Date   

Re: Today's Event

Mary Jaron Kelley <mary@...>
 

I’m with you, Janice.

 

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

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

mary@...

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

 

I am in the office Monday-Thursday.

Pronouns: she/her/hers

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Janice Yaden via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 10:05 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Today's Event

 

Impossible to figure out how to get in.  Sorry.

Janice Yaden


Today's Event

Janice Yaden
 

Impossible to figure out how to get in.  Sorry.
Janice Yaden


Re: reminder: tomorrow Weds 10am-12pm, PDX Shelter Forum 3 with SquareOne Villages

Jayme Delson
 

Hi Tim,

I was wanting to attend, however my power/internet is down due to the storms.  Have a great meeting and perhaps i can attend in the future.

Cheers, 

Jayme Delson

The Sustainable Village

North Country Real Estate

707-834-0251

On 1/26/2021 11:09 PM, Tim McCormick wrote:
We look forward to seeing many of you at the PDX Shelter Forum 3 tomorrow Weds 10am-12pm, with special guests from SquareOne Villages in Eugene. There are still some tickets left, to join the Zoom meeting, free or you can donate or sponsor if you'd like. 

Emerald-Village--SquareOne-Villages-IMG-5020.jpg
Livestream
, open to all, will be at our Facebook group: http://facebook.pdxshelterforum.org.  (no Facebook account needed, but you need one and to join the group to add comments there). 

Event page (has all information and links): 
http://forum3.pdxshelterforum.org.

We will send a followup note after the event with a link to the recording.
 
Question or comments are welcomed (we will do our best to monitor all channels) by:
  1. Raising your hand, physically or with the Zoom raise-hand button, during the discussion period of the event.
  2. Typing in the Zoom chat channel, either to All or to Sean or Tim directly.
  3. Twitter: tweet with hashtag "#pdxshelterforum"
  4. Text message to PDX Shelter Forum phone number: (503) 482-8314‬
  5. Enter them in the event page (it's a Google Doc): http://forum3.pdxshelterforum.org, Questions or Open Notes sections.
  6. Email:  pdxshelterforum@....
hope to see you or connect with you some way around this forum! 
thanks, Tim.  

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


reminder: tomorrow Weds 10am-12pm, PDX Shelter Forum 3 with SquareOne Villages

Tim McCormick
 

We look forward to seeing many of you at the PDX Shelter Forum 3 tomorrow Weds 10am-12pm, with special guests from SquareOne Villages in Eugene. There are still some tickets left, to join the Zoom meeting, free or you can donate or sponsor if you'd like. 

Emerald-Village--SquareOne-Villages-IMG-5020.jpg
Livestream
, open to all, will be at our Facebook group: http://facebook.pdxshelterforum.org.  (no Facebook account needed, but you need one and to join the group to add comments there). 

Event page (has all information and links): 
http://forum3.pdxshelterforum.org.

We will send a followup note after the event with a link to the recording.
 
Question or comments are welcomed (we will do our best to monitor all channels) by:
  1. Raising your hand, physically or with the Zoom raise-hand button, during the discussion period of the event.
  2. Typing in the Zoom chat channel, either to All or to Sean or Tim directly.
  3. Twitter: tweet with hashtag "#pdxshelterforum"
  4. Text message to PDX Shelter Forum phone number: (503) 482-8314‬
  5. Enter them in the event page (it's a Google Doc): http://forum3.pdxshelterforum.org, Questions or Open Notes sections.
  6. Email:  pdxshelterforum@....
hope to see you or connect with you some way around this forum! 
thanks, Tim.  

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


on now 5-8:30pm: Portland Planning & Sustainability Commission meeting, including S2HC

Godfrey Merrill
 

the Planning and Sustainability Commission meeting just started, 5-8:30pm.


5:25 pm - Shelter to Housing Continuum Project
Work Session / Recommendation

Documents:
https://efiles.portlandoregon.gov/record/14323315
(see ones prefixed "S2HC" for Shelter to Housing Continuum ones, scroll down to see all three: 
Live stream: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMG0vdKpdX0

There is no testimony or interaction channel open to the public, but you could use Twitter by adding hashtag "#pdxpsh" to tweets (this seems the only tag used for this so far).  
G. 


Weds 10am-12pm, join PDX Shelter Forum 3: SquareOne–From Self-Organized Camps to Tiny House Co-Op Villages

Sean Green <green@...>
 

Emerald-Village--SquareOne-Villages-IMG-5020.jpg

We are excited to announce a very special forum next Wednesday, January 27th 2021 with guests from SquareOne Villages, Eugene, whose mission is to “create self-managed communities of cost-effective tiny homes for people in need of housing.” 

Since its  founding in 2012, SquareOne Villages has developed three villages in Lane County, Oregon - Opportunity, Emerald, and Cottage Grove Villages -- and has multiple additional projects in progress.

The Village Model developed by Square One, with support from Portland-based Meyer Memorial Trust, puts forth a collaborative, community-based approach to building and sustaining stable, permanently affordable places to call home. Two important components of the model are a community land trust to ensure the property is permanently affordable, and a limited-equity cooperative that owns the buildings and allows  residents to become co-governing members and joint owners. 

The forum will feature:

This forum will be co-hosted by Tim McCormick – moderator of PDX Shelter Forum and editor of  HousingWiki – who was recently featured along with our guest Andrew Heben in an excellent interview by Thacher Schmid on villages.

Emerald-Village-panorama.jpg

Virtual Forum Information

Wednesday, January 27th from 10:00AM-12:00PM (Pacific).

RSVP at http://bit.ly/pdxshelterforum3-register to attend live or receive a recording and notes from the event [or to purchase a copy of Andrew Heben's Tent City Urbanism: From Self-organized Camps to Tiny House Villages. 

The event is suggested donation - you are welcome even if you can't donate financially, but are also welcome to donate/sponsor (and be recognized for it at the event, if you'd like) to help us be able to continue these events. 

We encourage you to share this event announcement in your communities, and we particularly invite and urge you to invite houseless neighbors. Their presence, questions, and comments, spoken or written, will be prioritized at the event. You can find postcards that you can print out and distribute attached to this email and on the event page.

This event is co-hosted by 

  • ShelterPDX / PDX Shelter Forum (pdxshelterforum.org

  • Alternative Shelter & Villages (FYI–this group is in the process of rebranding)

  • Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods (NECN)


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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Re: today 3-5pm: tune in to Safety Off the Streets Workgroup of AHFE, public meeting

Keith Wilson
 

Tim,

Thanks for bringing this meeting to our attention. Key info to keep track and updated on to further our initiatives.

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim McCormick via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:23 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] today 3-5pm: tune in to Safety Off the Streets Workgroup of AHFE, public meeting

 

today 3-5om is the monthly, open meeting of the Safety Off the Streets Workgroup, a subcommittee of the Coordinating Board of A Home For Everyone:  meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr

 

SOS Workground is the shelter, immediate-response focused part, and advisory group, of the county homelessness administrative authority (A Home For Everyone). So it's a key place, in terms of funding / general policy, where many of us in PDX Shelter Forum might engage given our interests here -- at least according to some officials we talk to. It's probably a good place to engage and learn, but as usual it's an open question how much a workgroup or advisory board shapes the actual decisions. (the real meeting is not the public one, etc). See 'About SOS'' below for more about it. 


Agenda: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/SOS_Agenda_20210119.pdf.

VIDEO CONFERENCE: meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr.
   (this seems to be standing, i.e. the same link every month)
CONFERENCE CALL: DIAL: 1 484-424-4823
PIN: 661 453 175#

AGENDA

15 min 1. Welcome & Introductions - All
10 min 2. AHFE Strategic Planning Update - Joshua Bates, Paul Stark
20 min 3. Vaccine Distribution Update - Marc Jolin
30 min 4. Metro Supportive Housing Services (SHS) Program
Investment Plan Walkthrough - Nui Bezaire
30 min 5. Severe Weather Outreach & Shelter Updates - Celeste Duvall,
JOHS Staff
15 min 6. Updates & Announcements - All

Next meeting: Tuesday February 16th, 3-5pm

meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr.
[put it on your calendar now!  consider proposing to present on something].


ABOUT SOS

http://ahomeforeveryone.net/safety-off-the-streets-workgroup.
"In October 2014, the Safety off the Streets Workgroup was created as a subcommittee of the Coordinating Board and charged with developing an action plan, that prioritized strategies for increasing options for safety and a good night’s sleep, such that no women, children, or adults with disabilities have to sleep on the streets of Multnomah County by January 2017. The action plan includes policy and funding recommendations from the workgroup’s analysis of the need and what it would take to build a system to begin to address that need. [...]

"Going forward, the Safety off the Streets Workgroup will oversee implementation of shelter development, coordinated entry, best practices strategy, monitor new shelter initiatives, develop public spaces engagement/management strategies, oversee severe weather response, oversee development and implementation of street and shelter count methodology, and shape safety off the streets related budget recommendations."


--

Tim McCormick

Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 


today 3-5pm: tune in to Safety Off the Streets Workgroup of AHFE, public meeting

Tim McCormick
 

today 3-5om is the monthly, open meeting of the Safety Off the Streets Workgroup, a subcommittee of the Coordinating Board of A Home For Everyone:  meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr

SOS Workground is the shelter, immediate-response focused part, and advisory group, of the county homelessness administrative authority (A Home For Everyone). So it's a key place, in terms of funding / general policy, where many of us in PDX Shelter Forum might engage given our interests here -- at least according to some officials we talk to. It's probably a good place to engage and learn, but as usual it's an open question how much a workgroup or advisory board shapes the actual decisions. (the real meeting is not the public one, etc). See 'About SOS'' below for more about it. 

Agenda: http://ahomeforeveryone.net/s/SOS_Agenda_20210119.pdf.

VIDEO CONFERENCE: meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr.
   (this seems to be standing, i.e. the same link every month)
CONFERENCE CALL: DIAL: 1 484-424-4823
PIN: 661 453 175#

AGENDA

15 min 1. Welcome & Introductions - All
10 min 2. AHFE Strategic Planning Update - Joshua Bates, Paul Stark
20 min 3. Vaccine Distribution Update - Marc Jolin
30 min 4. Metro Supportive Housing Services (SHS) Program
Investment Plan Walkthrough - Nui Bezaire
30 min 5. Severe Weather Outreach & Shelter Updates - Celeste Duvall,
JOHS Staff
15 min 6. Updates & Announcements - All

Next meeting: Tuesday February 16th, 3-5pm
meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr.
[put it on your calendar now!  consider proposing to present on something].


ABOUT SOS

http://ahomeforeveryone.net/safety-off-the-streets-workgroup.
"In October 2014, the Safety off the Streets Workgroup was created as a subcommittee of the Coordinating Board and charged with developing an action plan, that prioritized strategies for increasing options for safety and a good night’s sleep, such that no women, children, or adults with disabilities have to sleep on the streets of Multnomah County by January 2017. The action plan includes policy and funding recommendations from the workgroup’s analysis of the need and what it would take to build a system to begin to address that need. [...]

"Going forward, the Safety off the Streets Workgroup will oversee implementation of shelter development, coordinated entry, best practices strategy, monitor new shelter initiatives, develop public spaces engagement/management strategies, oversee severe weather response, oversee development and implementation of street and shelter count methodology, and shape safety off the streets related budget recommendations."

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Shelter to Housing Continuum - notes on Work Session today, goals for 2nd one Jan 26th

Will Denecke
 

Excellent summary Tim...well done!!


On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 12:19 AM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
Tim,

You are doing amazing work, Tim,  to translate all this complexity to the average person (like myself).  It’s a bit scary to see so much at stake and the balance in the hands of planning technicians.  When the Seattle Low Income Housing Institute tells us that 50-60 is the “sweet spot” for effective village self governance…and when we see again and again that self governed villages enhance the quality of life of residents and actually result in a stronger community resolve to respect rules defined by the community, it is worrisome that traditional city planners will have significant influence in the decisions.  Their recommendations will carry inordinate weight, I fear,  when brought to elected officials who probably don’t have the time to fully understand the issues independently. 

Because I have just a thimbleful of knowledge in this area, I would be happy to have my opinions refuted.  

david 

On Jan 12, 2021, at 6:53 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

The Planning and Sustainability Commission had a meeting today on which main item was a Work Session (no public comment) on Shelter to Housing Continuum. Basically, they and the city staff are honing in on amendments/revisions to this reform package, intending to vote or settle on most (all?) at a 2nd Work Session on January 26th. 

I watched the meeting video so you don't have to, linked to everything and summarized the amendments so far in play, both in our open community doc s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org and briefly below. It's all there for your comments and suggestions, usual rate of $3/word. (kidding! it's negotiable, of course). 

I'm still examining, but in brief I'd say:
  1. BPS staff is showing some flexibility, i.e. by listing variants of amendments that take different positions;  

  2. but staff still largely pushing for very low number of accommodations (20) in Outdoor Shelters, and exclusion of OS from most of city except for commercial zones on arterial roads. (blegh, let our people free, for some peace and quiet!). 

  3. some things we advocated for seem so far entirely unresponded to, such as allowing full range of structure types in Outdoor Shelters including, you know, housing, enabling a Housing Demonstration Program for innovation pilots, and enabling pilot Parking Dwelling Permit program for managing vehicle dwelling / safe parking. 
The video is actually quite interesting in parts, particularly the contrast between the two testimony panels they had on, the first representing 3 shelter service providers, the 2nd with three people with experience of homelessness, including Jonathan Hill site manager at C3PO Old Town, and Lisa Larson, former resident at and now working with Dignity Village. Jonathan and Lisa did I think an outstanding, powerful job conveying the effectiveness and clear need of relatively self-governing, non-traditional shelter/villages like these -- and Lisa, how they can work with quite minimal outside service staff, contrary to what the service providers emphasized. If you're out there Jonathan and Lisa, or anyone here sees them, give them a big hand, that was really well done. 

Panel 1
Brandi Tuck, Executive Director at Portland Homeless Family Solutions (PHFS)
Chris Aiosa, Executive Director at Do Good Multnomah
Tony Bernal, Senior Director of Public Policy & Funding at Transition Projects

Panel 2
Angi Eagan, PHFS
Jonathan Hill, C(3)PO
Lisa Larson, Dignity Village 

--------
BPS responses to commission amendment & info requests: 
1. Minimum sanitary service standards.
2. Designated supervisor
3. Name and contact information designated supervisor readily available.
4. Designated supervisor to be onsite 24 hours a day.
5. Require meeting between the shelter operator and the neighborhood,
6. Allow 60 accommodations in outdoor shelters without a conditional use in the RM1 through RMP, RX, IR, C, EX, CI, and IR zones? [BPS: No]. 
7. Require certification from the Joint Office of Homelessness that the public agency or nonprofit corporate applicant is sufficiently experienced? [BPS: No]. 
8. Allow Permanent Shelters in Open Space. [BPS: No]
9. Permanent Shelters in Open Space Zones within Certain Areas.
10. Temporary Shelters in Any Base Zone within Certain Areas.
11. Clarify Emergency and Shortage Declarations for Temporary Shelter Uses. [BPS still kinda wants to get rid of State of Emergency powers].
12. Categorize Dwellings with More than Eight Bedrooms as Group Living
13. Define Bedroom
12 [14]. Allow Residency Without Sewer Hook-ups. [BPS suggests an odd 'compromise' I don't yet understand]. 
13 [15].. Recommend Visitability Standards

A matrix of which shelter types that are allowed. [? said they sent it, I didn't see it]. 

how many sites would be available for shelters in each neighborhood
[no map produced, and there's lots of confusion. BPS says they'll bring a map on Jan 26th]. 

Response to Questions
Q4. Why not retain the existing Title 15 Housing Emergency provisions..
[BPS: our job is to not be in an emergency]. 
Q.5. Why not allow two or more tiny houses on wheels or recreational vehicles on residential lots? [BPS: because]. 
Q.6. Should the City grant an amnesty for existing tiny houses on wheels not constructed to a building code or ASCII standard? [BPS: No].
----------------------

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Shelter to Housing Continuum - notes on Work Session today, goals for 2nd one Jan 26th

David Dickson
 

Tim,

You are doing amazing work, Tim,  to translate all this complexity to the average person (like myself).  It’s a bit scary to see so much at stake and the balance in the hands of planning technicians.  When the Seattle Low Income Housing Institute tells us that 50-60 is the “sweet spot” for effective village self governance…and when we see again and again that self governed villages enhance the quality of life of residents and actually result in a stronger community resolve to respect rules defined by the community, it is worrisome that traditional city planners will have significant influence in the decisions.  Their recommendations will carry inordinate weight, I fear,  when brought to elected officials who probably don’t have the time to fully understand the issues independently. 

Because I have just a thimbleful of knowledge in this area, I would be happy to have my opinions refuted.  

david 

On Jan 12, 2021, at 6:53 PM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

The Planning and Sustainability Commission had a meeting today on which main item was a Work Session (no public comment) on Shelter to Housing Continuum. Basically, they and the city staff are honing in on amendments/revisions to this reform package, intending to vote or settle on most (all?) at a 2nd Work Session on January 26th. 

I watched the meeting video so you don't have to, linked to everything and summarized the amendments so far in play, both in our open community doc s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org and briefly below. It's all there for your comments and suggestions, usual rate of $3/word. (kidding! it's negotiable, of course). 

I'm still examining, but in brief I'd say:
  1. BPS staff is showing some flexibility, i.e. by listing variants of amendments that take different positions;  

  2. but staff still largely pushing for very low number of accommodations (20) in Outdoor Shelters, and exclusion of OS from most of city except for commercial zones on arterial roads. (blegh, let our people free, for some peace and quiet!). 

  3. some things we advocated for seem so far entirely unresponded to, such as allowing full range of structure types in Outdoor Shelters including, you know, housing, enabling a Housing Demonstration Program for innovation pilots, and enabling pilot Parking Dwelling Permit program for managing vehicle dwelling / safe parking. 
The video is actually quite interesting in parts, particularly the contrast between the two testimony panels they had on, the first representing 3 shelter service providers, the 2nd with three people with experience of homelessness, including Jonathan Hill site manager at C3PO Old Town, and Lisa Larson, former resident at and now working with Dignity Village. Jonathan and Lisa did I think an outstanding, powerful job conveying the effectiveness and clear need of relatively self-governing, non-traditional shelter/villages like these -- and Lisa, how they can work with quite minimal outside service staff, contrary to what the service providers emphasized. If you're out there Jonathan and Lisa, or anyone here sees them, give them a big hand, that was really well done. 

Panel 1
Brandi Tuck, Executive Director at Portland Homeless Family Solutions (PHFS)
Chris Aiosa, Executive Director at Do Good Multnomah
Tony Bernal, Senior Director of Public Policy & Funding at Transition Projects

Panel 2
Angi Eagan, PHFS
Jonathan Hill, C(3)PO
Lisa Larson, Dignity Village 

--------
BPS responses to commission amendment & info requests: 
1. Minimum sanitary service standards.
2. Designated supervisor
3. Name and contact information designated supervisor readily available.
4. Designated supervisor to be onsite 24 hours a day.
5. Require meeting between the shelter operator and the neighborhood,
6. Allow 60 accommodations in outdoor shelters without a conditional use in the RM1 through RMP, RX, IR, C, EX, CI, and IR zones? [BPS: No]. 
7. Require certification from the Joint Office of Homelessness that the public agency or nonprofit corporate applicant is sufficiently experienced? [BPS: No]. 
8. Allow Permanent Shelters in Open Space. [BPS: No]
9. Permanent Shelters in Open Space Zones within Certain Areas.
10. Temporary Shelters in Any Base Zone within Certain Areas.
11. Clarify Emergency and Shortage Declarations for Temporary Shelter Uses. [BPS still kinda wants to get rid of State of Emergency powers].
12. Categorize Dwellings with More than Eight Bedrooms as Group Living
13. Define Bedroom
12 [14]. Allow Residency Without Sewer Hook-ups. [BPS suggests an odd 'compromise' I don't yet understand]. 
13 [15].. Recommend Visitability Standards

A matrix of which shelter types that are allowed. [? said they sent it, I didn't see it]. 

how many sites would be available for shelters in each neighborhood
[no map produced, and there's lots of confusion. BPS says they'll bring a map on Jan 26th]. 

Response to Questions
Q4. Why not retain the existing Title 15 Housing Emergency provisions..
[BPS: our job is to not be in an emergency]. 
Q.5. Why not allow two or more tiny houses on wheels or recreational vehicles on residential lots? [BPS: because]. 
Q.6. Should the City grant an amnesty for existing tiny houses on wheels not constructed to a building code or ASCII standard? [BPS: No].
----------------------

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Shelter to Housing Continuum - notes on Work Session today, goals for 2nd one Jan 26th

Tim McCormick
 

The Planning and Sustainability Commission had a meeting today on which main item was a Work Session (no public comment) on Shelter to Housing Continuum. Basically, they and the city staff are honing in on amendments/revisions to this reform package, intending to vote or settle on most (all?) at a 2nd Work Session on January 26th. 

I watched the meeting video so you don't have to, linked to everything and summarized the amendments so far in play, both in our open community doc s2hc.pdxshelterforum.org and briefly below. It's all there for your comments and suggestions, usual rate of $3/word. (kidding! it's negotiable, of course). 

I'm still examining, but in brief I'd say:
  1. BPS staff is showing some flexibility, i.e. by listing variants of amendments that take different positions;  

  2. but staff still largely pushing for very low number of accommodations (20) in Outdoor Shelters, and exclusion of OS from most of city except for commercial zones on arterial roads. (blegh, let our people free, for some peace and quiet!). 

  3. some things we advocated for seem so far entirely unresponded to, such as allowing full range of structure types in Outdoor Shelters including, you know, housing, enabling a Housing Demonstration Program for innovation pilots, and enabling pilot Parking Dwelling Permit program for managing vehicle dwelling / safe parking. 
The video is actually quite interesting in parts, particularly the contrast between the two testimony panels they had on, the first representing 3 shelter service providers, the 2nd with three people with experience of homelessness, including Jonathan Hill site manager at C3PO Old Town, and Lisa Larson, former resident at and now working with Dignity Village. Jonathan and Lisa did I think an outstanding, powerful job conveying the effectiveness and clear need of relatively self-governing, non-traditional shelter/villages like these -- and Lisa, how they can work with quite minimal outside service staff, contrary to what the service providers emphasized. If you're out there Jonathan and Lisa, or anyone here sees them, give them a big hand, that was really well done. 

Panel 1
Brandi Tuck, Executive Director at Portland Homeless Family Solutions (PHFS)
Chris Aiosa, Executive Director at Do Good Multnomah
Tony Bernal, Senior Director of Public Policy & Funding at Transition Projects

Panel 2
Angi Eagan, PHFS
Jonathan Hill, C(3)PO
Lisa Larson, Dignity Village 

--------
BPS responses to commission amendment & info requests: 
1. Minimum sanitary service standards.
2. Designated supervisor
3. Name and contact information designated supervisor readily available.
4. Designated supervisor to be onsite 24 hours a day.
5. Require meeting between the shelter operator and the neighborhood,
6. Allow 60 accommodations in outdoor shelters without a conditional use in the RM1 through RMP, RX, IR, C, EX, CI, and IR zones? [BPS: No]. 
7. Require certification from the Joint Office of Homelessness that the public agency or nonprofit corporate applicant is sufficiently experienced? [BPS: No]. 
8. Allow Permanent Shelters in Open Space. [BPS: No]
9. Permanent Shelters in Open Space Zones within Certain Areas.
10. Temporary Shelters in Any Base Zone within Certain Areas.
11. Clarify Emergency and Shortage Declarations for Temporary Shelter Uses. [BPS still kinda wants to get rid of State of Emergency powers].
12. Categorize Dwellings with More than Eight Bedrooms as Group Living
13. Define Bedroom
12 [14]. Allow Residency Without Sewer Hook-ups. [BPS suggests an odd 'compromise' I don't yet understand]. 
13 [15].. Recommend Visitability Standards

A matrix of which shelter types that are allowed. [? said they sent it, I didn't see it]. 

how many sites would be available for shelters in each neighborhood
[no map produced, and there's lots of confusion. BPS says they'll bring a map on Jan 26th]. 

Response to Questions
Q4. Why not retain the existing Title 15 Housing Emergency provisions..
[BPS: our job is to not be in an emergency]. 
Q.5. Why not allow two or more tiny houses on wheels or recreational vehicles on residential lots? [BPS: because]. 
Q.6. Should the City grant an amnesty for existing tiny houses on wheels not constructed to a building code or ASCII standard? [BPS: No].
----------------------

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


congregate shelter not a valid alternative to offer campers, say Oakland councilmembers

Houseless First
 

Further interesting struggles in Oakland, one of the key US homelessness/activism leading edges, with one of the most publicly articulated and wide-ranging political conflict on these issues.

Coalition to Stop the Encampment Management Policy (The Village, Oakland, etc) urge you to contact Oakland officials on this by Tuesday 1/12/20 before 10 AM PT!

story by by Zack Haber, Oakland Post

https://www.postnewsgroup.com/oakland-to-determine-shelter-options-for-evicted-homeless-people-in-new-year/

"The City Council unanimously approved the Encampment Management Policy (EMP) (https://oaklandside.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/View-Supplemental-Attachment-C-10162020.pdfon October 20, which set clear parameters for where the City could choose to focus clearances. The resolution stated people living within 50 feet of a residence, business, park or sports court could face eviction. But the EMP did not overturn a resolution Council also unanimously passed on March 27 that requests that the City only execute evictions if “individual housing units or alternative shelter is provided.”

"City Administrator Edward Reiskin has proposed using its Community Cabin Program (informally known as the Tuff Shed Program), Safe Parking Lots, trailers operated through Operation HomeBase, limited transitional and permanent housing units, and “congregate shelter with reduced capacity and physical distancing measures.” 

But in an agenda memorandum, City Council Pres. Rebecca Kaplan and District 2 Councilmember Nikki Fortunado-Bas requested the City “not consider congregate shelter as a form of alternative shelter.”

"Kaplan and Bas’ proposed changes to Reiskin’s plan claim that “moving or relocating from an outdoor encampment to an indoor congregate shelter places people at a greater risk for COVID-19 transmission then they would be in by living in an outdoor encampment.” They pointed out COVID-19 outbreaks that have occurred in homeless shelters in San Francisco, Spokane, Wash., Salem, Ore., and Calgary in the Alberta, Canada."...


today 3-5pm, join/testify at meting of A Home For Everyone, Coordinating Board

Tim McCormick
 

You are invited to join and possibly testify at today's every-other-month Wednesdays 3-5pm public meeting of the Coordinating Board of A Home For Everyone. This is the wider committee, advising the Executive Committee, of the homeless policy coordinating body for Multnomah County. (also known as the area's "Continuum of Care", designated by the Federal government in each area to oversee Federal funding). Basically, it steers much of the region's homelessness-related funding.


Screen Shot 2021-01-06 at 1.04.30 PM.png

Agenda. (with links to presentation materials, as they become available; partly there now).

Zoom meeting link.


I'd say of particular note is, item at about 3:30, "Next Steps: Supportive Housing Services Local Implementation."  This regards the Metro Supportive Housing Services tax measure passed last year, expected to raise $200-250M/year in homelessness funding; guided by, in each county, a 
required Local Implementation Plan (LIP). You can see the Nov 27 draft version of Multnomah County's LIP approved by Board on Dec 2, and there may be a new version out. The next step is it goes on January 25 for consideration at a  Metro Oversight Committee. 

This has had a lot of shaping already -- though in a relatively compressed time of about 3 months -- but in the big picture, this will be a large part of the region's homelessness-related funding for the next 10 years, and is sure to evolve. Like big legislative items and program generally, it's a BIG ship to try turning, but the sooner and closer one enages it, the better chance of effect. 

Testimony: they're taking 5, 2-min public comments at the start of meeting, and also by email to AHFE@....  I'm not sure how they give out those comment slots, or until when comments by email may be considered part of the record, but I encourage you to email them and/or join meeting at 3pm if interested. 

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

AGENDA - Jan 6, 2020, 3-pm - AHFE Coordinating Board Meeting


10 min - Welcome & Introductions


10 min - Open for Public Comment: Up to five people, two minute limit

per person.


10 min - Coordinating Board Meeting Schedule Marc Jolin Informational


20 min - Next Steps: Supportive Housing Services Local Implementation

Plan: Marc Jolin, Joshua Bates, Nui Bezaire

Informational, Discussion, Decision


15 min - Grounding Exercise: AHFE Strategic Planning - Joshua Bates


15 min - Point-in-Time Count Update - Marc Jolin


20 min - Year-End Data Report for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 - Claudia Sharygin


10 min - City and County Budget Guidance - Adam Brown


10 min General Updates & Announcements



--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: cancellation of 2021 Point in Time unsheltered count sought by Multnomah County / JOHS

Keith Wilson
 

Tim,

 

I have been communicating with JOHS and PSU, the party responsible for the PIT. I had some questions I was asking them to include to ensure we get a really good idea of the size and scope.

 

I think what they are doing is the right call. Safety of our citizens is absolutely the most important core value to follow.

 

On a data informed approach, using this year as a baseline would give a false sense of accomplishment because as you can see, we are just trying to hold on. The numbers will be off the charts if we completed a PIT right now. To say we are doing a good job at improving lives as our PIT would most likely fall by double digits from 2021 to 2023, would be a false narrative. Let’s get 2022 on the books so we can see clearly and then let’s get a 2023 view and really get good data.

 

Please know that a two year count in any organization is a really bad Key Performance Indicator anyway. We need daily counts to really drill down and help groups with saving and improving their lives. But we do not want to lose any in counting.

 

Assuring you of my best intentions.

 

Keith

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Houseless First via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 8:57 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] cancellation of 2021 Point in Time unsheltered count sought by Multnomah County / JOHS

 

Here's a post from King County (Seattle & area)'s Department of Community & Human Services giving their rationale for cancelling the County's 2021 Point in Time count of unsheltered houseless (Dec 17, 2020): 

"Gathering large numbers of volunteers during a pandemic, typically over 1,000 people for King County’s count, is simply not advisable. In addition, the staff and volunteer resources normally dedicated to planning, organizing and conducting the community count are better prioritized in the ongoing and critical work to ensure the health and safety of people experiencing homelessness and working to reduce and contain the spread of COVID-19 among homeless communities throughout the county." 


They also note that "Responsibility for planning and coordinating the Point in Time Count will move to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority in 2022". This Authority, however, seems to be in a state of organizational chaos, the Seattle Times reported yesterday, so it doesn't bode well for passing the data baton there.  

I'm skeptical of the rationales given by King County DCHS. If having data, particularly in a relatively consistent series over years, was important enough to do in the past, why is it less of a priority now? You could say that, being in uncharted territory with Covid, economic recession, and mass rent/eviction crisis makes it all the more important to get a grasp on what's happening. In Portland's case, data from this year would be the baseline as the area begins implementing the Metro Supportive Housing Services tax measure program, established for the next 10 years - as WW's Jacquiss observed. 

As for health risks, it seems like brief, distanced interaction in outside space ranks very low in transmission risk. You might help a lot of people out at the same time, by discovering dangerous situations or helping unhoused people with stuff while you're at it.  The PIT normally has a survey process that calls for some amount of closer interaction, but is there really nothing and did they consider what else might be done without that component?  Normally yes they use largely volunteers, presumably harder to get now; but on the other hand, King County probably now has 1000s of employees working remotely, and often with reduced duties due to Covid effects. They can't pitch in, but ok for volunteers to?  Ok, yeah don't trouble yourself anyone, we're just out here dying. 

I find it hard to avoid the suspicion that significant factors here are, local homeless authorities would rather not go to the trouble, or have to respond to political outcry for rising homelessness counts, or be held accountable for reducing these counts. 

/HouselessFirst

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:21 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc:  Nigel Jaquiss (reporter, WW), 

   Marc Jolin, JOHS  Denis Theriault, Communications, JOHS / AHFE

   [inviting comment or to join forum if they wish. You can reply/post even if not a member, it just gets held for moderator approval]. 

"The [city/county] Joint Office of Homeless Services is seeking a waiver for the biennial "point in time" count, which takes place every odd-numbered year in late January.

On the streets of Portland's Old Town. (Brian Burk).

    "That process, in which Multnomah County takes a one-night census of all the houseless people it can find in the county, is part of a federal census overseen by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." 

   "'It's a difficult decision, but we don't see a way to conduct as accurate of an unsheltered count as we've done in past years without creating additional health risks for thousands of vulnerable people and our provider community,' said Marc Jolin, director of the Joint Office."

https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/01/05/multnomah-county-seeking-federal-waiver-to-delay-biennial-census-of-homeless-population/.

 

I wonder, what sort of alternative, community-run count/outreach effort might be organized? These counts are generally, mainly volunteer efforts anyway. Also, could we take the opportunity to develop new ideas and programs to not just 'count' but engage, enfranchise, and empower houseless residents? This would be starting from a different set of values and goals than the normal Point in Time counts, which have a key motivation of being required by HUD for local "Continuums of Care" (e.g. JOHS) to remain eligible for federal homelessness funding. 


--

Tim McCormick

Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki
Organizer at Village Collaborative

Portland, Oregon 


Re: cancellation of 2021 Point in Time unsheltered count sought by Multnomah County / JOHS

Houseless First
 

Here's a post from King County (Seattle & area)'s Department of Community & Human Services giving their rationale for cancelling the County's 2021 Point in Time count of unsheltered houseless (Dec 17, 2020): 

"Gathering large numbers of volunteers during a pandemic, typically over 1,000 people for King County’s count, is simply not advisable. In addition, the staff and volunteer resources normally dedicated to planning, organizing and conducting the community count are better prioritized in the ongoing and critical work to ensure the health and safety of people experiencing homelessness and working to reduce and contain the spread of COVID-19 among homeless communities throughout the county." 

They also note that "Responsibility for planning and coordinating the Point in Time Count will move to the King County Regional Homelessness Authority in 2022". This Authority, however, seems to be in a state of organizational chaos, the Seattle Times reported yesterday, so it doesn't bode well for passing the data baton there.  

I'm skeptical of the rationales given by King County DCHS. If having data, particularly in a relatively consistent series over years, was important enough to do in the past, why is it less of a priority now? You could say that, being in uncharted territory with Covid, economic recession, and mass rent/eviction crisis makes it all the more important to get a grasp on what's happening. In Portland's case, data from this year would be the baseline as the area begins implementing the Metro Supportive Housing Services tax measure program, established for the next 10 years - as WW's Jacquiss observed. 

As for health risks, it seems like brief, distanced interaction in outside space ranks very low in transmission risk. You might help a lot of people out at the same time, by discovering dangerous situations or helping unhoused people with stuff while you're at it.  The PIT normally has a survey process that calls for some amount of closer interaction, but is there really nothing and did they consider what else might be done without that component?  Normally yes they use largely volunteers, presumably harder to get now; but on the other hand, King County probably now has 1000s of employees working remotely, and often with reduced duties due to Covid effects. They can't pitch in, but ok for volunteers to?  Ok, yeah don't trouble yourself anyone, we're just out here dying. 

I find it hard to avoid the suspicion that significant factors here are, local homeless authorities would rather not go to the trouble, or have to respond to political outcry for rising homelessness counts, or be held accountable for reducing these counts. 

/HouselessFirst

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 6:21 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc:  Nigel Jaquiss (reporter, WW), 

   Marc Jolin, JOHS  Denis Theriault, Communications, JOHS / AHFE

   [inviting comment or to join forum if they wish. You can reply/post even if not a member, it just gets held for moderator approval]. 

"The [city/county] Joint Office of Homeless Services is seeking a waiver for the biennial "point in time" count, which takes place every odd-numbered year in late January.

Portland-Old-Town_photo-by-Brian-Burk_20200515_184120_1.jpg

On the streets of Portland's Old Town. (Brian Burk).

    "That process, in which Multnomah County takes a one-night census of all the houseless people it can find in the county, is part of a federal census overseen by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." 

   "'It's a difficult decision, but we don't see a way to conduct as accurate of an unsheltered count as we've done in past years without creating additional health risks for thousands of vulnerable people and our provider community,' said Marc Jolin, director of the Joint Office."

https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/01/05/multnomah-county-seeking-federal-waiver-to-delay-biennial-census-of-homeless-population/.


I wonder, what sort of alternative, community-run count/outreach effort might be organized? These counts are generally, mainly volunteer efforts anyway. Also, could we take the opportunity to develop new ideas and programs to not just 'count' but engage, enfranchise, and empower houseless residents? This would be starting from a different set of values and goals than the normal Point in Time counts, which have a key motivation of being required by HUD for local "Continuums of Care" (e.g. JOHS) to remain eligible for federal homelessness funding. 


--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


cancellation of 2021 Point in Time unsheltered count sought by Multnomah County / JOHS

Tim McCormick
 

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc:  Nigel Jaquiss (reporter, WW), 

   Marc Jolin, JOHS  Denis Theriault, Communications, JOHS / AHFE

   [inviting comment or to join forum if they wish. You can reply/post even if not a member, it just gets held for moderator approval]. 

"The [city/county] Joint Office of Homeless Services is seeking a waiver for the biennial "point in time" count, which takes place every odd-numbered year in late January.

Portland-Old-Town_photo-by-Brian-Burk_20200515_184120_1.jpg

On the streets of Portland's Old Town. (Brian Burk).

    "That process, in which Multnomah County takes a one-night census of all the houseless people it can find in the county, is part of a federal census overseen by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development." 

   "'It's a difficult decision, but we don't see a way to conduct as accurate of an unsheltered count as we've done in past years without creating additional health risks for thousands of vulnerable people and our provider community,' said Marc Jolin, director of the Joint Office."

https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/01/05/multnomah-county-seeking-federal-waiver-to-delay-biennial-census-of-homeless-population/.


I wonder, what sort of alternative, community-run count/outreach effort might be organized? These counts are generally, mainly volunteer efforts anyway. Also, could we take the opportunity to develop new ideas and programs to not just 'count' but engage, enfranchise, and empower houseless residents? This would be starting from a different set of values and goals than the normal Point in Time counts, which have a key motivation of being required by HUD for local "Continuums of Care" (e.g. JOHS) to remain eligible for federal homelessness funding. 


--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

Doug K <dougurb@...>
 

At the recent PSC discussions, it was noted by several PSC members that Open Space zoning is not all parks or natural areas.  So at least at the PSC level, there may be appetite for differentiating those areas.  Council is another matter, though.


On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:14 AM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
CONTENTS
1. Success! Our S2HC testimony submitted, thanks all around. 
2. A note on Open Space and Public Land debates.
3. PARKING -> DWELLING -> HOUSING continuum
4. Allow shelters in multi-dwelling Residential and mixed-use zones. 
5. The Big Point: are we truly enabling response on the scale of need, and fast enough? if not now, when, and how? 
6. Discuss: are our organizing methods here working, any suggestions? 

-----------
1)  success! we submitted the community testimony letter on Shelter to Housing Continuum by the 5pm Monday deadline. You can see the testimony as submitted, with all co-signers listed, at: https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/testimony/item.cfm#itemID=216515  (or for reference/backup, direct link to PDF doc, and ALL written testimony here). 

Also, we saw that our open research/discussion document, where we drafted the letter, also informed the testimony of many others such as Sightline Institute, Sarah Iannarone / Our Portland, etc, either because they mentioned/thanked us, and/or you can see language from our doc in their letters. (which is fine, part of the point! join, follow, adapt, it's an open coalition of the willing to various degrees, you don't have to be either with us or against us!).

big THANKS to deft last-day team effort including Sean Green, Heather Flint Chatto, Keith Wilson, Margaret A Zebroski, and all those who commented/suggested or sent in testimony Monday. We incorporated the suggestions made, from Heather, Keith, Margaret, Sean, and others from the last few weeks via the open Google Doc or our two open work sessions or other channels. Altogether, the late sprint greatly helped the testimony in forcefulness and concreteness of suggestion, and breadth of perspectives. 

2)  A note on the key OPEN SPACE debate and PUBLIC LAND: 
what the city calls "Open Space" zones make up much of the orange area on the map below taken from S2HC Proposed Draft; the rest is Industrial/Employment zones. Green indicates where, by comparison, Outdoor Shelters would be an allowed use in the current S2HC Proposed Draft. We note, there is waaay more orange than green. Also, a lottt of that green is in or near downtown, places that aren't very open
Screen Shot 2020-12-08 at 5.22.35 PM.png
I read all the written testimony after the deadline passed, and saw there was a specific big, late wave of testimony in last few days focused on and opposing Outdoor Shelters in what the city calls Outdoor Space zones. However, you can see that there is not wide or clear understanding of what constitutes OS, and often an implicit or explicit equation of it to Parks, or fragile natural spaces such as near Johnson Creek. It's not explained much in the S2HC Proposed Draft; there is an online, dynamic zoning map (https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/zoning/), but it takes some work to examine what all is classified OS. There's a fair amount of OS land that is around highways, especially I-205; a ton in Forest Park and Linnton Park and adjoining areas; much of far North Portland north of Columbia Slough, and so on. 

In our letter we made a limited suggestion of considering certain Open Space sites, particularly those where Community Centers exist. A number of these currently ARE in use for temporary shelters, and have regularly been used so for many years. Not banning what we currently do, or everything in such a wide zoning category, seems a reasonable idea to me. 

However, after reading and considering all this, I think proposing use of these Open Space zones is a tough battle to fight currently. Confused and overbroad as the OS zoning concept may be, to Portlanders it means parks and 'natural' spaces, of which they are strongly and rightfully proud & protective, and (somewhat unfortunately imo) they tend to see any habitation use of them as a threat. [Personally, I view it more as just another possible public use, like we have campgrounds and cabins in national parks and forests and some cities, or might use park facilities in a natural emergency situation. Also, we might consider that many Portlanders do live in these places now, we might get better outcomes by recognizing and managing it than by declaring it prohibited. We might conceivably even enable, empower, &/or hire people to be stewards of the land they live amid, which people tend to do with land they feel some stake in].

BUT, what's true or right may not necessarily be strategic. I'm thinking a better angle that includes but reframes this may be, to ask HOW, in this huge public chronic and crisis issue, are we as a humane and thinking public making good use of a crucial public resource, our PUBLIC LAND, to help addresss the problem? 

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 10.31.53 AM.png
Public (city) land is land we own, for us to decide what to do with. It's used for all kinds of things, and multiple things overlapping and changing over time. 
Public land includes:
  • City Hall, the Portland Building, and the Rose Garden and treasured parks,
    AND ALSO
  • many, many parking lots, including the part of one that Right 2 Dream Too rest area (pictured above) is sited on in the Rose Quarter. 
  • land planned for future development by e.g. Prosper Portland (former Portland Development Commission)
  • the land under Dignity Village.
  • loads of areas along roads and highways,
  • 100,000s of street and public lot parking spaces, many square miles of space, which is reserved and maintained for usually free, comfortable accommodation of... private vehicles, as long as people aren't in them. Wait, what? what homelessness crisis? 
How about: 1) any land planned for possible future housing development, let's cut to the chase and put interim village housing on it now? Many people are willing to build and run that and live so, if just allowed to use this, you know, public land. This, incidentally, is almost exactly what was done to site Kenton Women's Village (see photo below, by Peter Eckert), is done regularly by Low Income Housing Institute in Seattle, and has become a widely recognized model for the use of planned Affordable Housing sites. 

Kenton-Womens-Village_Peter_Eckert_Photography_0101_wp8d9s.jpg

Now, 2) spare a few hundred or thousand of those 100,000s of parking spaces on public right-of-way or parking lots, for the use of people in need. Rather than strictly for storing the vehicles of housed people not so much in need? That is to say, surely we might recognize, decriminalize, and sensibly manage what is already being done by probably 1000s of people every night in the Portland area? 

3) PARKING -> DWELLING -> HOUSING
Plus, the beautiful thing is that unlike many responses to unhousedness, permitted vehicle dwelling in public offers a remarkably smooth progression into and supply of 'permanent' housing at low cost. Because, under proposed Shelter to Housing Continuum provisions, vehicle dwellers could move to being hosted on a private residence, and potentially then to being anchored to foundation, and then possibly upbuilt/upgraded to a permanent Accessory Dwelling or cottage. 

All this with the excellent side effect of potentially offering site rental income to 100s to 1000s of lower-income Portland homeowners who especially now may be struggling to make mortgage payments or keep their homes. Truly feeding two birds with one seed, or like Drake said, making sure the outcome is the income; like, holistic. 

4) Make shelters an allowed use in multi-dwelling Residential and mixed-use zones. 
that's generally the blue area in map above, and close to arterial (main) roads. Allowed use means it can be done "by right", not requiring the 120-day, $25k+, appealable Conditional Use process. This would allow Outdoor Shelters to begin as temporary uses where shelter residents could be in, errr, Residential zones, and stay there if the site/village were developed and approved for longer-term by C.U. 

5. The Big Point:  are we truly enabling response on the scale of need, and fast enough?
Right now in debating zoning we are, you might say, rearranging the fences on the Titanic. It doesn't in itself shelter or house anyone, and at some point diverts us from that. 
Instead of debating rules, of unknown sufficiency, for us to muddle through with later, we might say: the scale of need is 5-30,000 shelter accommodations or low-cost homes. In terms of sheltering all the City+County's current 'unsheltered' population, that's estimated at around 4,000 'beds', or  80-150 'village' sites of 20-50 people. 

We could be asking of the City and planning officials: you're the experts and have the best info, so show us the 80-150 sites you are enabling for villages via the proposed rules. So we can all together get doing developing and funding and putting these into operation. If City/Planning process currently is, not that, let's ask ourselves, how can we build this site/project list ASAP and be building? Winter is still coming. 

6. Finally: are our organizing methods here working, any suggestions? 

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 10.45.57 AM.png

We have kind of stumbled into what seems a fairly efficient, open, ad-hoc advocacy/organizing method. Do you think this works, what will go wrong, or what might you do differently?: 
  1. For a given issue or goal, loosely convene allied advocates and interesteds around shared, (semi-?)public, collaborative document for research/drafting, and possibly live work sessions as we did.
  2. Run a discussion forum (this one) that shares updates and wider discussion on this project(s). 
  3. Periodically or as needed, make a summary testimony or talking-points section, post and date that, wrap a form on it that allows anyone to easily co-sign it or adapt it.  
  4. Publish, present, or submit this position letter as representing the loose coalition, e.g. 'ShelterPDX', plus and particularly particularly whoever cosigns. 
People can participate or endorse in different degrees, or not at all -- organic coalitions of the willing. Perhaps there doesn't even need to be a single position -- if the group can't agree, do two position statements, let people co-sign one or both or neither or which one they saw, as they prefer? The group, like people, can be of multiple minds, in a managed way. 
What do you think?  
Tim

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator at ShelterPDX /  PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

#adhocadvocacy 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:47 PM Keith Wilson <keithwilson@...> wrote:

Tim & Sean,

 

Well said. Thanks to both you and Sean for your guidance. I have signed onto the doc. In addition, I sent the following testimony to expand on the Community Center code request:

 

“Currently, Community Centers are coded Open Spaces, OS, and Mass Shelter Prohibited. Portland is using these resources as Mass Shelters (e.g. Charles Jordan, Mt Scott). Please change the designation for Community Centers to Mass Shelter available (remove prohibited designation).” 33.285.050 does not list OS as an available zone for Mass Shelters.

 

Community Centers are positioned throughout our city to support our communities and neighborhoods. Everything they stand for is positive. I cannot think of a more honorable use than saving the lives of our neighbors who have lost their homes. We should repurpose these huge, valuable assets, that all have bathrooms and showers, at night as shelters. Anderson and Martin would no longer be an issue because the city would have a flex / flow opportunity to support safe sleep for 100% of our citizens. This would result in zero tents and structures being needed by the vulnerable in Portland.

 

TriMet leadership and I recently partnered on a demonstration (https://www.facebook.com/100045753248172/videos/194167805451660) on how this concept would work. We repurposed the Gateway Park & Ride as a Pop-Up Shelter. To learn more, please watch this short video or call me at your convenience.

 

Please reflect on these benefits and change the code to accommodate. Every Portlanders deserves to sleep in a bed every night.

 

Assuring you of my best intentions.

 

Keith Wilson”

 

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim McCormick via groups.io
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 10:25 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

 

I would differ from Sean's proposal, in the joint letter draft as it stands, to defer passing Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) program from the current April goal. Also generally I favor taking any suggestions as far as possible to concrete, plausible amendments. This is what the Commission can do, amend the proposal, they can use help getting any such drafted.

 

As I see it, asking to defer S2HC this would be asking the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability and the Planning and Sustainability Commission to not carry out the duty City Council asked them to perform: to prepare a S2HC reform package before the April 1 2020 [1st? 15th?] expiration of current Housing State of Emergency. The appropriate object of advocacy for deferring it would be City Council, which alone can enact or defer the package. I could see PSC possibly recommending to them some type of continuation or later phase of the process, but can't see them declining to pass a reform package by April. 

 

Also open question, what could or would we do, given more time by deferring of S2HC, that we can't do now?  ("If not here, where? If not now, when?" my ShelterPDX slogan). 

 

I'd suggest articulating what provisions we might *want* to achieve were the process extended, and consider how they might be pursued a) now, or b) after an S2HC passed in April. There would be some advantages to having current proposal passed then, e.g. sooner removing uncertainty about siting mobile dwellings on residential lots. Could we propose these 'wants' now as amendments? 

 

Could we get PSC commissioners to advise the city to pursue certain other items in follow-up ordinances? Could S2HC be amended to require an evaluation of its efficacy and sufficiency after, say, one year, and suggest goals against which it would need to be evaluated? 

 

I imagine a case such as, S2HC passing with the proposed exclusion of shelters from all residential lots; then, the moral conscience of the city belatedly awakening to this blatant exclusionary zoning and denial of resident rights/status to the houseless. Would it be implausible, or insurmountable, for City Council to pass an ordinance directing BPS to revise municipal code Title 33 as needed to change this, and then it approving the revised code? 

 

BPS obviously preferred to bundle a wide set of issues into one 'project', but we might ask, what interests did that serve, really? I've heard many people say they felt it was impossible to sort through the 100s of pages of detailed, interlocking provisions, or consider the possible impacts, and I've heard highly experienced PSC commissioners say that they didn't until last week notice crucial items in the proposal, such as it's ending of the city's Housing State of Emergency declaration process.

 

By contrast, an advocacy effort focused specifically on something like the exclusionary zoning of S2HC could bring this item out of the thickets of code where it was kind of sliding by amid 100 diverting other matters.

 

--

Tim McCormick

Moderator, PDX Shelter Forum; Editor at HousingWiki

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:05 AM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:

The deadline to submit testimony on the S2HC Proposed Draft is today at 5pm. You can sign onto the S2HC Proposed Draft Advocacy Letter by completing a simple form here

You can also submit your own testimony through the Portland Map App here

 

More information on the S2HC project can be found on the BPS website here and in our project document here

 

Best,

Sean

 

--

SEAN GREEN

Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)

Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

 

c 971.998.7376 IG:

 

@AFORMACO


Re: Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

Tim McCormick
 

CONTENTS
1. Success! Our S2HC testimony submitted, thanks all around. 
2. A note on Open Space and Public Land debates.
3. PARKING -> DWELLING -> HOUSING continuum
4. Allow shelters in multi-dwelling Residential and mixed-use zones. 
5. The Big Point: are we truly enabling response on the scale of need, and fast enough? if not now, when, and how? 
6. Discuss: are our organizing methods here working, any suggestions? 

-----------
1)  success! we submitted the community testimony letter on Shelter to Housing Continuum by the 5pm Monday deadline. You can see the testimony as submitted, with all co-signers listed, at: https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/testimony/item.cfm#itemID=216515  (or for reference/backup, direct link to PDF doc, and ALL written testimony here). 

Also, we saw that our open research/discussion document, where we drafted the letter, also informed the testimony of many others such as Sightline Institute, Sarah Iannarone / Our Portland, etc, either because they mentioned/thanked us, and/or you can see language from our doc in their letters. (which is fine, part of the point! join, follow, adapt, it's an open coalition of the willing to various degrees, you don't have to be either with us or against us!).

big THANKS to deft last-day team effort including Sean Green, Heather Flint Chatto, Keith Wilson, Margaret A Zebroski, and all those who commented/suggested or sent in testimony Monday. We incorporated the suggestions made, from Heather, Keith, Margaret, Sean, and others from the last few weeks via the open Google Doc or our two open work sessions or other channels. Altogether, the late sprint greatly helped the testimony in forcefulness and concreteness of suggestion, and breadth of perspectives. 

2)  A note on the key OPEN SPACE debate and PUBLIC LAND: 
what the city calls "Open Space" zones make up much of the orange area on the map below taken from S2HC Proposed Draft; the rest is Industrial/Employment zones. Green indicates where, by comparison, Outdoor Shelters would be an allowed use in the current S2HC Proposed Draft. We note, there is waaay more orange than green. Also, a lottt of that green is in or near downtown, places that aren't very open
Screen Shot 2020-12-08 at 5.22.35 PM.png
I read all the written testimony after the deadline passed, and saw there was a specific big, late wave of testimony in last few days focused on and opposing Outdoor Shelters in what the city calls Outdoor Space zones. However, you can see that there is not wide or clear understanding of what constitutes OS, and often an implicit or explicit equation of it to Parks, or fragile natural spaces such as near Johnson Creek. It's not explained much in the S2HC Proposed Draft; there is an online, dynamic zoning map (https://www.portlandmaps.com/bps/zoning/), but it takes some work to examine what all is classified OS. There's a fair amount of OS land that is around highways, especially I-205; a ton in Forest Park and Linnton Park and adjoining areas; much of far North Portland north of Columbia Slough, and so on. 

In our letter we made a limited suggestion of considering certain Open Space sites, particularly those where Community Centers exist. A number of these currently ARE in use for temporary shelters, and have regularly been used so for many years. Not banning what we currently do, or everything in such a wide zoning category, seems a reasonable idea to me. 

However, after reading and considering all this, I think proposing use of these Open Space zones is a tough battle to fight currently. Confused and overbroad as the OS zoning concept may be, to Portlanders it means parks and 'natural' spaces, of which they are strongly and rightfully proud & protective, and (somewhat unfortunately imo) they tend to see any habitation use of them as a threat. [Personally, I view it more as just another possible public use, like we have campgrounds and cabins in national parks and forests and some cities, or might use park facilities in a natural emergency situation. Also, we might consider that many Portlanders do live in these places now, we might get better outcomes by recognizing and managing it than by declaring it prohibited. We might conceivably even enable, empower, &/or hire people to be stewards of the land they live amid, which people tend to do with land they feel some stake in].

BUT, what's true or right may not necessarily be strategic. I'm thinking a better angle that includes but reframes this may be, to ask HOW, in this huge public chronic and crisis issue, are we as a humane and thinking public making good use of a crucial public resource, our PUBLIC LAND, to help addresss the problem? 

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 10.31.53 AM.png
Public (city) land is land we own, for us to decide what to do with. It's used for all kinds of things, and multiple things overlapping and changing over time. 
Public land includes:
  • City Hall, the Portland Building, and the Rose Garden and treasured parks,
    AND ALSO
  • many, many parking lots, including the part of one that Right 2 Dream Too rest area (pictured above) is sited on in the Rose Quarter. 
  • land planned for future development by e.g. Prosper Portland (former Portland Development Commission)
  • the land under Dignity Village.
  • loads of areas along roads and highways,
  • 100,000s of street and public lot parking spaces, many square miles of space, which is reserved and maintained for usually free, comfortable accommodation of... private vehicles, as long as people aren't in them. Wait, what? what homelessness crisis? 
How about: 1) any land planned for possible future housing development, let's cut to the chase and put interim village housing on it now? Many people are willing to build and run that and live so, if just allowed to use this, you know, public land. This, incidentally, is almost exactly what was done to site Kenton Women's Village (see photo below, by Peter Eckert), is done regularly by Low Income Housing Institute in Seattle, and has become a widely recognized model for the use of planned Affordable Housing sites. 

Kenton-Womens-Village_Peter_Eckert_Photography_0101_wp8d9s.jpg

Now, 2) spare a few hundred or thousand of those 100,000s of parking spaces on public right-of-way or parking lots, for the use of people in need. Rather than strictly for storing the vehicles of housed people not so much in need? That is to say, surely we might recognize, decriminalize, and sensibly manage what is already being done by probably 1000s of people every night in the Portland area? 

3) PARKING -> DWELLING -> HOUSING
Plus, the beautiful thing is that unlike many responses to unhousedness, permitted vehicle dwelling in public offers a remarkably smooth progression into and supply of 'permanent' housing at low cost. Because, under proposed Shelter to Housing Continuum provisions, vehicle dwellers could move to being hosted on a private residence, and potentially then to being anchored to foundation, and then possibly upbuilt/upgraded to a permanent Accessory Dwelling or cottage. 

All this with the excellent side effect of potentially offering site rental income to 100s to 1000s of lower-income Portland homeowners who especially now may be struggling to make mortgage payments or keep their homes. Truly feeding two birds with one seed, or like Drake said, making sure the outcome is the income; like, holistic. 

4) Make shelters an allowed use in multi-dwelling Residential and mixed-use zones. 
that's generally the blue area in map above, and close to arterial (main) roads. Allowed use means it can be done "by right", not requiring the 120-day, $25k+, appealable Conditional Use process. This would allow Outdoor Shelters to begin as temporary uses where shelter residents could be in, errr, Residential zones, and stay there if the site/village were developed and approved for longer-term by C.U. 

5. The Big Point:  are we truly enabling response on the scale of need, and fast enough?
Right now in debating zoning we are, you might say, rearranging the fences on the Titanic. It doesn't in itself shelter or house anyone, and at some point diverts us from that. 
Instead of debating rules, of unknown sufficiency, for us to muddle through with later, we might say: the scale of need is 5-30,000 shelter accommodations or low-cost homes. In terms of sheltering all the City+County's current 'unsheltered' population, that's estimated at around 4,000 'beds', or  80-150 'village' sites of 20-50 people. 

We could be asking of the City and planning officials: you're the experts and have the best info, so show us the 80-150 sites you are enabling for villages via the proposed rules. So we can all together get doing developing and funding and putting these into operation. If City/Planning process currently is, not that, let's ask ourselves, how can we build this site/project list ASAP and be building? Winter is still coming. 

6. Finally: are our organizing methods here working, any suggestions? 

Screen Shot 2020-12-22 at 10.45.57 AM.png

We have kind of stumbled into what seems a fairly efficient, open, ad-hoc advocacy/organizing method. Do you think this works, what will go wrong, or what might you do differently?: 
  1. For a given issue or goal, loosely convene allied advocates and interesteds around shared, (semi-?)public, collaborative document for research/drafting, and possibly live work sessions as we did.
  2. Run a discussion forum (this one) that shares updates and wider discussion on this project(s). 
  3. Periodically or as needed, make a summary testimony or talking-points section, post and date that, wrap a form on it that allows anyone to easily co-sign it or adapt it.  
  4. Publish, present, or submit this position letter as representing the loose coalition, e.g. 'ShelterPDX', plus and particularly particularly whoever cosigns. 
People can participate or endorse in different degrees, or not at all -- organic coalitions of the willing. Perhaps there doesn't even need to be a single position -- if the group can't agree, do two position statements, let people co-sign one or both or neither or which one they saw, as they prefer? The group, like people, can be of multiple minds, in a managed way. 
What do you think?  
Tim

--
Tim McCormick
Moderator at ShelterPDX /  PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

#adhocadvocacy 


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 1:47 PM Keith Wilson <keithwilson@...> wrote:

Tim & Sean,

 

Well said. Thanks to both you and Sean for your guidance. I have signed onto the doc. In addition, I sent the following testimony to expand on the Community Center code request:

 

“Currently, Community Centers are coded Open Spaces, OS, and Mass Shelter Prohibited. Portland is using these resources as Mass Shelters (e.g. Charles Jordan, Mt Scott). Please change the designation for Community Centers to Mass Shelter available (remove prohibited designation).” 33.285.050 does not list OS as an available zone for Mass Shelters.

 

Community Centers are positioned throughout our city to support our communities and neighborhoods. Everything they stand for is positive. I cannot think of a more honorable use than saving the lives of our neighbors who have lost their homes. We should repurpose these huge, valuable assets, that all have bathrooms and showers, at night as shelters. Anderson and Martin would no longer be an issue because the city would have a flex / flow opportunity to support safe sleep for 100% of our citizens. This would result in zero tents and structures being needed by the vulnerable in Portland.

 

TriMet leadership and I recently partnered on a demonstration (https://www.facebook.com/100045753248172/videos/194167805451660) on how this concept would work. We repurposed the Gateway Park & Ride as a Pop-Up Shelter. To learn more, please watch this short video or call me at your convenience.

 

Please reflect on these benefits and change the code to accommodate. Every Portlanders deserves to sleep in a bed every night.

 

Assuring you of my best intentions.

 

Keith Wilson”

 

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim McCormick via groups.io
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 10:25 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

 

I would differ from Sean's proposal, in the joint letter draft as it stands, to defer passing Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) program from the current April goal. Also generally I favor taking any suggestions as far as possible to concrete, plausible amendments. This is what the Commission can do, amend the proposal, they can use help getting any such drafted.

 

As I see it, asking to defer S2HC this would be asking the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability and the Planning and Sustainability Commission to not carry out the duty City Council asked them to perform: to prepare a S2HC reform package before the April 1 2020 [1st? 15th?] expiration of current Housing State of Emergency. The appropriate object of advocacy for deferring it would be City Council, which alone can enact or defer the package. I could see PSC possibly recommending to them some type of continuation or later phase of the process, but can't see them declining to pass a reform package by April. 

 

Also open question, what could or would we do, given more time by deferring of S2HC, that we can't do now?  ("If not here, where? If not now, when?" my ShelterPDX slogan). 

 

I'd suggest articulating what provisions we might *want* to achieve were the process extended, and consider how they might be pursued a) now, or b) after an S2HC passed in April. There would be some advantages to having current proposal passed then, e.g. sooner removing uncertainty about siting mobile dwellings on residential lots. Could we propose these 'wants' now as amendments? 

 

Could we get PSC commissioners to advise the city to pursue certain other items in follow-up ordinances? Could S2HC be amended to require an evaluation of its efficacy and sufficiency after, say, one year, and suggest goals against which it would need to be evaluated? 

 

I imagine a case such as, S2HC passing with the proposed exclusion of shelters from all residential lots; then, the moral conscience of the city belatedly awakening to this blatant exclusionary zoning and denial of resident rights/status to the houseless. Would it be implausible, or insurmountable, for City Council to pass an ordinance directing BPS to revise municipal code Title 33 as needed to change this, and then it approving the revised code? 

 

BPS obviously preferred to bundle a wide set of issues into one 'project', but we might ask, what interests did that serve, really? I've heard many people say they felt it was impossible to sort through the 100s of pages of detailed, interlocking provisions, or consider the possible impacts, and I've heard highly experienced PSC commissioners say that they didn't until last week notice crucial items in the proposal, such as it's ending of the city's Housing State of Emergency declaration process.

 

By contrast, an advocacy effort focused specifically on something like the exclusionary zoning of S2HC could bring this item out of the thickets of code where it was kind of sliding by amid 100 diverting other matters.

 

--

Tim McCormick

Moderator, PDX Shelter Forum; Editor at HousingWiki

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:05 AM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:

The deadline to submit testimony on the S2HC Proposed Draft is today at 5pm. You can sign onto the S2HC Proposed Draft Advocacy Letter by completing a simple form here

You can also submit your own testimony through the Portland Map App here

 

More information on the S2HC project can be found on the BPS website here and in our project document here

 

Best,

Sean

 

--

SEAN GREEN

Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)

Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

 

c 971.998.7376 IG:

 

@AFORMACO


Re: Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

Keith Wilson
 

Tim & Sean,

 

Well said. Thanks to both you and Sean for your guidance. I have signed onto the doc. In addition, I sent the following testimony to expand on the Community Center code request:

 

“Currently, Community Centers are coded Open Spaces, OS, and Mass Shelter Prohibited. Portland is using these resources as Mass Shelters (e.g. Charles Jordan, Mt Scott). Please change the designation for Community Centers to Mass Shelter available (remove prohibited designation).” 33.285.050 does not list OS as an available zone for Mass Shelters.

 

Community Centers are positioned throughout our city to support our communities and neighborhoods. Everything they stand for is positive. I cannot think of a more honorable use than saving the lives of our neighbors who have lost their homes. We should repurpose these huge, valuable assets, that all have bathrooms and showers, at night as shelters. Anderson and Martin would no longer be an issue because the city would have a flex / flow opportunity to support safe sleep for 100% of our citizens. This would result in zero tents and structures being needed by the vulnerable in Portland.

 

TriMet leadership and I recently partnered on a demonstration (https://www.facebook.com/100045753248172/videos/194167805451660) on how this concept would work. We repurposed the Gateway Park & Ride as a Pop-Up Shelter. To learn more, please watch this short video or call me at your convenience.

 

Please reflect on these benefits and change the code to accommodate. Every Portlanders deserves to sleep in a bed every night.

 

Assuring you of my best intentions.

 

Keith Wilson”

 

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tim McCormick via groups.io
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 10:25 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

 

I would differ from Sean's proposal, in the joint letter draft as it stands, to defer passing Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) program from the current April goal. Also generally I favor taking any suggestions as far as possible to concrete, plausible amendments. This is what the Commission can do, amend the proposal, they can use help getting any such drafted.

 

As I see it, asking to defer S2HC this would be asking the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability and the Planning and Sustainability Commission to not carry out the duty City Council asked them to perform: to prepare a S2HC reform package before the April 1 2020 [1st? 15th?] expiration of current Housing State of Emergency. The appropriate object of advocacy for deferring it would be City Council, which alone can enact or defer the package. I could see PSC possibly recommending to them some type of continuation or later phase of the process, but can't see them declining to pass a reform package by April. 

 

Also open question, what could or would we do, given more time by deferring of S2HC, that we can't do now?  ("If not here, where? If not now, when?" my ShelterPDX slogan). 

 

I'd suggest articulating what provisions we might *want* to achieve were the process extended, and consider how they might be pursued a) now, or b) after an S2HC passed in April. There would be some advantages to having current proposal passed then, e.g. sooner removing uncertainty about siting mobile dwellings on residential lots. Could we propose these 'wants' now as amendments? 

 

Could we get PSC commissioners to advise the city to pursue certain other items in follow-up ordinances? Could S2HC be amended to require an evaluation of its efficacy and sufficiency after, say, one year, and suggest goals against which it would need to be evaluated? 

 

I imagine a case such as, S2HC passing with the proposed exclusion of shelters from all residential lots; then, the moral conscience of the city belatedly awakening to this blatant exclusionary zoning and denial of resident rights/status to the houseless. Would it be implausible, or insurmountable, for City Council to pass an ordinance directing BPS to revise municipal code Title 33 as needed to change this, and then it approving the revised code? 

 

BPS obviously preferred to bundle a wide set of issues into one 'project', but we might ask, what interests did that serve, really? I've heard many people say they felt it was impossible to sort through the 100s of pages of detailed, interlocking provisions, or consider the possible impacts, and I've heard highly experienced PSC commissioners say that they didn't until last week notice crucial items in the proposal, such as it's ending of the city's Housing State of Emergency declaration process.

 

By contrast, an advocacy effort focused specifically on something like the exclusionary zoning of S2HC could bring this item out of the thickets of code where it was kind of sliding by amid 100 diverting other matters.

 

--

Tim McCormick

Moderator, PDX Shelter Forum; Editor at HousingWiki

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:05 AM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:

The deadline to submit testimony on the S2HC Proposed Draft is today at 5pm. You can sign onto the S2HC Proposed Draft Advocacy Letter by completing a simple form here

You can also submit your own testimony through the Portland Map App here

 

More information on the S2HC project can be found on the BPS website here and in our project document here

 

Best,

Sean

 

--

SEAN GREEN

Founder & COO, Aforma
Chair, NECN (Chair, LUTC)

Member, DRAC (Chair, PITC)

 

c 971.998.7376 IG:

 

@AFORMACO


Re: Action Alert: 4pm Deadline Today to Sign S2HC Advocacy Letter

Tim McCormick
 

I would differ from Sean's proposal, in the joint letter draft as it stands, to defer passing Shelter to Housing Continuum (S2HC) program from the current April goal. Also generally I favor taking any suggestions as far as possible to concrete, plausible amendments. This is what the Commission can do, amend the proposal, they can use help getting any such drafted.


As I see it, asking to defer S2HC this would be asking the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability and the Planning and Sustainability Commission to not carry out the duty City Council asked them to perform: to prepare a S2HC reform package before the April 1 2020 [1st? 15th?] expiration of current Housing State of Emergency. The appropriate object of advocacy for deferring it would be City Council, which alone can enact or defer the package. I could see PSC possibly recommending to them some type of continuation or later phase of the process, but can't see them declining to pass a reform package by April. 


Also open question, what could or would we do, given more time by deferring of S2HC, that we can't do now?  ("If not here, where? If not now, when?" my ShelterPDX slogan). 


I'd suggest articulating what provisions we might *want* to achieve were the process extended, and consider how they might be pursued a) now, or b) after an S2HC passed in April. There would be some advantages to having current proposal passed then, e.g. sooner removing uncertainty about siting mobile dwellings on residential lots. Could we propose these 'wants' now as amendments? 


Could we get PSC commissioners to advise the city to pursue certain other items in follow-up ordinances? Could S2HC be amended to require an evaluation of its efficacy and sufficiency after, say, one year, and suggest goals against which it would need to be evaluated? 


I imagine a case such as, S2HC passing with the proposed exclusion of shelters from all residential lots; then, the moral conscience of the city belatedly awakening to this blatant exclusionary zoning and denial of resident rights/status to the houseless. Would it be implausible, or insurmountable, for City Council to pass an ordinance directing BPS to revise municipal code Title 33 as needed to change this, and then it approving the revised code? 


BPS obviously preferred to bundle a wide set of issues into one 'project', but we might ask, what interests did that serve, really? I've heard many people say they felt it was impossible to sort through the 100s of pages of detailed, interlocking provisions, or consider the possible impacts, and I've heard highly experienced PSC commissioners say that they didn't until last week notice crucial items in the proposal, such as it's ending of the city's Housing State of Emergency declaration process.


By contrast, an advocacy effort focused specifically on something like the exclusionary zoning of S2HC could bring this item out of the thickets of code where it was kind of sliding by amid 100 diverting other matters.


--
Tim McCormick
Moderator, PDX Shelter Forum; Editor at HousingWiki
Portland, Oregon 


On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 6:05 AM Sean Green <green@...> wrote:
The deadline to submit testimony on the S2HC Proposed Draft is today at 5pm. You can sign onto the S2HC Proposed Draft Advocacy Letter by completing a simple form here
You can also submit your own testimony through the Portland Map App here

More information on the S2HC project can be found on the BPS website here and in our project document here

Best,
Sean

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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO

361 - 380 of 679