Date   

Alternative Shelter & Village Forum: Lessons from Seattle

Sean Green
 

We are excited to announce a very special forum next week with special guests from one of the largest providers of tiny house village shelters in the nation. This will be a great opportunity to transfer knowledge to better our community.


PDX Shelter Forum - Learning from Seattle Flier 1.png

Alternative Shelter & Village Forum: Lessons from Seattle

Wednesday, October 14th, 10:00am-noon

Register here (even if you are not able to attend, you can register and have a link to the video emailed to you after the event)


About the Low Income Housing Institute 

The Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) is one of the largest providers of tiny house village shelters in the nation, ensuring that people’s experience in homelessness is as safe, dignified, and brief as possible. LIHI operates 12 tiny house villages in Seattle, Olympia, and Tacoma sheltering over 1,000 homeless individuals each year. 


Villages offer a safe and dignified place for those living outside. Each house is 8 by 12 feet, costs about $2,700, and has insulation, electricity, heat, windows, and a lockable door. The villages include plumbed on-site facilities with showers, toilets, laundry, and a community kitchen. Each village includes on-site case management staff to help residents obtain housing, employment, and other social services. Some villages are staffed 24/7 while others only have paid staff onsite weekdays (during the day).


In February, the Seattle City Council voted to amend the original permitted encampment ordinance–passed in 2015–to allow the continuation of the existing tiny house villages that would have otherwise sunset and permit up to 40 sites which could include tiny house villages, tent encampments, and safe parking to be authorized throughout the city. 


LIHI also operates three Urban Rest Stop (URS) that provide a safe, clean place for houseless women and men to use restrooms, take showers, and do their laundry. They served 10,000 unduplicated individuals in 2019.


Forum Program

The first 90 minutes of the forum will be a conversation with:

  • Andrew Constantino, Site Manager/Community Organizer (and former resident) at Georgetown Tiny House Village, LIHI

  • Bradford Gerber, Tiny House Special Projects Manager, LIHI


From 11:30- 12:00 noon, we will discuss potential next steps for forming a coalition/network that will work to build on and increase the number of alternative shelters and villages NOW in our region. We will review a draft goal, developed by a diverse planning team, and also proposed critical actions for the upcoming 3-6 months.


The draft goal for you to consider in preparation for this meeting is:


DRAFT Goal


Through collaborative community action we will increase and/or expand villages NOW to ensure a safe and decent place for everyone to rest, secure their belongings, and find community. 


We will:

  • Center on the needs and voices of those with lived experience  

  • Improve both the quantity and quality of villages

  • Support an evolution towards self-determination for both the sites and their individual residents


PDX Shelter Forum - Learning from Seattle Flier 2.png


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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Survey for Metro's Supportive Housing Services Program Local Implementation Plan

Mary Jaron Kelley <mary@...>
 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SHSLIPMultCo


Re: Deadline Tomorrow - Support AfroVillage Movement

Karen Erde <karen.erde@...>
 

I'm very interested in supporting this, but link not working. 


Re: Deadline Tomorrow - Support AfroVillage Movement

Tim McCormick
 

To: PDX Shelter Forum, Bcc: LaQuida Landford. 

thanks Sean for sharing that support letter for AfroVillage, I signed. Also thanks LaQuida for leading this. 

There is more information about AfroVillage gathered in this open article: 
Village Collaborative wiki: AfroVillage
(https://wiki.villagecollaborative.net/wiki/AfroVillage_PDX_Project

Afro-Village-logo_2020-09.png

The wiki is, by the way, a recently-launched project of the Village Collaborative network, which was started in 2014 by Andrew Heben who is co-founder of SquareOne Villages, Eugene, and for which I am lead organizer. The wiki just requires registration and confirming an email address in order to edit or add materials -- though edits are monitored and reviewed -- and it uses the same software as Wikipedia. 

The goal is to support knowledge-gathering and community among the many dozens of village-type projects existing or in development in the US and abroad, many of which participate in or have been discussed in Village Collaborative's large Facebook group over the years. It isn't intended to replace or preempt any project's own online presence, but rather to help others get started, provide a helpful gathering or reference point, and perhaps build helpful common knowledge. 

We'd be happy if it can help in documenting and supporting all kinds of village and alternative-shelter/housing projects in Portland, also related issues such as zoning, legal matters, mapping possible sites, etc. Please check it out, try it out, suggest what materials you'd like to see there, etc. 
thanks, Tim 

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


On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:06 PM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:
Click here before Friday, October 2nd to digitally sign a letter to support a Metro Community Placemaking grant proposal for the AfroVillage Movement and the AfroVillage Homebase project. 

Receiving the Metro grant will help ensure that the AfroVillage Movement "that the AfroVillage Movement continues to provide services, resources, and healing spaces to Portland’s most vulnerable population–unhoused individuals–with a focus on racial disparities and inequalities."

LaQuida Landford is doing amazing work in our community that deserves more support. She inspires me and helps ground and center my own efforts to support our unhoused community. Q is a constant reminder that one does not need permission to show compassion or do good work.

Sean

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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Deadline Tomorrow - Support AfroVillage Movement

Sean Green
 

Click here before Friday, October 2nd to digitally sign a letter to support a Metro Community Placemaking grant proposal for the AfroVillage Movement and the AfroVillage Homebase project. 

Receiving the Metro grant will help ensure that the AfroVillage Movement "that the AfroVillage Movement continues to provide services, resources, and healing spaces to Portland’s most vulnerable population–unhoused individuals–with a focus on racial disparities and inequalities."

LaQuida Landford is doing amazing work in our community that deserves more support. She inspires me and helps ground and center my own efforts to support our unhoused community. Q is a constant reminder that one does not need permission to show compassion or do good work.

Sean

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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Re: Tent Camping Solution

Aisha Musa
 

I apologize, Lisa. I don't know why I called you Lynn! My bad.

Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aisha Musa via groups.io <draymusa=gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:
Jeff,
I agree with Lynn Hawash. What you have said is the most honest post I have seen on this list. I also hope people will listen. I see exactly what you have described on a regular basis. I am trying to make a difference here in Old Town, and in talking with other housed residents and businesses in the area, I hear beneath the initial expressions of caring a clear current of hostility toward the unhoused. I fear that as long as the underlying mental attitude is so negative and judgemental, non-punitive solutions will elude us.

Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
I’m trying to be calm. And it’s not too hard to do given participants like John Elizalde and his swirling ideas that are such a good blend of heart, possible next steps, outlines of problem areas, and bottom line a recognition that self run organized camp areas should or even must be a significant part of the solution to the puzzle that homelessness represents. Some (if not most) of David Dickson’s contributions to the discussion are also positive. He is totally right in listing other puzzle pieces that need placement in the solution to homelessness. Pieces like micro camps,  tiny house villages, and even large emergency shelters during bad weather.
 
However for the life of me I can’t figure out why people who seem to have a fairly solid handle on the scope and complexity of the issue. Seem to have empathy. And even demonstrate a can do optimism that the various interests can be balanced and the problem solved.  But then I take a second look and without having to read between the lines a picture emerges in which intentional or not I see the distinct possibility that what many people on this site are after isn’t a war on homelessness but rather a war on the  homeless themselves. 
 
Forgive me if I am distrustful about the motives of the housed. I have been out here well over a decade. To me the biggest problem faced by the homeless isn’t the grinding poverty amidst plenty, isn’t the specific lack of adequate nutrition, or the substandard health care. It isn’t more broadly the lack of standard housing - the cold of winter or the heat waves of Summer.  Even the infuriating over policing or the life disrupting sweeps are not the biggest problem. Instead it is the myriad ways the housed citizens here communicate their disdain of, their disrespect for, their disgust over how we live, eat, dress, or even how we work collecting bottles, scrapping, repairing bikes. One of the few things we can count on day in and day out is that we will be looked down on, that we will hear derogatory put downs and jokes from those who walk by. More likely though is that people will cross the street to avoid us. The unfair judgement by so many (even children) is simply an everyday reality in plain sight etched on their faces and reflected in their eyes.

Of course this is not the case for all citizens but those citizens are clearly in the minority otherwise we wouldn’t so consistently elect politicians and end up with all the anti-homeless public policies that persist year after year and decade after decade. The vast majority just want us to disappear. The use of sweeps while almost never taking us to court with any type of due process makes it clear that sweeps are not a law enforcement endeavor but rather a conscious plan to constantly harass us. To what end?

To make us disappear. To drive us out of town or drive us to suicide or force us into mass shelters or coax us into camps in places we don’t want to be and with people we don’t want to see.

So, forgive me but I’m skeptical and distrustful of what housed people say and do even when they appear to be do-gooders like so many on this site.
I can’t help but think for all their seeming concern for the homeless and their calls for better governmental policy, it may all just be a smokescreen, a sugar coated pill to get us to go along with the real plan of just making the homeless not homelessness disappear. Out of sight out of mind which both mass shelters and camps accomplish. Meanwhile all of it is clearly motivated by the often clearly stated goal of justifying much more vigorous and probably violent sweeps that don’t just harass and take/destroy belongings but also include arrests, enhanced charges, and longer periods of incarceration. After all with shelters (whether indoors or outdoors) plus all the other oh so swell transitional and low income housing options how can anyone fail to go along to get along. Thus justifying more and more devastating sweeps.

Hell, local officials (pushed by the corporate elite and backed by the majority of citizens), won’t wait for all your camps and diverse options to be in place before they step up their sweeping. As soon as a couple seemingly new things are in the pipeline they will point to how they are providing solutions that leave no excuse for any more unauthorized camping. By demonizing the homeless by using the rap that camping on public property is wrong, that those who camp on sidewalks are lawless, an eyesore, and a threat to public health wealth and apple pie (or as put somewhere in this thread describing campers as violent, drug fueled, sewer dwellers) the whole negative narrative about the homeless and the justification for sweeps is firmed up even more.

On top of that even many in the public who are actually concerned about the homeless will be somewhat mollified by all the promises of programs (camps and more) that may or may not come and even if they did they will probably not be as rosy as you envision.

By the way who determines exactly when things are rosy enough? David Dickson (on this thread) says ‘the goal of our programs should be to give everyone enough options so that they can choose the right one for themselves. Sounds good but what does that mean? Who and how is it to be determined that there are enough options? It won’t just be obvious like Dickson makes it sound. The more options the higher the cost. There will be pressures initially and at any point in the future to limit the options in both quantity and quality. Is there a threshold at which it’s understandable that a person would not want to choose any of your options? 

What’s worse and feeds into my questions about priorities and motives is that Dickson next says, "once we hit this point (wherein the homeless have adequate options) we as a community will have the legal and moral authority to ban all ad hoc camping." Then he goes on at length [..] about how we are a threat to ourselves, [...] to community health. I gotta say I am sick and tired of hearing that line. [...] So many on this site or in government may sound like they care but when it comes to the important matters like when are there enough options [...] just more of the same.The same old painting of the homeless [...]. The same old [...] goal of making us disappear. The same old justifications for sweeps, maybe even harsher ones because this stupid charade came wrapped in such a pretty bow of b***sh*t.
[...]
 
[..] - edited by moderator for community policy. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:51 PM Jim Krauel <jimmykrauel@...> wrote:
John, I love your effort and I love the fact that you added, "Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or remarkable."
 
This is entirely true, but some of our leading advocates and policy makers keep saying, "We must find new ideas on how to combat homelessness.  Those words just serve as a distraction and allow some to just kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road.
 
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to place actionable items in front of those who have the authority to foster the action.
 
Blessing to each of you, I remain in awe of your wisdom and grace.
Jim Krauel

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:53 PM John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD
 
John Elizalde
503 740 9810

 

 

 

 


Re: Tent Camping Solution

Aisha Musa
 

Jeff,
I agree with Lynn Hawash. What you have said is the most honest post I have seen on this list. I also hope people will listen. I see exactly what you have described on a regular basis. I am trying to make a difference here in Old Town, and in talking with other housed residents and businesses in the area, I hear beneath the initial expressions of caring a clear current of hostility toward the unhoused. I fear that as long as the underlying mental attitude is so negative and judgemental, non-punitive solutions will elude us.

Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC









On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
I’m trying to be calm. And it’s not too hard to do given participants like John Elizalde and his swirling ideas that are such a good blend of heart, possible next steps, outlines of problem areas, and bottom line a recognition that self run organized camp areas should or even must be a significant part of the solution to the puzzle that homelessness represents. Some (if not most) of David Dickson’s contributions to the discussion are also positive. He is totally right in listing other puzzle pieces that need placement in the solution to homelessness. Pieces like micro camps,  tiny house villages, and even large emergency shelters during bad weather.
 
However for the life of me I can’t figure out why people who seem to have a fairly solid handle on the scope and complexity of the issue. Seem to have empathy. And even demonstrate a can do optimism that the various interests can be balanced and the problem solved.  But then I take a second look and without having to read between the lines a picture emerges in which intentional or not I see the distinct possibility that what many people on this site are after isn’t a war on homelessness but rather a war on the  homeless themselves. 
 
Forgive me if I am distrustful about the motives of the housed. I have been out here well over a decade. To me the biggest problem faced by the homeless isn’t the grinding poverty amidst plenty, isn’t the specific lack of adequate nutrition, or the substandard health care. It isn’t more broadly the lack of standard housing - the cold of winter or the heat waves of Summer.  Even the infuriating over policing or the life disrupting sweeps are not the biggest problem. Instead it is the myriad ways the housed citizens here communicate their disdain of, their disrespect for, their disgust over how we live, eat, dress, or even how we work collecting bottles, scrapping, repairing bikes. One of the few things we can count on day in and day out is that we will be looked down on, that we will hear derogatory put downs and jokes from those who walk by. More likely though is that people will cross the street to avoid us. The unfair judgement by so many (even children) is simply an everyday reality in plain sight etched on their faces and reflected in their eyes.

Of course this is not the case for all citizens but those citizens are clearly in the minority otherwise we wouldn’t so consistently elect politicians and end up with all the anti-homeless public policies that persist year after year and decade after decade. The vast majority just want us to disappear. The use of sweeps while almost never taking us to court with any type of due process makes it clear that sweeps are not a law enforcement endeavor but rather a conscious plan to constantly harass us. To what end?

To make us disappear. To drive us out of town or drive us to suicide or force us into mass shelters or coax us into camps in places we don’t want to be and with people we don’t want to see.

So, forgive me but I’m skeptical and distrustful of what housed people say and do even when they appear to be do-gooders like so many on this site.
I can’t help but think for all their seeming concern for the homeless and their calls for better governmental policy, it may all just be a smokescreen, a sugar coated pill to get us to go along with the real plan of just making the homeless not homelessness disappear. Out of sight out of mind which both mass shelters and camps accomplish. Meanwhile all of it is clearly motivated by the often clearly stated goal of justifying much more vigorous and probably violent sweeps that don’t just harass and take/destroy belongings but also include arrests, enhanced charges, and longer periods of incarceration. After all with shelters (whether indoors or outdoors) plus all the other oh so swell transitional and low income housing options how can anyone fail to go along to get along. Thus justifying more and more devastating sweeps.

Hell, local officials (pushed by the corporate elite and backed by the majority of citizens), won’t wait for all your camps and diverse options to be in place before they step up their sweeping. As soon as a couple seemingly new things are in the pipeline they will point to how they are providing solutions that leave no excuse for any more unauthorized camping. By demonizing the homeless by using the rap that camping on public property is wrong, that those who camp on sidewalks are lawless, an eyesore, and a threat to public health wealth and apple pie (or as put somewhere in this thread describing campers as violent, drug fueled, sewer dwellers) the whole negative narrative about the homeless and the justification for sweeps is firmed up even more.

On top of that even many in the public who are actually concerned about the homeless will be somewhat mollified by all the promises of programs (camps and more) that may or may not come and even if they did they will probably not be as rosy as you envision.

By the way who determines exactly when things are rosy enough? David Dickson (on this thread) says ‘the goal of our programs should be to give everyone enough options so that they can choose the right one for themselves. Sounds good but what does that mean? Who and how is it to be determined that there are enough options? It won’t just be obvious like Dickson makes it sound. The more options the higher the cost. There will be pressures initially and at any point in the future to limit the options in both quantity and quality. Is there a threshold at which it’s understandable that a person would not want to choose any of your options? 

What’s worse and feeds into my questions about priorities and motives is that Dickson next says, "once we hit this point (wherein the homeless have adequate options) we as a community will have the legal and moral authority to ban all ad hoc camping." Then he goes on at length [..] about how we are a threat to ourselves, [...] to community health. I gotta say I am sick and tired of hearing that line. [...] So many on this site or in government may sound like they care but when it comes to the important matters like when are there enough options [...] just more of the same.The same old painting of the homeless [...]. The same old [...] goal of making us disappear. The same old justifications for sweeps, maybe even harsher ones because this stupid charade came wrapped in such a pretty bow of b***sh*t.
[...]
 
[..] - edited by moderator for community policy. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:51 PM Jim Krauel <jimmykrauel@...> wrote:
John, I love your effort and I love the fact that you added, "Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or remarkable."
 
This is entirely true, but some of our leading advocates and policy makers keep saying, "We must find new ideas on how to combat homelessness.  Those words just serve as a distraction and allow some to just kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road.
 
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to place actionable items in front of those who have the authority to foster the action.
 
Blessing to each of you, I remain in awe of your wisdom and grace.
Jim Krauel

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:53 PM John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD
 
John Elizalde
503 740 9810

 

 

 

 


Thank you

Jeff Liddicoat
 



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...>
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 4:35 AM
Subject: Thank you
To: <lhawash@...>


Your comment on pdxshelterforum was very welcomed. I feel pretty outnumbered there. They mostly say they feel bad about homelessness, but a lot of them you can tell are just chomping at the bit to get a clear path to sweep and sweep and sweep some more. Increases in shelter beds (given various court rulings) would make sweeps more defensible in court. Forcing people into shelters results at some point in a very bad situation for those who resist and continue with independent urban camping (as well as group camping). The bad situation occurs when the numbers of people camping are reduced enough that they become vulnerable to being overwhelmed by both police and private security. At that point not only can the sweeps become overly frequent the prosecutor and police will feel more free to actually pursue convictions (which at present they rarely do) and along with that they will probably seek longer jail sentences and steeper fines.
And so perhaps the sheep’s in wolve’s clothing will help me get ready for being outnumbered in  a more problematic way.
In the meantime I hope you will check in with pdxshelterforum and offer a bit of balance like your comment the other day did.
Again thank you .
Jeff Liddicoat 
(503)482-3188


NGA River District Navigation Center

Portland Shelter Forum
 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <don@...>
Date: Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: [pdxshelterforum] NGA River District Navigation Center
To: Portland Shelter Forum <pdxshelterforum@...>
Cc: Lisa Marandas <lmarandas@...>


Jeff:  Thanks for your questions.  My responses are below:

 

  1. I do not know what the practice of local municipalities in Idaho are in light of the Miller v. Boise decision by the 9th Circuit.  I do believe that the Boise decision and the Grant’s Pass decision(s) lay the groundwork for further litigation in other circuits seeking to declare that homeless and displaced persons have the right to safe and sanitary housing which may not be abridged by the jurisdiction in which they are located.  Several national homeless advocate organizations are pressing this claim forward.
  2. In Oregon, home rule cities, of which Portland is one, may enact reasonable limitations on the use of public property; however, it appears to be resolved by the City Attorney that tents are allowed to use public sidewalks so long as those sidewalks are not blocked to normal pedestrian traffic.  This is not a state law, but a local policy which has not been successfully challenged.
  3. Public officials, largely the officers of the Portland Police Bureau, may and do remove obstacles blocking rights of way on public property as well as materials which may present a public health or safety problem.  Homeless camps and tents, including the individuals who occupy them, are routinely cleared as part of the necessary “welfare check” sanction.
  4. Oregon Harbor of Hope programs include a mobile assistance program which serves more than 700 homeless people on the streets in six locations each week, providing shelters, laundry and food.  We work in cooperation with the Portland Police Bureau, the Portland Police Association and neighborhood associtions, without which such services would not be available.  Our work is supported entirely by private donations and volunteers.  Our observation is that the number of houseless persons, including families, has increased greatly during the pandemic and economic recession, perhaps by as much as fifty percent.  While public shelter space has also increased greatly due to the efforts of the Joint Office on Homelessness and non-profit organizations, the shelter available is nowhere close to needs the needs of the unhoused population.

 

Don Mazziotti

503-936-7974

 

From: Portland Shelter Forum <pdxshelterforum@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 12:32 PM
To: don@...
Subject: Fwd: [pdxshelterforum] NGA River District Navigation Center

 

to reply to list, send to pdxshelterforum@groups.io

You can also join the list, by requesting at pdxshelterforum.org

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...>
Date: Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] NGA River District Navigation Center
To: <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>

 

Thank you Don for that nice clear statement regarding the current law of the land. It would be nice if people as well as local officials would also reflect 

on the spirit of that law. And since you seem up to speed on such matters perhaps you could answer a couple  related questions.

Correct if I’m wrong but isn’t it true that Boise for example still leaves municipalities more or less free to clear sidewalks are obstructed, or to in effect sweep people from public land by citing them for illegal camping, or erecting of a temporary structure,

conduct an arrest and take personal property (including tarps, tents, sleeping bags and the like)? Is this what is meant by an abatement ?

What does an abatement mean? Does it allow police to siege things they consider trash or an eyesore making no pretense to be. acting with any other statutory authority? Again thank you for reminding everyone about Boise and Blake.

Jeff LIddicoat

 

 

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:03 PM Trena Sutton <thegirlsok@...> wrote:

 In any contract the premise is based on a meeting of the minds ithat both sides would benefit to some degree. 

 

 It’s been a few years since I created this GNA  for the now defunct camp. A few people set up tents on PBOT  land without authorization from the city  (Occupy the land now and ask forgiveness later).  A former local Pastor (who did not reside there) set it up and created the Code of Conduct.  As I stated in the aforementioned it turned out to not be  Worth the paper it was written on despite his honorable efforts. I talked with him about the Good Neighbor Agreement. Each side would agree to the terms of the agreement  and negative actions would not be taken by either side unless the terms of the GNA were violated.

 

Even if it could not be adjudicated in the traditional sense a Civil Court would be obliged to hear the merits of an agreement that has been “Grandathered” in.

 

 Since this particular sanction camp violated the terms of the  GNA  immediately it became moot and would not even been considered.  Until a significant time has passed do you have something Grandathered in  nothing may be actionable but the surrounding community would feel a bit more secure and  would be more receptive. The NAV center has saved countless lives  but they faceed (and continue to face) some  pushback. Some misguided community members feel it’s much safer to have people living in desperation on the streets instead of being in places of safety. You can’t confuse some people with logic.

 

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM <don@...> wrote:

 

Ms. Witt, et. al., Good Neighbor Agreements do not have the force of law; however, Oregon Harbor of Hope has and will continue to follow the provisions of the GNA developed more than a year ago to govern the operation of the navigation center.

 

 

 

Oregon Harbor of Hope does not have police power nor does the GNA signed in good faith pre-empt federal, state or local laws.  Two court decisions – Martin v. Boise and Blake v. Grants Pass declare, as a matter of constitutional law, that neither criminal nor civil penalties may be enforced against homeless persons occupying public property.  Sidewalks, rights-of-way and other such property are encompassed by these recent decisions and apply to Portland, including private parties who may be offended by the occupation of public property by persons otherwise without shelter.

 

 

 

In addition to these constitutional protections on public property, neither Oregon Harbor of Hope nor Transition Projects, Inc. can enforce rights nor objections held by private persons on private property.  If uninvited persons are trespassing on private property, private owners, at their discretion, must seek self help or contact the Single Point of Contact, the Portland Police Bureau or legally-authorized security agents for relief.

 

 

 

Our intention, always, is to follow applicable law and to continue to advocate for the rights and  provide for the needs of the less fortunate among us.  We invite you to join us in that mission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don Mazziotti

 

503-936-7974

 

 

 











Re: NGA River District Navigation Center

Jeff Liddicoat
 

Thank you Don for that nice clear statement regarding the current law of the land. It would be nice if people as well as local officials would also reflect 
on the spirit of that law. And since you seem up to speed on such matters perhaps you could answer a couple  related questions.
Correct if I’m wrong but isn’t it true that Boise for example still leaves municipalities more or less free to clear sidewalks are obstructed, or to in effect sweep people from public land by citing them for illegal camping, or erecting of a temporary structure,
conduct an arrest and take personal property (including tarps, tents, sleeping bags and the like)? Is this what is meant by an abatement ?
What does an abatement mean? Does it allow police to siege things they consider trash or an eyesore making no pretense to be. acting with any other statutory authority? Again thank you for reminding everyone about Boise and Blake.
Jeff LIddicoat


On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 2:03 PM Trena Sutton <thegirlsok@...> wrote:
 In any contract the premise is based on a meeting of the minds ithat both sides would benefit to some degree. 

 It’s been a few years since I created this GNA  for the now defunct camp. A few people set up tents on PBOT  land without authorization from the city  (Occupy the land now and ask forgiveness later).  A former local Pastor (who did not reside there) set it up and created the Code of Conduct.  As I stated in the aforementioned it turned out to not be  Worth the paper it was written on despite his honorable efforts. I talked with him about the Good Neighbor Agreement. Each side would agree to the terms of the agreement  and negative actions would not be taken by either side unless the terms of the GNA were violated.

Even if it could not be adjudicated in the traditional sense a Civil Court would be obliged to hear the merits of an agreement that has been “Grandathered” in.

 Since this particular sanction camp violated the terms of the  GNA  immediately it became moot and would not even been considered.  Until a significant time has passed do you have something Grandathered in  nothing may be actionable but the surrounding community would feel a bit more secure and  would be more receptive. The NAV center has saved countless lives  but they faceed (and continue to face) some  pushback. Some misguided community members feel it’s much safer to have people living in desperation on the streets instead of being in places of safety. You can’t confuse some people with logic.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM <don@...> wrote:


Ms. Witt, et. al., Good Neighbor Agreements do not have the force of law; however, Oregon Harbor of Hope has and will continue to follow the provisions of the GNA developed more than a year ago to govern the operation of the navigation center.



 



Oregon Harbor of Hope does not have police power nor does the GNA signed in good faith pre-empt federal, state or local laws.  Two court decisions – Martin v. Boise and Blake v. Grants Pass declare, as a matter of constitutional law, that neither criminal nor civil penalties may be enforced against homeless persons occupying public property.  Sidewalks, rights-of-way and other such property are encompassed by these recent decisions and apply to Portland, including private parties who may be offended by the occupation of public property by persons otherwise without shelter.



 



In addition to these constitutional protections on public property, neither Oregon Harbor of Hope nor Transition Projects, Inc. can enforce rights nor objections held by private persons on private property.  If uninvited persons are trespassing on private property, private owners, at their discretion, must seek self help or contact the Single Point of Contact, the Portland Police Bureau or legally-authorized security agents for relief.



 



Our intention, always, is to follow applicable law and to continue to advocate for the rights and  provide for the needs of the less fortunate among us.  We invite you to join us in that mission.



 



 



 



Don Mazziotti



503-936-7974



 














Re: NGA River District Navigation Center

Trena Sutton
 

 In any contract the premise is based on a meeting of the minds in that both sides would benefit to some degree. 

 It’s been a few years since I created this GNA  for the now defunct camp. A few people set up tents on PBOT  land without authorization from the city  (Occupy the land now and ask forgiveness later).  A former local Pastor (who did not reside there) set it up and created the Code of Conduct.  As I stated in the aforementioned it turned out to not be  Worth the paper it was written on despite his honorable efforts. I talked with him about the Good Neighbor Agreement. Each side would agree to the terms of the agreement  and negative actions would not be taken by either side unless the terms of the GNA were violated.

Even if it could not be adjudicated in the traditional sense a Civil Court would be obliged to hear the merits of an agreement that has been “Grandathered” in.

 Since this particular sanction camp violated the terms of the  GNA  immediately it became moot and would not even been considered.  Until a significant time has passed do you have something Grandathered in  nothing may be actionable but the surrounding community would feel a bit more secure and  would be more receptive. The NAV center has saved countless lives  but they faceed (and continue to face) some  pushback. Some misguided community members feel it’s much safer to have people living in desperation on the streets instead of being in places of safety. You can’t confuse some people with logic.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM <don@...> wrote:


Ms. Witt, et. al., Good Neighbor Agreements do not have the force of law; however, Oregon Harbor of Hope has and will continue to follow the provisions of the GNA developed more than a year ago to govern the operation of the navigation center.



 



Oregon Harbor of Hope does not have police power nor does the GNA signed in good faith pre-empt federal, state or local laws.  Two court decisions – Martin v. Boise and Blake v. Grants Pass declare, as a matter of constitutional law, that neither criminal nor civil penalties may be enforced against homeless persons occupying public property.  Sidewalks, rights-of-way and other such property are encompassed by these recent decisions and apply to Portland, including private parties who may be offended by the occupation of public property by persons otherwise without shelter.



 



In addition to these constitutional protections on public property, neither Oregon Harbor of Hope nor Transition Projects, Inc. can enforce rights nor objections held by private persons on private property.  If uninvited persons are trespassing on private property, private owners, at their discretion, must seek self help or contact the Single Point of Contact, the Portland Police Bureau or legally-authorized security agents for relief.



 



Our intention, always, is to follow applicable law and to continue to advocate for the rights and  provide for the needs of the less fortunate among us.  We invite you to join us in that mission.



 



 



 



Don Mazziotti



503-936-7974



 














NGA River District Navigation Center

don@...
 

Ms. Witt, et. al., Good Neighbor Agreements do not have the force of law; however, Oregon Harbor of Hope has and will continue to follow the provisions of the GNA developed more than a year ago to govern the operation of the navigation center.

 

Oregon Harbor of Hope does not have police power nor does the GNA signed in good faith pre-empt federal, state or local laws.  Two court decisions – Martin v. Boise and Blake v. Grants Pass declare, as a matter of constitutional law, that neither criminal nor civil penalties may be enforced against homeless persons occupying public property.  Sidewalks, rights-of-way and other such property are encompassed by these recent decisions and apply to Portland, including private parties who may be offended by the occupation of public property by persons otherwise without shelter.

 

In addition to these constitutional protections on public property, neither Oregon Harbor of Hope nor Transition Projects, Inc. can enforce rights nor objections held by private persons on private property.  If uninvited persons are trespassing on private property, private owners, at their discretion, must seek self help or contact the Single Point of Contact, the Portland Police Bureau or legally-authorized security agents for relief.

 

Our intention, always, is to follow applicable law and to continue to advocate for the rights and  provide for the needs of the less fortunate among us.  We invite you to join us in that mission.

 

 

 

Don Mazziotti

503-936-7974

 


Re: Good Neighbor Agreement

Trena Sutton
 

 I admit a GNA is  problematic to enforce But the effort Has to be made.  This not only is intended to protect the city  and/or  The neighborhood but also it’s there to protect the residence of a sanction camp. 

 No one wants to find themselves  on the business end of litigation. The one thing I did not put in to the GNA for the now closed Forgotten Realms  was  an Agreement  that the sanction campaign would have liability insurance. The city did not require it and now they are in litigation over the Coleman stove explosion which was not the person‘s fault. She had fired up that     Stove many times with out an issue. It cost her and her husband everything they owned and even took the life of their little dog. 

 It wasn’t the first GNA I created  and others have been in place and have been successful but unfortunately  it was the campers themselves that violated not only the Good Neighbor Agreement  but the Code of Conduct  before the ink had dried so  it’s imperative that it be enforced. Businesses coming into a neighborhood I have been successful in convincing the surrounding neighborhood that they would be good stewards and that was promised on a GNA.

On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 9:17 AM Linda Witt <linda.witt@...> wrote:
The GNAs are a valiant effort but in my limited experience they have been unenforceable. There was an official GNA for the Harbor of Hope site on Naito Pkwy which promised there would be no loitering and camping around the facility. The camping happened anyway and when I asked TP about the GNA they said it wasn't enforceable.



Linda Witt



-----Original Message-----

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trena Sutton

Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 8:26 AM

To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io

Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Good Neighbor Agreement



This was the Good Neighbor Agreement I created as a template
























Re: Good Neighbor Agreement

Linda Witt <linda.witt@...>
 

The GNAs are a valiant effort but in my limited experience they have been unenforceable. There was an official GNA for the Harbor of Hope site on Naito Pkwy which promised there would be no loitering and camping around the facility. The camping happened anyway and when I asked TP about the GNA they said it wasn't enforceable.

Linda Witt

-----Original Message-----
From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Trena Sutton
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2020 8:26 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Good Neighbor Agreement

This was the Good Neighbor Agreement I created as a template


Good Neighbor Agreement

Trena Sutton
 

This was the Good Neighbor Agreement I created as a template


Re: Tent Camping Solution

Trena Sutton
 

I too am trying to stay calm. It’s easy to take cheap shots at what I posted about a former sanctioned camp that that Les Warden referred to that the City is currently in litigation after a home owner’s home was caught on fire. He wasn’t there, I was there often and even stayed over occasionally. It had open drug use, rampant theft (even from Red Cross), drug dealing and domestic abuse to the extreme. Everyone signed a Code of Conduct that was never followed. It was a sewer but more appropriate it was “Lord of the Flies”. I was asked to create an enforceable “Good Neighbor Agreement” that was legally binding but the camp dwellers had already violated it over and over.

That being said to clarify, my posting was to amplify the need to have a Code of Conduct that is enforced. I also provided a synopsis of why R2D2 works. The City of Portland may not be receptive to additional organized camps because of the pending litigation with the home owner.

To entice the City to not only sanction an organized camp but to be a partner in any project they have to feel comfortable in doing so, they do not like being pulled
into court. Any project would need 

1.) A Code of Conduct

2.) A Good Neighbor Agreement 

3.) Liability Insurance

I offered examples of what
works and what does not work, it was never intended to be an indictment on all homeless.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify my position



On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:


















I’m trying to be calm. And it’s not too hard to do given participants like John Elizalde and his swirling ideas that are such a good blend of heart, possible next steps, outlines of problem areas, and bottom line a recognition that self run organized camp areas should or even must be a significant part of the solution to the puzzle that homelessness represents. Some (if not most) of David Dickson’s contributions to the discussion are also positive. He is totally right in listing other puzzle pieces that need placement in the solution to homelessness. Pieces like micro camps,  tiny house villages, and even large emergency shelters during bad weather.


 










However for the life of me I can’t figure out why people who seem to have a fairly solid handle on the scope and complexity of the issue. Seem to have empathy. And even demonstrate a can do optimism that the various interests can be balanced and the problem solved.  But then I take a second look and without having to read between the lines a picture emerges in which intentional or not I see the distinct possibility that what many people on this site are after isn’t a war on homelessness but rather a war on the  homeless themselves. 






 


Forgive me if I am distrustful about the motives of the housed. I have been out here well over a decade. To me the biggest problem faced by the homeless isn’t the grinding poverty amidst plenty, isn’t the specific lack of adequate nutrition, or the substandard health care. It isn’t more broadly the lack of standard housing - the cold of winter or the heat waves of Summer.  Even the infuriating over policing or the life disrupting sweeps are not the biggest problem. Instead it is the myriad ways the housed citizens here communicate their disdain of, their disrespect for, their disgust over how we live, eat, dress, or even how we work collecting bottles, scrapping, repairing bikes. One of the few things we can count on day in and day out is that we will be looked down on, that we will hear derogatory put downs and jokes from those who walk by. More likely though is that people will cross the street to avoid us. The unfair judgement by so many (even children) is simply an everyday reality in plain sight etched on their faces and reflected in their eyes.



Of course this is not the case for all citizens but those citizens are clearly in the minority otherwise we wouldn’t so consistently elect politicians and end up with all the anti-homeless public policies that persist year after year and decade after decade. The vast majority just want us to disappear. The use of sweeps while almost never taking us to court with any type of due process makes it clear that sweeps are not a law enforcement endeavor but rather a conscious plan to constantly harass us. To what end?



To make us disappear. To drive us out of town or drive us to suicide or force us into mass shelters or coax us into camps in places we don’t want to be and with people we don’t want to see.



So, forgive me but I’m skeptical and distrustful of what housed people say and do even when they appear to be do-gooders like so many on this site.


I can’t help but think for all their seeming concern for the homeless and their calls for better governmental policy, it may all just be a smokescreen, a sugar coated pill to get us to go along with the real plan of just making the homeless not homelessness disappear. Out of sight out of mind which both mass shelters and camps accomplish. Meanwhile all of it is clearly motivated by the often clearly stated goal of justifying much more vigorous and probably violent sweeps that don’t just harass and take/destroy belongings but also include arrests, enhanced charges, and longer periods of incarceration. After all with shelters (whether indoors or outdoors) plus all the other oh so swell transitional and low income housing options how can anyone fail to go along to get along. Thus justifying more and more devastating sweeps.

Hell, local officials (pushed by the corporate elite and backed by the majority of citizens), won’t wait for all your camps and diverse options to be in place before they step up their sweeping. As soon as a couple seemingly new things are in the pipeline they will point to how they are providing solutions that leave no excuse for any more unauthorized camping. By demonizing the homeless by using the rap that camping on public property is wrong, that those who camp on sidewalks are lawless, an eyesore, and a threat to public health wealth and apple pie (or as put somewhere in this thread describing campers as violent, drug fueled, sewer dwellers) the whole negative narrative about the homeless and the justification for sweeps is firmed up even more.

On top of that even many in the public who are actually concerned about the homeless will be somewhat mollified by all the promises of programs (camps and more) that may or may not come and even if they did they will probably not be as rosy as you envision.



















By the way who determines exactly when things are rosy enough? David Dickson (on this thread) says ‘the goal of our programs should be to give everyone enough options so that they can choose the right one for themselves. Sounds good but what does that mean? Who and how is it to be determined that there are enough options? It won’t just be obvious like Dickson makes it sound. The more options the higher the cost. There will be pressures initially and at any point in the future to limit the options in both quantity and quality. Is there a threshold at which it’s understandable that a person would not want to choose any of your options? 



































What’s worse and feeds into my questions about priorities and motives is that Dickson next says, "once we hit this point (wherein the homeless have adequate options) we as a community will have the legal and moral authority to ban all ad hoc camping." Then he goes on at length [..] about how we are a threat to ourselves, [...] to community health. I gotta say I am sick and tired of hearing that line. [...] So many on this site or in government may sound like they care but when it comes to the important matters like when are there enough options [...] just more of the same.The same old painting of the homeless [...]. The same old [...] goal of making us disappear. The same old justifications for sweeps, maybe even harsher ones because this stupid charade came wrapped in such a pretty bow of b***sh*t.




















[...]
























 


[..] - edited by moderator for community policy. 







On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:51 PM Jim Krauel <jimmykrauel@...> wrote:






John, I love your effort and I love the fact that you added, "Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or remarkable."


 


This is entirely true, but some of our leading advocates and policy makers keep saying, "We must find new ideas on how to combat homelessness.  Those words just serve as a distraction and allow some to just kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road.


 


We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to place actionable items in front of those who have the authority to foster the action.


 


Blessing to each of you, I remain in awe of your wisdom and grace.


Jim Krauel









On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:53 PM John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:






I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.




A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.




Then:










  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.


  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.


  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.


  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.


  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.


  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?


  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).


  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.


  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.


  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.


  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  


  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.










Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD


 






John Elizalde


503 740 9810








 



 







 



 








































Re: Tent Camping Solution

Lisa Hawash
 

Dear Jeff,

The truest of words have been spoken to this group - I hope folks will just listen. Thank you for educating folks, and I am sorry that you must expend your energy to educate. I imagine it's exhausting. --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 Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 6:30 AM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
I’m trying to be calm. And it’s not too hard to do given participants like John Elizalde and his swirling ideas that are such a good blend of heart, possible next steps, outlines of problem areas, and bottom line a recognition that self run organized camp areas should or even must be a significant part of the solution to the puzzle that homelessness represents. Some (if not most) of David Dickson’s contributions to the discussion are also positive. He is totally right in listing other puzzle pieces that need placement in the solution to homelessness. Pieces like micro camps,  tiny house villages, and even large emergency shelters during bad weather.
 
However for the life of me I can’t figure out why people who seem to have a fairly solid handle on the scope and complexity of the issue. Seem to have empathy. And even demonstrate a can do optimism that the various interests can be balanced and the problem solved.  But then I take a second look and without having to read between the lines a picture emerges in which intentional or not I see the distinct possibility that what many people on this site are after isn’t a war on homelessness but rather a war on the  homeless themselves. 
 
Forgive me if I am distrustful about the motives of the housed. I have been out here well over a decade. To me the biggest problem faced by the homeless isn’t the grinding poverty amidst plenty, isn’t the specific lack of adequate nutrition, or the substandard health care. It isn’t more broadly the lack of standard housing - the cold of winter or the heat waves of Summer.  Even the infuriating over policing or the life disrupting sweeps are not the biggest problem. Instead it is the myriad ways the housed citizens here communicate their disdain of, their disrespect for, their disgust over how we live, eat, dress, or even how we work collecting bottles, scrapping, repairing bikes. One of the few things we can count on day in and day out is that we will be looked down on, that we will hear derogatory put downs and jokes from those who walk by. More likely though is that people will cross the street to avoid us. The unfair judgement by so many (even children) is simply an everyday reality in plain sight etched on their faces and reflected in their eyes.

Of course this is not the case for all citizens but those citizens are clearly in the minority otherwise we wouldn’t so consistently elect politicians and end up with all the anti-homeless public policies that persist year after year and decade after decade. The vast majority just want us to disappear. The use of sweeps while almost never taking us to court with any type of due process makes it clear that sweeps are not a law enforcement endeavor but rather a conscious plan to constantly harass us. To what end?

To make us disappear. To drive us out of town or drive us to suicide or force us into mass shelters or coax us into camps in places we don’t want to be and with people we don’t want to see.

So, forgive me but I’m skeptical and distrustful of what housed people say and do even when they appear to be do-gooders like so many on this site.
I can’t help but think for all their seeming concern for the homeless and their calls for better governmental policy, it may all just be a smokescreen, a sugar coated pill to get us to go along with the real plan of just making the homeless not homelessness disappear. Out of sight out of mind which both mass shelters and camps accomplish. Meanwhile all of it is clearly motivated by the often clearly stated goal of justifying much more vigorous and probably violent sweeps that don’t just harass and take/destroy belongings but also include arrests, enhanced charges, and longer periods of incarceration. After all with shelters (whether indoors or outdoors) plus all the other oh so swell transitional and low income housing options how can anyone fail to go along to get along. Thus justifying more and more devastating sweeps.

Hell, local officials (pushed by the corporate elite and backed by the majority of citizens), won’t wait for all your camps and diverse options to be in place before they step up their sweeping. As soon as a couple seemingly new things are in the pipeline they will point to how they are providing solutions that leave no excuse for any more unauthorized camping. By demonizing the homeless by using the rap that camping on public property is wrong, that those who camp on sidewalks are lawless, an eyesore, and a threat to public health wealth and apple pie (or as put somewhere in this thread describing campers as violent, drug fueled, sewer dwellers) the whole negative narrative about the homeless and the justification for sweeps is firmed up even more.

On top of that even many in the public who are actually concerned about the homeless will be somewhat mollified by all the promises of programs (camps and more) that may or may not come and even if they did they will probably not be as rosy as you envision.

By the way who determines exactly when things are rosy enough? David Dickson (on this thread) says ‘the goal of our programs should be to give everyone enough options so that they can choose the right one for themselves. Sounds good but what does that mean? Who and how is it to be determined that there are enough options? It won’t just be obvious like Dickson makes it sound. The more options the higher the cost. There will be pressures initially and at any point in the future to limit the options in both quantity and quality. Is there a threshold at which it’s understandable that a person would not want to choose any of your options? 

What’s worse and feeds into my questions about priorities and motives is that Dickson next says, "once we hit this point (wherein the homeless have adequate options) we as a community will have the legal and moral authority to ban all ad hoc camping." Then he goes on at length [..] about how we are a threat to ourselves, [...] to community health. I gotta say I am sick and tired of hearing that line. [...] So many on this site or in government may sound like they care but when it comes to the important matters like when are there enough options [...] just more of the same.The same old painting of the homeless [...]. The same old [...] goal of making us disappear. The same old justifications for sweeps, maybe even harsher ones because this stupid charade came wrapped in such a pretty bow of b***sh*t.
[...]
 
[..] - edited by moderator for community policy. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:51 PM Jim Krauel <jimmykrauel@...> wrote:
John, I love your effort and I love the fact that you added, "Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or remarkable."
 
This is entirely true, but some of our leading advocates and policy makers keep saying, "We must find new ideas on how to combat homelessness.  Those words just serve as a distraction and allow some to just kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road.
 
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to place actionable items in front of those who have the authority to foster the action.
 
Blessing to each of you, I remain in awe of your wisdom and grace.
Jim Krauel

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:53 PM John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD
 
John Elizalde
503 740 9810

 

 

 

 


Re: Tent Camping Solution

Jeff Liddicoat
 

I’m trying to be calm. And it’s not too hard to do given participants like John Elizalde and his swirling ideas that are such a good blend of heart, possible next steps, outlines of problem areas, and bottom line a recognition that self run organized camp areas should or even must be a significant part of the solution to the puzzle that homelessness represents. Some (if not most) of David Dickson’s contributions to the discussion are also positive. He is totally right in listing other puzzle pieces that need placement in the solution to homelessness. Pieces like micro camps,  tiny house villages, and even large emergency shelters during bad weather.
 
However for the life of me I can’t figure out why people who seem to have a fairly solid handle on the scope and complexity of the issue. Seem to have empathy. And even demonstrate a can do optimism that the various interests can be balanced and the problem solved.  But then I take a second look and without having to read between the lines a picture emerges in which intentional or not I see the distinct possibility that what many people on this site are after isn’t a war on homelessness but rather a war on the  homeless themselves. 
 
Forgive me if I am distrustful about the motives of the housed. I have been out here well over a decade. To me the biggest problem faced by the homeless isn’t the grinding poverty amidst plenty, isn’t the specific lack of adequate nutrition, or the substandard health care. It isn’t more broadly the lack of standard housing - the cold of winter or the heat waves of Summer.  Even the infuriating over policing or the life disrupting sweeps are not the biggest problem. Instead it is the myriad ways the housed citizens here communicate their disdain of, their disrespect for, their disgust over how we live, eat, dress, or even how we work collecting bottles, scrapping, repairing bikes. One of the few things we can count on day in and day out is that we will be looked down on, that we will hear derogatory put downs and jokes from those who walk by. More likely though is that people will cross the street to avoid us. The unfair judgement by so many (even children) is simply an everyday reality in plain sight etched on their faces and reflected in their eyes.

Of course this is not the case for all citizens but those citizens are clearly in the minority otherwise we wouldn’t so consistently elect politicians and end up with all the anti-homeless public policies that persist year after year and decade after decade. The vast majority just want us to disappear. The use of sweeps while almost never taking us to court with any type of due process makes it clear that sweeps are not a law enforcement endeavor but rather a conscious plan to constantly harass us. To what end?

To make us disappear. To drive us out of town or drive us to suicide or force us into mass shelters or coax us into camps in places we don’t want to be and with people we don’t want to see.

So, forgive me but I’m skeptical and distrustful of what housed people say and do even when they appear to be do-gooders like so many on this site.
I can’t help but think for all their seeming concern for the homeless and their calls for better governmental policy, it may all just be a smokescreen, a sugar coated pill to get us to go along with the real plan of just making the homeless not homelessness disappear. Out of sight out of mind which both mass shelters and camps accomplish. Meanwhile all of it is clearly motivated by the often clearly stated goal of justifying much more vigorous and probably violent sweeps that don’t just harass and take/destroy belongings but also include arrests, enhanced charges, and longer periods of incarceration. After all with shelters (whether indoors or outdoors) plus all the other oh so swell transitional and low income housing options how can anyone fail to go along to get along. Thus justifying more and more devastating sweeps.

Hell, local officials (pushed by the corporate elite and backed by the majority of citizens), won’t wait for all your camps and diverse options to be in place before they step up their sweeping. As soon as a couple seemingly new things are in the pipeline they will point to how they are providing solutions that leave no excuse for any more unauthorized camping. By demonizing the homeless by using the rap that camping on public property is wrong, that those who camp on sidewalks are lawless, an eyesore, and a threat to public health wealth and apple pie (or as put somewhere in this thread describing campers as violent, drug fueled, sewer dwellers) the whole negative narrative about the homeless and the justification for sweeps is firmed up even more.

On top of that even many in the public who are actually concerned about the homeless will be somewhat mollified by all the promises of programs (camps and more) that may or may not come and even if they did they will probably not be as rosy as you envision.

By the way who determines exactly when things are rosy enough? David Dickson (on this thread) says ‘the goal of our programs should be to give everyone enough options so that they can choose the right one for themselves. Sounds good but what does that mean? Who and how is it to be determined that there are enough options? It won’t just be obvious like Dickson makes it sound. The more options the higher the cost. There will be pressures initially and at any point in the future to limit the options in both quantity and quality. Is there a threshold at which it’s understandable that a person would not want to choose any of your options? 

What’s worse and feeds into my questions about priorities and motives is that Dickson next says, "once we hit this point (wherein the homeless have adequate options) we as a community will have the legal and moral authority to ban all ad hoc camping." Then he goes on at length [..] about how we are a threat to ourselves, [...] to community health. I gotta say I am sick and tired of hearing that line. [...] So many on this site or in government may sound like they care but when it comes to the important matters like when are there enough options [...] just more of the same.The same old painting of the homeless [...]. The same old [...] goal of making us disappear. The same old justifications for sweeps, maybe even harsher ones because this stupid charade came wrapped in such a pretty bow of b***sh*t.
[...]
 
[..] - edited by moderator for community policy. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:51 PM Jim Krauel <jimmykrauel@...> wrote:
John, I love your effort and I love the fact that you added, "Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or remarkable."
 
This is entirely true, but some of our leading advocates and policy makers keep saying, "We must find new ideas on how to combat homelessness.  Those words just serve as a distraction and allow some to just kick the proverbial can down the proverbial road.
 
We don't have to reinvent the wheel, we just need to place actionable items in front of those who have the authority to foster the action.
 
Blessing to each of you, I remain in awe of your wisdom and grace.
Jim Krauel

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:53 PM John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:
I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD
 
John Elizalde
503 740 9810

 

 

 

 


Re: Tent Camping Solution

David Dickson
 

A member of our Downtown Neighborhood Assn Homeless/Houseless Team worked for a Seattle organization that sets up small shelter villages for houseless individuals.  Self governance is a key element of these villages.  She indicates that the self governed villages tend to be very strict about a no drug use policy. In fact  residents were often quick to expel people for drug use or other rule violations.  She described this as both a good thing and also a problem, as it put people back out on the street.   Also, she said that the original intent of creating turnover by moving people on to permanent housing was a challenge because once communities formed, people were more inclined to stay.  She said that people were more happy in these self governed communities than in shelters that are not self governed.  

On Sep 25, 2020, at 7:28 PM, Trena Sutton <thegirlsok@...> wrote:

 That was forgotten realms. It was on PBOT  property near Emmanuel hospital. One of the residence was firing up her Coleman stove to make her husband coffee and it caught on fire. I had a temp there for when I was going to spend time working with the people but I only stayed there a couple times because it was such a violent  drug fueled sewer.  I was there to try to help people but they weren’t interested. That said not every tent city is that way. Right to Dream Too had a  reasonable code of  conduct Which included no violence or drugs or alcohol on the property. When a code of conduct is in place that doesn’t mean you will not have issues  but if the code of conduct is enforced it can be very workable. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:21 PM Les Wardenaar <Wardenaar@...> wrote:
















I believe that the City is currently fighting a lawsuit brought by   a neighbor who suffered fire and smoke damage from a camper "cooking"

their food on City property (i.e. embers of flames caught the adjoining house on fire). I am probably distorting the story badly but I think in general "liability" in this context covers actions taken by "campers" that cause damage to property or persons.





From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...>


Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:24 AM


To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>


Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Tent Camping Solution


 






John,







This is great, thank you.







What does it mean to assume liability as described in #3 below?  Can anyone give examples of situations where liability has come into play?  There’s a plan floating around the Neighborhood Associations that would involve asking private land owners

to allow small groups to camp on their land and I know liability will come up but don’t really understand what it means in this context.







Thank you!







-Matt Lembo









On Sep 24, 2020, at 8:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:















I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.






A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.




Then:












  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer

    a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space

    for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of

    expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with

    the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps

    up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.










Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD















John Elizalde




503 740 9810






























Re: Tent Camping Solution

David Dickson
 

Feel free to post.  And I am working on making this an op ed.  

david

On Sep 25, 2020, at 2:03 PM, Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:

David--

I seriously think you ought to submit this as an op-ed piece to the Oregonian, Mercury, Willamette Week and send it off to City Hall, Multnomah County commissioners, the Governor or anyone else in authority. It's brilliant.

Do you mind if I post it wherever it's appropriate?

Candee Wilson
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332
On 9/25/2020 8:30 AM, David Dickson wrote:
Very well said, John Elizalde!  I have something to add to the voluntary vs mandatory debate.  It doesn’t have to be either San Quentin or anything goes.  The key to the shelter strategy is diversity.  Everything from motel rooms for the infirm and at risk to micro landing campsites to large shelter/rehab facilities like Bybee Lakes Hope Center to parking lots for campers to mini house villages to large temporary/emergency shelters (especially in bad weather).  The goal should be to provide enough options so that our unhoused neighbors can make a choice that is right for them.  The community will have done its part by providing enough options to meet the needs of the unhoused.  At that point the community would be well within its rights from a legal and moral position to forbid ad hoc camping, which is both unsafe, unsanitary and a bad choice for all parties, especially the unhoused. Ultimately we all have to make a choice where we live.  Given that we have yet to discover the secret to a utopian society, everyone will not have equal choices.  But in my mind society has no obligation to grant a person the choice to live in an unsafe and unsanitary location that is harmful to both the individual and the community at large.  In fact society has an obligation to make sure this does not occur.

 Is A Shelter for Everyone too great a challenge for the people of Portland?  Was putting a human being on the moon too great a challenge for the US in 1968?  Was building what FDR called the Arsenal of Democracy too great a challenge for US to defeat Hitler in WWII?  Was public ownership of the Pacific coastline too big a challenge for Oregon?  Was the creation of Waterfront Park and the East Bank Esplanade and the Chinese Garden too great a challenge for the city of Portland?  To win the war on homelessness is a big goal, which will require many people stepping up to the plate in many ways.  It will require elected leaders who think big and are willing to use their bully pulpit to inspire us. Practically speaking, it will require us to spend the Metro 26-210 money wisely and place far greater emphasis on those who are living unsheltered in our community.  And government alone cannot solve the problem.  It will require the private sector to step up in a big way.  But this is possible.  Portland and other west coast cities not only have the greatest homelessness problems in the country.  They also have some of the most progressive populations and the most successful businesses in the country.  There is a saying that great ideas don’t fail for lack of money.  A dynamic Portland plan will surely entice the Amazons and the Apples and the Nikes and the Columbia Sportswears and the Microsofts to step up to the plate.  If Phil Knight gave $500 millions and $125 million to OHSU to fight cancer and cardiovascular disease, what would he and others give to fight the battle of our generation, homelessness?

And the problem goes far beyond shelter.  The national investment in high rises did not alone solve the problems of poverty and crime in the inner cities in the mid 20th century.  The solution begins with people.  We will need to do a far better job addressing the mental health and addiction challenges that our people face. Equally important, will need to help our unhoused neighbors connect to the world of work, as it is job skills, employment and self sufficiency that ultimately build pride and dignity in human beings.  It will require a brigade of community organizers to assist our houseless neighbors in setting up self governing communities that are capable of improving the quality of life for their residents. 

Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that holds a death grip on Portland and communities around the country, particularly on the west coast.  But we can beat homelessness, Portland, and if we succeed, it will become a model for the rest of the country.  

Thanks, John, for issuing the challenge!

David Dickson



On Sep 24, 2020, at 10:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810



481 - 500 of 743