but your thoughts on where to go next and how we might present next time are welcome. 

 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 3.20.25 PM.png>

 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 3.21.36 PM.png>


--

Tim McCormick

Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:36 PM Tim McCormick via groups.io <tmccormick=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

tomorrow afternoon, PDX Shelter Forum will be introduced probably around 4:15-4:45pm at the 3-5pm bi-monthly meeting of Multnomah County's homelessness policy advisory group, A Home For Everyone (Coordinating Board). (this is a 28-member Board representing various community constituencies; there is also a 9-member Executive Committee drawn from top area elected officials).

<Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 8.03.33 PM.png>

Meeting agenda - see "Community proposal regarding hygiene services and alternative shelter." During this 30-minute slot, which will be about 4:20-4:50pm if the meeting runs according to agenda, PDX Shelter Forum will be discussed as part of a joint presentation by Interfaith Alliance and Bridgeton / Downtown Neighborhood Associations.

 

Password: AHFE0820.  (note: presenters need and should have received a different link and password). If you haven't used Webex before or recently, you will need to install Webex helper software on your phone or computer to join the meeting. See instructions at meeting link above and we suggest allowing at least 10 minutes before meeting to get set up. 

 

I and others from Interfaith Alliance and partner orgs should be there in the Chat channel during the meeting, look out for us and say hello. You can also ask questions of other presenters or AHFE Board or Committee members in the chat channel, they may see it or get the question via a moderator.

-Tim

--

Tim McCormick

Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

tjm.org/about / @tmccormick

p.s. we now have a pilot Twitter account, check it out at: @PDXshelterforum

<PDXshelterforum-twitter-header_2020-08-04.png>

 

 

 

 

 


Good article

Mary Jaron Kelley <mary@...>
 

https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/homelessness-times-coronavirus-way-forward-united-states

 

 

 

Mary Jaron Kelley
Associate Program Director | North Portland Neighborhood Services
Office of Community & Civic Life
Historic Kenton Firehouse
2209 N. Schofield Street

Portland, Oregon 97217
503-823-8877 (cell) new number

mary@...

www. Facebook.com/NorthPortlandNeighborhoodServices
http://www.npnscommunity.org

 

I am in the office Monday-Thursday.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Will Denecke via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:43 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Cc: 'Will Denecke' <willdenecke@...>
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Alternative Shelter Presentation To City/County August 5th. BRAVO!!!!!!!!

 

Tim:

 

I agree… BRAVO!!!!.....you did a very good job on the slide presentation. I am keeping track of the work via Sean Green and his work with the NECN.  We (Maddie’s Cart) have a “managed camping” proposal we are reviewing with the City for 15-20 residents as Sean has probably reviewed with you. Waiting for more feedback from the Mayor’s office.

 

One small step at a time with the City!!!!

 

 

Will Denecke

 

Summer Lake LLC

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io [mailto:pdxshelterforum@groups.io] On Behalf Of David Dickson
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:31 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] tune in Weds 3-5pm to see PDX Shelter Forum introduced at MultCo AHFE policy board

 

Outstanding work, Tim!!!  I am very impressed with this presentation and your ability to capture it, as well as your focus on building broader coalitions and making this plan a “win-win” for elected officials and people engaged in homeless services.  Thank you!

 

David



On Aug 10, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

as mentioned last week, we presented on Weds Aug 5 a "Community Proposal on Alternative Shelter & Villages" to Portland / Multnomah County's homelessness policy board, A Home For Everyone (to the Coordinating Board, 28-member board which advises the Executive Committee. ). 

The presentation is posted at AHFE Coordinating Board page under meetings, and at: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/CB_Community_Proposal_20200805.pdf. Below are the first two of the 12 slides. 

It seemed to get a good response. Joint Office of Homeless Services director Marc Jolin discussed it with us, we had many follow-up questions from the AHFE board at the meeting, and in writing from MultCo Commissioner Meieran's and MultCo Co-chair Kafoury's office inviting further conversation. 

This presentation was pulled together on the day of the meeting, and was titled so just because it's how the AHFE's agenda had it -- so this certainly isn't the last word on plans or messaging. It gave us a helpful prompt to make a concise and clear published expression for one point in time, but your thoughts on where to go next and how we might present next time are welcome. 

 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 3.20.25 PM.png>

 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 3.21.36 PM.png>


--

Tim McCormick

Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:36 PM Tim McCormick via groups.io <tmccormick=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

tomorrow afternoon, PDX Shelter Forum will be introduced probably around 4:15-4:45pm at the 3-5pm bi-monthly meeting of Multnomah County's homelessness policy advisory group, A Home For Everyone (Coordinating Board). (this is a 28-member Board representing various community constituencies; there is also a 9-member Executive Committee drawn from top area elected officials).

<Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 8.03.33 PM.png>

Meeting agenda - see "Community proposal regarding hygiene services and alternative shelter." During this 30-minute slot, which will be about 4:20-4:50pm if the meeting runs according to agenda, PDX Shelter Forum will be discussed as part of a joint presentation by Interfaith Alliance and Bridgeton / Downtown Neighborhood Associations.

 

Password: AHFE0820.  (note: presenters need and should have received a different link and password). If you haven't used Webex before or recently, you will need to install Webex helper software on your phone or computer to join the meeting. See instructions at meeting link above and we suggest allowing at least 10 minutes before meeting to get set up. 

 

I and others from Interfaith Alliance and partner orgs should be there in the Chat channel during the meeting, look out for us and say hello. You can also ask questions of other presenters or AHFE Board or Committee members in the chat channel, they may see it or get the question via a moderator.

-Tim

--

Tim McCormick

Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

tjm.org/about / @tmccormick

p.s. we now have a pilot Twitter account, check it out at: @PDXshelterforum

<PDXshelterforum-twitter-header_2020-08-04.png>

 

 

 

 

 


Alternative Shelter Presentation To City/County August 5th. BRAVO!!!!!!!!

Will Denecke
 

Tim:

 

I agree… BRAVO!!!!.....you did a very good job on the slide presentation. I am keeping track of the work via Sean Green and his work with the NECN.  We (Maddie’s Cart) have a “managed camping” proposal we are reviewing with the City for 15-20 residents as Sean has probably reviewed with you. Waiting for more feedback from the Mayor’s office.

 

One small step at a time with the City!!!!

 

 

Will Denecke

 

Summer Lake LLC

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io [mailto:pdxshelterforum@groups.io] On Behalf Of David Dickson
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:31 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] tune in Weds 3-5pm to see PDX Shelter Forum introduced at MultCo AHFE policy board

 

Outstanding work, Tim!!!  I am very impressed with this presentation and your ability to capture it, as well as your focus on building broader coalitions and making this plan a “win-win” for elected officials and people engaged in homeless services.  Thank you!

 

David



On Aug 10, 2020, at 3:45 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

as mentioned last week, we presented on Weds Aug 5 a "Community Proposal on Alternative Shelter & Villages" to Portland / Multnomah County's homelessness policy board, A Home For Everyone (to the Coordinating Board, 28-member board which advises the Executive Committee. ). 

The presentation is posted at AHFE Coordinating Board page under meetings, and at: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/CB_Community_Proposal_20200805.pdf. Below are the first two of the 12 slides. 

It seemed to get a good response. Joint Office of Homeless Services director Marc Jolin discussed it with us, we had many follow-up questions from the AHFE board at the meeting, and in writing from MultCo Commissioner Meieran's and MultCo Co-chair Kafoury's office inviting further conversation. 

This presentation was pulled together on the day of the meeting, and was titled so just because it's how the AHFE's agenda had it -- so this certainly isn't the last word on plans or messaging. It gave us a helpful prompt to make a concise and clear published expression for one point in time, but your thoughts on where to go next and how we might present next time are welcome. 

 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 3.20.25 PM.png>

 

<Screen Shot 2020-08-10 at 3.21.36 PM.png>


--

Tim McCormick

Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:36 PM Tim McCormick via groups.io <tmccormick=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

tomorrow afternoon, PDX Shelter Forum will be introduced probably around 4:15-4:45pm at the 3-5pm bi-monthly meeting of Multnomah County's homelessness policy advisory group, A Home For Everyone (Coordinating Board). (this is a 28-member Board representing various community constituencies; there is also a 9-member Executive Committee drawn from top area elected officials).

<Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 8.03.33 PM.png>

Meeting agenda - see "Community proposal regarding hygiene services and alternative shelter." During this 30-minute slot, which will be about 4:20-4:50pm if the meeting runs according to agenda, PDX Shelter Forum will be discussed as part of a joint presentation by Interfaith Alliance and Bridgeton / Downtown Neighborhood Associations.

 

Password: AHFE0820.  (note: presenters need and should have received a different link and password). If you haven't used Webex before or recently, you will need to install Webex helper software on your phone or computer to join the meeting. See instructions at meeting link above and we suggest allowing at least 10 minutes before meeting to get set up. 

 

I and others from Interfaith Alliance and partner orgs should be there in the Chat channel during the meeting, look out for us and say hello. You can also ask questions of other presenters or AHFE Board or Committee members in the chat channel, they may see it or get the question via a moderator.

-Tim

--

Tim McCormick

Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 

tjm.org/about / @tmccormick

p.s. we now have a pilot Twitter account, check it out at: @PDXshelterforum

<PDXshelterforum-twitter-header_2020-08-04.png>

 

 

 

 

 

581 - 600 of 792