Date   

Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Emerson This
 

@Skip This is my understanding of the idea: build tiny home villages on top of space-truss platforms. I hear a lot of people advocate for the idea of tiny homes as an interim solution. But it's already been very difficult to get those established on empty lots and sites that already exist. How would these ever get done if someone has to build a space-truss first?
—Emerson


On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Re: Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Aisha Musa
 

Dear Skip,
Thank you for sharing this. However, I see that you are missing what is ALWAYS missing from these kinds of plans and that is any consideration of disabled people. There are wheelchair users living in tents on the sidewalks who cannot move to safer alternatives because the alternatives were constructed WITHOUT ANY thought given to accessibility. The ADA was passed more than 30 years ago (after decades of protests by the disabled community) and planning still excludes any consideration of accessibility ALL. THE. TIME.


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









On Sun, May 2, 2021 at 7:28 PM Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





Low-cost Spaceframe Housing Concept Proposal

Skip Trantow
 

Hello All,

I have been closely following the progression of the homeless situation in Portland for some time. I understand this is a complex and difficult situation and do not fault anyone at the Joint Office of Homeless Services or other housing agencies.  There is certainly good work being done, yet I also think there is room for evolving the approach to finding solutions.  

As a retired software engineer, as a hands-on person who has built and/or remodeled several of my own homes and understands all aspects of construction (e.g., structural, electrical, plumbing), and as a life-long student of Geometry (per http://omnigarten.org), it is painful to see Portland devote huge sums of money to large capital low-income apartment projects that seem to house a relatively small number of people for the level of investment.  The problem is outpacing that approach. The recent adoption of the S2HC package that allows more modes of housing is progress. Yet, we ultimately need to get to where permanent tiny-home villages are normal and abundant throughout the urban area. That is the gist of my proposal, Low-Cost Spaceframe Housing Concept, found at http://spaceframe.housing.wiki/ , I hope this forum can discuss.  I would like to see Portland’s JOHS do a feasibility study on this concept, and ideally, fund a small proof-of-concept project.  If that works out, go full-steam ahead and fund full-scale projects.  

The proposal builds on the work of architect Peter Pearce whom I met several years ago when he talked about the design of his Spaceframe EcoHouse. I have since devoured his books on design.  Peter is an immense talent who brings a different way of thinking about physical structure and how the theoretical can be formed into practical solutions.  I believe Portland would be wise to harness Peter’s thinking.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein who stated: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. 

As I see it: We cannot solve our housing problem relying solely on the same construction methodologies that contributed to the dearth of truly affordable housing in the first place.

Regards,

Skip Trantow

Portland

 

 

 





County Commissioner Meieran Wants More Aggressive Plan to Shelter Homeless

Tim McCormick
 

Multnomah County Commissioner Sharon Meieran Wants More Aggressive Plan to Shelter Homeless People

by Sophie Peelwweek.com

"In an interview with WW, Multnomah County Commissioner Sharon Meieran pointedly criticized Portland-area leaders for inaction on homelessness, saying “we don’t have a plan or even a kernel of a plan” for spending billions of taxpayer dollars to get unhoused people into stable shelter."

"Last week, Meieran asked the city and county to coordinate an expedited plan to address homelessness, and get people into temporary shelters within the next six months."..



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


Re: villages envisioned on large scale by developer Homer Williams, & not by County budget

Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for sharing this KOIN piece, Tim. 

It was hopeful and exciting if something definite comes of it. I am wondering if anyone knows how much purchase Williams' ideas have really gotten with the City and County. There was a lot of mention in the segment of him talking with them -- which is a bit (and maybe understandably vague). 

Does anyone else know how far those talks have gone?

Also, thoughts on his village concept? On the other components of his four part plan? I remember checking out Home Share before and wondering why it wasn't more talked about.

Was neat to see the anchors and reporter so enthusiastic about housing.

Elise

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:37 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
"Williams wants to open villages across [Portland] to accommodate as many as 20,000 people....[He] is talking with the city about using a publicly-owned piece of property to open the first managed community by the end of June.
https://www.koin.com/news/special-reports/a-developers-4-part-plan-to-solve-portlands-homeless-crisis/. story by Dan Tilkin at KOIN -- thanks Dan. Awesome work, visioning, and action, Homer.
Bcc: Dan Tilkin, Homer Williams. Screen Shot 2021-04-23 at 10.25.40 AM.png
This is from Homer Williams, with whom I've had a few conversations over the last few months, and whom I often suggest might lead Portland's 'village' initiatives to much greater scale and success and innovation than the official, somewhat minimal & grudging moves.
The contrast is stark: the county chair released her proposal yesterday (https://multco.us/budget/fy-2022-chairs-proposed-budget) for all city/county annual spending on homelessness, $150M. It contains only $350k for "alternative shelter", zero for additional housing.
So far, official Portland in regard to funding has weighed in very heavily on the side of services funding and traditional congregate shelter. County Chair Deborah Kafoury is seen as (and mentioned in this news piece) as a longtime skeptic/opponent of alternative shelter and housing options, whom Williams has long battled with over various projects. Having followed it closely in last 2 years, I'd say that the City/County position is quite at odds with public opinion and citizen advocacy, which is widely supportive of "alternative shelter" / village approaches, challenging the prevailing system.

--
Tim McCormick
+1 503 334 1894
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 



--
Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions
Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!


villages envisioned on large scale by developer Homer Williams, & not by County budget

Tim McCormick
 

"Williams wants to open villages across [Portland] to accommodate as many as 20,000 people....[He] is talking with the city about using a publicly-owned piece of property to open the first managed community by the end of June.
https://www.koin.com/news/special-reports/a-developers-4-part-plan-to-solve-portlands-homeless-crisis/. story by Dan Tilkin at KOIN -- thanks Dan. Awesome work, visioning, and action, Homer.
Bcc: Dan Tilkin, Homer Williams. Screen Shot 2021-04-23 at 10.25.40 AM.png
This is from Homer Williams, with whom I've had a few conversations over the last few months, and whom I often suggest might lead Portland's 'village' initiatives to much greater scale and success and innovation than the official, somewhat minimal & grudging moves.
The contrast is stark: the county chair released her proposal yesterday (https://multco.us/budget/fy-2022-chairs-proposed-budget) for all city/county annual spending on homelessness, $150M. It contains only $350k for "alternative shelter", zero for additional housing.
So far, official Portland in regard to funding has weighed in very heavily on the side of services funding and traditional congregate shelter. County Chair Deborah Kafoury is seen as (and mentioned in this news piece) as a longtime skeptic/opponent of alternative shelter and housing options, whom Williams has long battled with over various projects. Having followed it closely in last 2 years, I'd say that the City/County position is quite at odds with public opinion and citizen advocacy, which is widely supportive of "alternative shelter" / village approaches, challenging the prevailing system.

--
Tim McCormick
+1 503 334 1894
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Here’s the Cascadia Clusters proposal

Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for sharing this, Matthew.

Elise

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021, 12:07 PM Matthew Lembo, <matt.lembo@...> wrote:
Here is what Sunnyside submitted.


On Mar 28, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:




Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...> wrote:

Hi all,

I am part of the team that submitted proposals from the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association and Beacon Village and would be happy to participate in this discussion.

-Matt Lembo


On Mar 27, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:


Andy's idea of hosting an alternate space for the group proposals sounds like a great idea. 

Which of the groups on the list do you need contact info for? 

Some of the names seem like ones for which PDX Shelter Forum would already have connections.

If you have a shortlist of those for which you'd need contact info that would be a good starting point.

Elise

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 2:28 AM Tim McCormick, <tmccormick@...> wrote:
great idea Andy, and thanks so much for pulling that list of RFPQ respondents. I didn't realize this was possible from the procurement site, I was waiting for more from procurement analyst, Kathi Braeme-Burr.

we've been discussing ways to gather and cross-support proposers (and new collaborators) since before the last forum, this good movement forward.

Here's an open doc for this on the PDX Shelter Forum site (an unfolding experiment in open, collaborative, decentralized 'site' form using GDocs / Google Drive, by the way):
I've added to it the list of proposers from Andy.

If anyone here knows more about the proposals, or whom/how to contact the proposers, please share or add to document. We should be able to get a project listing, whats-needed, how-can-i-help, and discussion going here!
thanks, Tim. 



On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:05 PM Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:
How about hosting a call asking all applicants to share their proposals and see what the community can do to come together around this important work

Proposals Received: 
Event Number RFPQ-76-2021 
Event Name: Alternative Shelter (Reissue)

ALL GOOD NORTHWEST 
BEACON VILLAGE 
Bridges to Change, Inc. 
CASCADIA CLUSTERS 
CATHOLIC CHARITIES 
CITY REPAIR PROJECT 
Courtesy inn motel 
Cultivate Initiatives 
Dignity Village, Inc. 
ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON 
EQUITABLE GIVING CIRCLE 
FAMILY PROMISE OF METRO EAST 
GRAVES CHERYL 
GREATER GOOD NORTHWEST 
HELPING HANDS REENTRY OUTREACH 
CENTERS 
Holistic Healing Behavioral Healthcare 
LEE KYLE 
Matthew Suplee LLC 
MISHEEL LLC 
N/A (Hazelnut Grove) 
Operation Nightwatch 
Oregon Trail of Hope 
Pause for the Cause Creating Change 
POD the People 
Portland New Generations Rotary Club 
RIGHT 2 DREAM TOO 
RISING PHOENIX HOMES LLC 
SELF ENHANCEMENT, INC. 
STRAIGHTWAY SERVICES 
SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 
TULBERG JOSHUA 
Volunteers of America Oregon, Inc.

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 26, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Stanley Penkin <stanleypenkin@...> wrote:



I also received negative knee jerk reactions from people who only saw the word parks, but I do think the initial narrative could have been better defined.

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barb Rainish
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Oregonian article followup on Shelter to Housing at City Council meeting Weds

 

I wish people would educate themselves and watch the city council meetings to get a better understanding.

 

This is frustrating because neighbors don't understand that the willy nilly camping they see and complain about can't be stopped unless there are acceptable and available (sanctioned) for them to go.

 

Thanks for all the advocacy!

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 3:57 PM David Groff via groups.io <dgroff45=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Earlier this week I posted on Nextdoor Woodstock the OPB article on S2HC and almost immediately received a bunch of negative replies.  My neighbors who posted, with one or two exceptions, are all convinced that the central idea is to put camps in parks.  I argued with them to no avail, which was discouraging to say the least.

 

David Groff

Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

 

On Friday, March 26, 2021, 03:33:52 PM PDT, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

 

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc: Nicole Hayden, reporter, The Oregonian

Laura Gunderson, public editor, The Oregonian

followup article after Weds City Council meeting on Shelter to Housing Continuum: "Portland City Council assures residents that homeless quarters will not be allowed in parks"

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/portland-city-council-assures-residents-that-homeless-quarters-will-not-be-allowed-in-parks.html.

Accompanied, like our Op-ed, by one of the most dismal-looking pictures I have ever seen of a permitted camp for the unhoused. It's also completely out of date, taken in November before these tents and pallets were fully replaced by Pallet Shelter units. 


My comments posted on it: 

1. the headline, opening, and tweet are misleading to inaccurate. Council is upholding use of parks Community Centers, parking lots, paved areas, this is not "not allowed in parks." 1/n

2. the reporter has repeatedly characterized proposals as for "semi-permanent structures". But tiny houses on wheels are permanent structures, also the @PDXshelterforum coalition in testimony over past year & Op-ed yesterday has called for allowing permanent structures & housing in
#S2HC 2/n. 

3. the reporter say "a handful of residents" opposed RV hookup reqs. But that opposition includes the Planning & Sustainability Commission & very wide community support including @PNWelcome, @catoregon, @SunrisePDX,
@PDXshelterforum etc. Why are *only* officials/staff's views presented? 3/3

Once again, as has been generally true of local news coverage of S2HC and related issues organized community/citizen advocacy has been largely erased from the story. 

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 




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


<We Shine Communities RFPQ Submittal 4-1.pdf>


Re: Here’s the Cascadia Clusters proposal

Matthew Lembo
 

Here is what Sunnyside submitted.


On Mar 28, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:




Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 28, 2021, at 8:29 AM, Matthew Lembo <matt.lembo@...> wrote:

Hi all,

I am part of the team that submitted proposals from the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association and Beacon Village and would be happy to participate in this discussion.

-Matt Lembo


On Mar 27, 2021, at 11:10 PM, Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:


Andy's idea of hosting an alternate space for the group proposals sounds like a great idea. 

Which of the groups on the list do you need contact info for? 

Some of the names seem like ones for which PDX Shelter Forum would already have connections.

If you have a shortlist of those for which you'd need contact info that would be a good starting point.

Elise

On Sat, Mar 27, 2021, 2:28 AM Tim McCormick, <tmccormick@...> wrote:
great idea Andy, and thanks so much for pulling that list of RFPQ respondents. I didn't realize this was possible from the procurement site, I was waiting for more from procurement analyst, Kathi Braeme-Burr.

we've been discussing ways to gather and cross-support proposers (and new collaborators) since before the last forum, this good movement forward.

Here's an open doc for this on the PDX Shelter Forum site (an unfolding experiment in open, collaborative, decentralized 'site' form using GDocs / Google Drive, by the way):
I've added to it the list of proposers from Andy.

If anyone here knows more about the proposals, or whom/how to contact the proposers, please share or add to document. We should be able to get a project listing, whats-needed, how-can-i-help, and discussion going here!
thanks, Tim. 



On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 11:05 PM Andrew Olshin <Andrew.Olshin@...> wrote:
How about hosting a call asking all applicants to share their proposals and see what the community can do to come together around this important work

Proposals Received: 
Event Number RFPQ-76-2021 
Event Name: Alternative Shelter (Reissue)

ALL GOOD NORTHWEST 
BEACON VILLAGE 
Bridges to Change, Inc. 
CASCADIA CLUSTERS 
CATHOLIC CHARITIES 
CITY REPAIR PROJECT 
Courtesy inn motel 
Cultivate Initiatives 
Dignity Village, Inc. 
ECUMENICAL MINISTRIES OF OREGON 
EQUITABLE GIVING CIRCLE 
FAMILY PROMISE OF METRO EAST 
GRAVES CHERYL 
GREATER GOOD NORTHWEST 
HELPING HANDS REENTRY OUTREACH 
CENTERS 
Holistic Healing Behavioral Healthcare 
LEE KYLE 
Matthew Suplee LLC 
MISHEEL LLC 
N/A (Hazelnut Grove) 
Operation Nightwatch 
Oregon Trail of Hope 
Pause for the Cause Creating Change 
POD the People 
Portland New Generations Rotary Club 
RIGHT 2 DREAM TOO 
RISING PHOENIX HOMES LLC 
SELF ENHANCEMENT, INC. 
STRAIGHTWAY SERVICES 
SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 
TULBERG JOSHUA 
Volunteers of America Oregon, Inc.

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 26, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Stanley Penkin <stanleypenkin@...> wrote:



I also received negative knee jerk reactions from people who only saw the word parks, but I do think the initial narrative could have been better defined.

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Barb Rainish
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Oregonian article followup on Shelter to Housing at City Council meeting Weds

 

I wish people would educate themselves and watch the city council meetings to get a better understanding.

 

This is frustrating because neighbors don't understand that the willy nilly camping they see and complain about can't be stopped unless there are acceptable and available (sanctioned) for them to go.

 

Thanks for all the advocacy!

 

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021, 3:57 PM David Groff via groups.io <dgroff45=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Earlier this week I posted on Nextdoor Woodstock the OPB article on S2HC and almost immediately received a bunch of negative replies.  My neighbors who posted, with one or two exceptions, are all convinced that the central idea is to put camps in parks.  I argued with them to no avail, which was discouraging to say the least.

 

David Groff

Interfaith Alliance on Poverty

 

On Friday, March 26, 2021, 03:33:52 PM PDT, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:

 

 

To: PDX Shelter Forum

Bcc: Nicole Hayden, reporter, The Oregonian

Laura Gunderson, public editor, The Oregonian

followup article after Weds City Council meeting on Shelter to Housing Continuum: "Portland City Council assures residents that homeless quarters will not be allowed in parks"

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/03/portland-city-council-assures-residents-that-homeless-quarters-will-not-be-allowed-in-parks.html.

Accompanied, like our Op-ed, by one of the most dismal-looking pictures I have ever seen of a permitted camp for the unhoused. It's also completely out of date, taken in November before these tents and pallets were fully replaced by Pallet Shelter units. 


My comments posted on it: 

1. the headline, opening, and tweet are misleading to inaccurate. Council is upholding use of parks Community Centers, parking lots, paved areas, this is not "not allowed in parks." 1/n

2. the reporter has repeatedly characterized proposals as for "semi-permanent structures". But tiny houses on wheels are permanent structures, also the @PDXshelterforum coalition in testimony over past year & Op-ed yesterday has called for allowing permanent structures & housing in
#S2HC 2/n. 

3. the reporter say "a handful of residents" opposed RV hookup reqs. But that opposition includes the Planning & Sustainability Commission & very wide community support including @PNWelcome, @catoregon, @SunrisePDX,
@PDXshelterforum etc. Why are *only* officials/staff's views presented? 3/3

Once again, as has been generally true of local news coverage of S2HC and related issues organized community/citizen advocacy has been largely erased from the story. 

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 




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


<We Shine Communities RFPQ Submittal 4-1.pdf>


Re: our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

Peter Finley Fry
 

Our housing and zoning codes are developed after years of one crisis after another that have resulted in plaques; horrible living conditions; and specific efforts to force people to live in horrible substandard conditions or worse.  

 

As we all are previlage to live in a country with paved streets and sewer and water; we find it hard to understand or remember where we have come from and why the laws that we have are important.  It is unfortunate that the vast majority of humans who live in the states have no idea what it is like to live in poverty or oppression. 

 

So we as entitled humans demand special privileged to do what we like without concern for the consequences of our actions and the “fantasy” village falls into the typical human reality of the strong preying on the weak and disabled.

 

This is why there is a need for transparent self governance of villages that are actually settlements not camps.  A settlement (village, town, city) is not the same as low barrier camps (emergency rooms) where people be in a safe enough environment to open up and receive help to allow them to move out of the relationship impoverished situation that they have found themselves in cast out form their very families.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Finley Fry   AICP PhD MUP

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Tim McCormick via groups.io
Sent: Saturday, April 3, 2021 11:14 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io; Jeff Liddicoat
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

 

I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.


print version: 
"Open new paths from the streets to permanent housing." 

Laquida Landford, Tim McCormick, and Les Wardenaar. The Oregonian, March 24, 2021.
Landford is the leader of the AfroVillage PDX Project. McCormick is co-founder of PDX Shelter Forum and lead organizer of Village Collaborative. Wardenaar is chair of the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty and co-founder of Shelter Now.


I prefer the way it was presented in print (see image below), compared to the online version (further below), because the print headline has "permanent housing" vs online just "housing", which emphasizes the key points I wanted to make, highlighted in the image. Those mention two amendment points which we advocated over the entire last year, about which I'd say City staff & officials at no point ever considered, responded to, appeared to comprehend the motivation for, or gave any rationale for their opposing position.  

 

As I long attempted to argue, the (to me) puzzling and unusual provision to prohibit actual housing structures in "Outdoor Shelters", and the very conception of this shelter type, for which they originally use term 'villages', very much cut off possibilities for a continuum or or transition from shelter to permanent housing. I have found, over nearly many years of related advocacy work, that in Portland (and many cities), most officials & professionals in the US can rarely conceive or accept an idea of a site or structure evolving from a 'temporary' or 'shelter' classification to a 'housing' or 'permanent' classification. Even though, this is a quite normal process historically and globally, an obvious and self-determining way to accomplish a continuum or transition between the two, and is even implicit in provisions allowing a Tiny House on Wheels to be in an Outdoor Shelter or also sited on a private residential property. 

I find that, very ironically, the housing/homelessness field and the Shelter to Housing Continuum process leaders talk continually about how "housing is the answer", housing is what solves homelessness, etc., yet in practice often work relentlessly against some of the easiest, most low-cost and scaleable ways to achieve it. It's, housing.. but not like that! 

 

 

 

The online version dropped 'permanent' from headline, and added an "Editor's note" which I think misrepresents both Shelter to Housing Continuum and what we were trying to say. 

 

Online version: 

"Opinion: Open new paths from streets to housing". Mar 24, 2021

https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2021/03/opinion-open-new-paths-from-streets-to-housing.html.

By Guest Columnist
Editor’s note: This op-ed is one of two commentary pieces today addressing a proposal to allow temporary homeless shelters in land zoned as open space, including parks and natural areas. You can find the other op-ed arguing the opposing position at oregonlive.com/opinion.

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 

 

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:

Elise,

I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.

 

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 9:33 PM Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:

Yes, good to see this Op-Ed!

 

--

 

 


Re: our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

Tim McCormick
 

I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.

print version: 
"Open new paths from the streets to permanent housing." 
Laquida Landford, Tim McCormick, and Les Wardenaar. The Oregonian, March 24, 2021.
Landford is the leader of the AfroVillage PDX Project. McCormick is co-founder of PDX Shelter Forum and lead organizer of Village Collaborative. Wardenaar is chair of the Interfaith Alliance on Poverty and co-founder of Shelter Now.

I prefer the way it was presented in print (see image below), compared to the online version (further below), because the print headline has "permanent housing" vs online just "housing", which emphasizes the key points I wanted to make, highlighted in the image. Those mention two amendment points which we advocated over the entire last year, about which I'd say City staff & officials at no point ever considered, responded to, appeared to comprehend the motivation for, or gave any rationale for their opposing position.  

As I long attempted to argue, the (to me) puzzling and unusual provision to prohibit actual housing structures in "Outdoor Shelters", and the very conception of this shelter type, for which they originally use term 'villages', very much cut off possibilities for a continuum or or transition from shelter to permanent housing. I have found, over nearly many years of related advocacy work, that in Portland (and many cities), most officials & professionals in the US can rarely conceive or accept an idea of a site or structure evolving from a 'temporary' or 'shelter' classification to a 'housing' or 'permanent' classification. Even though, this is a quite normal process historically and globally, an obvious and self-determining way to accomplish a continuum or transition between the two, and is even implicit in provisions allowing a Tiny House on Wheels to be in an Outdoor Shelter or also sited on a private residential property. 

I find that, very ironically, the housing/homelessness field and the Shelter to Housing Continuum process leaders talk continually about how "housing is the answer", housing is what solves homelessness, etc., yet in practice often work relentlessly against some of the easiest, most low-cost and scaleable ways to achieve it. It's, housing.. but not like that! 
 

IMG_1168.JPG

The online version dropped 'permanent' from headline, and added an "Editor's note" which I think misrepresents both Shelter to Housing Continuum and what we were trying to say. 

Online version: 
"Opinion: Open new paths from streets to housing". Mar 24, 2021
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2021/03/opinion-open-new-paths-from-streets-to-housing.html.

By Guest Columnist
Editor’s note: This op-ed is one of two commentary pieces today addressing a proposal to allow temporary homeless shelters in land zoned as open space, including parks and natural areas. You can find the other op-ed arguing the opposing position at oregonlive.com/opinion.

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


On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
Elise,
I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer to here - could you please forward it to me.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 9:33 PM Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:
Yes, good to see this Op-Ed!

--


Re: our Oregonian op-ed supporting *permenent* options in Shelter to Housing Continuum,

Jeff Liddicoat
 

Elise,
I'm not seeing the op ed piece you refer
 to here - could you please forward it to me.

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021, 9:33 PM Elise Aymer <elise@...> wrote:
Yes, good to see this Op-Ed!

--


Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Jim Krauel
 

Hi. 
Off topic, but I work closely with a lady that just got off the streets onto a boat that's tied up just outside the waterfront marina.
Her boat is leaking and I'm trying to assist her in getting it patched up.  Do any of you know a handyman that could do this for little to no pay?
Or, does anyone have connections to one of the Marina's in town.
If you can assist you can contact me directly at jimmykrauel@...

Thanks


On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:06 PM Tommy Kiser <tommy@...> wrote:
Sorry, that was the list from Portland: Neighbors welcome, which this group also supported in the previous testimony. Here’s the text of the PDX Shelter Forum’s letter:

March 17, 2021

Dear Mayor Wheeler and Portland City Council,

PDX Shelter Forum began in May 2020 to help develop ways to rapidly ensure safe, decent dwelling for all Portlanders. We have since hosted four public online forums, and multiple community work sessions to develop testimony; created open online guides to discuss and advocate on related legislation; grown our active web/email forum to over 330 members, and presented written and spoken testimony at numerous events. 

The Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) has been a major focus of our group's work since we began, and our June forum included the first public presentation about S2HC by Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) staff. We are pleased to strongly endorse the proposal, with a set of recommendations detailed below. 

We are aligned with the revisions/recommendations made by

  1. Planning and Sustainability Commission, in its transmittal letter to Council; and 
  2. Social Justice Coalition as represented by letter from Portland: Neighbors Welcome

though we also have made additional recommendations. 


Our recommendations: 

1) We support BPS’ recommendation to not remove the city’s ability to declare or extend a Housing State of Emergency. We are in an emergency now, and it could very well worsen with eviction moratoriums ending and high unemployment continuing. 


2)  If the new Outdoor Shelters are an ongoing need, they should not require a complex, costly, and high-risk Conditional Use process in order to stay past 180 days. It's not a viable way to start and continue an Outdoor Shelter, to begin with a clock ticking that you’ll be forced out in 180 days, unless you succeed with a CU application that takes at least 120 days. We recommend City Council create an initial Allowed Use period of 1 year, to give a new shelter site a reasonable pathway to set up and develop community relationships to support the pursuit of longer-term siting.

Also, please waive permitting and Conditional Use fees for new shelters – this is an emergency. Like Anatole France said, sort of, “The law, in its majestic equality, charges equal fees to skyscrapers and shelters, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges..."


3) Don't prohibit use of all right-of-way land for Outdoor Shelter use. This is a huge amount of the public land that is not Open Space, park, or occupied; it’s where many of the city’s houseless live now, and it includes all kinds of potentially usable spaces such as the current site of Right 2 Dream Too village. As one relatively simple, scalable mode of use, we suggest that certain areas of existing, underutilized parking spaces on public right of way might allow permitted vehicle dwelling in certain locations, for example on the model used in some areas of Eugene. We believe that, in a crisis, this large stock of public land should be considered for helping to house people, not just to store and convey vehicles. 


4) Open Space (OS): possible use of OS for Outdoor Shelters emerged as a contentious issue on this proposal, with concerns raised especially by code sections 33.296.030.G (existing) and 33.296.030.H (proposed)

33.296.030.H: This new provision accommodates the temporary operation of a mass shelter or an outdoor shelter on a site in all zones of the city for up to 180 days within a calendar year. ...without the need for an emergency that is generally declared by City Council in Title 15. and is usually the mechanism to invoke G. above. 

This seems to unconditionally allow Outdoor Shelters, of same 6-month tenure as discussed in proposal generally, anywhere in the city; but we don't think that is really the intent of BPS, or shouldn't be, nor is necessary.

Public hearings and testimony show there is significant complexity, and often misunderstanding, about what Open Space comprises. It includes city parks and sensitive natural areas including on waterways and in flood plains, which generally have protections from other use, and which few people seem to support the use of for shelter. However, Open Space may also include areas such as leftover space around state or Federal highways, or surplus from other transportation and development projects, which might at times be plausible shelter sites. 

Observing the unclear definition and understanding of Open Space, we suggest that the best path is neither allow all, nor prohibit all potential use of OS for shelters. Rather, exclude from shelter consideration the subsets of OS that people are truly concerned about, and allow specific other sites to be considered by City Council action.  


5) S2HC so far has concerned rules for hypothetical locating of shelters, but we urge you to direct BPS and other departments’ resources to helping locate actual plausible shelter sites. We believe an open community effort is needed to propose, assess and launch implementation projects to ASAP create shelter or village sites on the scale of need, which might plausibly require 50+ sites. To ensure equitable placement of shelters, and achieve city-wide community acceptance, establish a process (e.g. by use of public land, funding, etc.) to balance concentration of shelters across city areas. Every neighborhood should be asked to propose preferred village/shelter sites.  

City, County, & Metro departments have unparallelled resources to support this – such as GIS and mapping tools, Metro Supportive Housing Services measure funding, the alternative shelter RFPQ program, and existing inventories of public lands. We ask that the City seek to facilitate and accelerate efforts on this, for example by publishing city-wide, lot-level mapping of sites’ eligibility for shelters under the S2HC guidelines once approved, and a publicly usable spreadsheet listing of potential sites. This list should also include public land and facilities the City and County have that could be used for shelters.



6) Allow temporary housing in Outdoor Shelters. BPS was directed by Council resolution in 2019 to enable “temporary housing,” and interpreted that to a new concept  of “Outdoor Shelter,” using State-defined "transitional accommodation" structure types, excluding legal housing. There is no reason or norm that temporary housing not be, housing; this is generally less preferable to residents; and it works strongly against sites or dwellings transitioning to permanent housing, one of the simplest ways to achieve the permanent housing which everyone says is the real goal. 

This major restriction was not in the City Council ordinance authorizing S2HC project and we repeatedly advocated to remove it. It doesn’t align with common village models, and is at odds with the 2021 Oregon housing emergency legislation HB 2006, which defines emergency-usable housing to include all types of structures. This is also consistent with California emergency shelter law, and general practice. These restrictions should be removed. 


7) Don't require water/sewer connections for shelters, or mobile dwellings. Contrary to overwhelming public and expert testimony, and the recommendation of the PSC, the draft requires a sewer-water connection for vehicles with plumbing, and state titling. The sewer connection in particular is prohibitive for a huge portion of possible cases of vehicle residence on private property. It’s also backward looking, hooking users into a costly and disaster-fragile mass sewage system, rather than ecological, adaptable, and autonomous composting, greywater, and solar energy systems. We urge that accommodations and mobile dwellings permitted by S2HC be allowed to innovate and use non-grid water, waste, and electric systems; and as PSC recommends, not be required to meet state titling.


8) For Outdoor Shelters, don't require 25' setback from adjoining residential property. This is unreasonable, prohibitive for small lots, and inconsistent with other residential setback rules. 


9)  Don't require shelters to be 'compatible' with adjacent residential.
33.815.107 requires that Outdoor Shelters “ will be compatible with adjacent residential developments based on characteristics such as the site size, building scale and style.”  This is  nonsensical: if outdoor shelters are not and can not include housing structures, they can’t reasonably be required to be compatible in building scale and style with area residences. 

We respectfully request incorporation of these recommendations into the S2HC ordinance and implementation, and look forward to working together to support our unhoused neighbors.


On Mar 30, 2021, at 2:57 PM, Tommy Kiser <tommy@...> wrote:

I assume this is because the ammendments put forward by this group previously were not considered or implemented into the current draft right? This is the list copy pasted from past notes on the website.

FWIW, I’ve shared this letter with others who have also asked for more details on why this group is endorsing the delay. If the organizers could validate or correct my assumption here, that would be helpful to those of us who haven’t been in all the meetings. Thanks!

Cheers,

-Tommy

——

Actions and amendments proposed by Portland: Neighbors Welcome:

  1. Extend the Housing Emergency at least until the end of the declared public health emergency, plus six months to help ensure a safe transition back to some version of normal. Although the Shelter to Housing Continuum will make huge strides in codifying the best tools of the Housing Emergency, it is designed for long-term thinking, not an emergency and removes some important tools while the real-world emergency continues.
    1. Limiting properties to 1 RV or tiny home on wheels per site may make sense for the long term but some sites are currently hosting more than one, and it would be tragic to upend these stable situations during a public health crisis.
    2. [Note: The Housing State of Emergency is not currently being considered by Portland City Council as part of S2HC but is due to expire in April, and will require action by City Council to renew soon.]
  2. Allow sanctioned Outdoor Shelters in appropriate, approved sites in Open Space zones and in the right-of-way (ROW). Nobody expects outdoor shelters to be sited in parks or sensitive natural areas, but Open Space zones extend beyond that. We ask the City to remove the blanket ban on sanctioned shelters in Open Space Zones and the ROW and allow small sanctioned shelters in specific sites, if approved by a vote of City Council. Open Space Zones covers enough viable territory that, if the community identifies an appropriate place, City Council should be able to approve it without going through an onerous rezoning process. Otherwise, the City will be taking good sites off the table and limiting our ability to respond to the crisis.
    1. For example, Right 2 Dream Too is technically in the ROW, which could be forbidden by the current language in Volume 3. We should not evict R2DToo.
    2. There are currently Portlanders living in an Open Space zone right next to the Hygiene4All Hygiene Hub under the Morrison Bridge on MLK that is not a sensitive natural area nor a park. This is one example of public land zoned OS that we may want to consider for an Outdoor Shelter. Other examples included publicly owned parking lots or ROW.
    3. These are just two of many examples of potential adverse effects of removing Open Space zones or ROW from siting options.
  3. Reduce time and cost for setting up Outdoor Shelters. Currently, conditional-use permit fees can cost over $20,000 in land-use fees per application, and often far more in professional services fees. These fees require six months or more to have a decision rendered. Conditional use permit requirements can act as a functional ban on siting shelters and they are rightly waived in many zones under Shelter to Housing. We believe they should also be waived in narrow, appropriate circumstances in residential and Open Space zones. To solve our housing crisis, we need the ability to use every tool, and the right tools, and not take viable sites off the table through arduous conditional use processes.
    1. In low-density zones, we recommend allowing churches, faith-based organizations, and other community-based organizations to host sanctioned shelters without conditional use review if they are below 20 accommodations on site. This is aligned with Expanding Opportunities for Affordable Housing, which Council passed last year to partner with community-based organizations to address the housing crisis. Exempting churches and nonprofit organizations from costly and long conditional-use reviews on their sites will speed providing shelter to our most vulnerable populations.
    2. Any site in an Open Space zone that is approved by a City Council vote for a sanction shelter with 20 or fewer accommodations should not require conditional-use review.
  4. Don’t undermine existing vehicle dwellings. Do not require vehicle dwelling to have sewer connections, which would make many existing dwellings illegal or prohibitively expensive ($10-20k per connection). Adopt alternative best-practice sanitation solutions, such as establishing dumping sites, a mobile street team, or a pumping service such as those used for portable toilets, as Eugene does.
——



On Mar 30, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Larry McCool via groups.io <mysticllamafarm@...> wrote:

Not sure but seems groups have vested interests that might conflict with the main goal of providing secure but affordable shelter. Some of the plans proposed are so far out there when it comes to affordability. You can't spend your way out of this crisis. 


On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:57 PM, Elise Aymer
<elise@...> wrote:
The PDX Shelter Forum organizers/facilitators. Sean who posted is one of them. Tim McCormick, another. 

They've been great about putting together issues-based letters that we can sign, as events warrant. Collective efforts often get more of a result. 

You can read the letter and decide whether you agree or not and then sign or not. There is more information on the PDX Shelter Forum here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/



Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Tommy Kiser
 

Sorry, that was the list from Portland: Neighbors welcome, which this group also supported in the previous testimony. Here’s the text of the PDX Shelter Forum’s letter:

March 17, 2021

Dear Mayor Wheeler and Portland City Council,

PDX Shelter Forum began in May 2020 to help develop ways to rapidly ensure safe, decent dwelling for all Portlanders. We have since hosted four public online forums, and multiple community work sessions to develop testimony; created open online guides to discuss and advocate on related legislation; grown our active web/email forum to over 330 members, and presented written and spoken testimony at numerous events. 

The Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) has been a major focus of our group's work since we began, and our June forum included the first public presentation about S2HC by Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) staff. We are pleased to strongly endorse the proposal, with a set of recommendations detailed below. 

We are aligned with the revisions/recommendations made by

  1. Planning and Sustainability Commission, in its transmittal letter to Council; and 
  2. Social Justice Coalition as represented by letter from Portland: Neighbors Welcome

though we also have made additional recommendations. 


Our recommendations: 

1) We support BPS’ recommendation to not remove the city’s ability to declare or extend a Housing State of Emergency. We are in an emergency now, and it could very well worsen with eviction moratoriums ending and high unemployment continuing. 


2)  If the new Outdoor Shelters are an ongoing need, they should not require a complex, costly, and high-risk Conditional Use process in order to stay past 180 days. It's not a viable way to start and continue an Outdoor Shelter, to begin with a clock ticking that you’ll be forced out in 180 days, unless you succeed with a CU application that takes at least 120 days. We recommend City Council create an initial Allowed Use period of 1 year, to give a new shelter site a reasonable pathway to set up and develop community relationships to support the pursuit of longer-term siting.

Also, please waive permitting and Conditional Use fees for new shelters – this is an emergency. Like Anatole France said, sort of, “The law, in its majestic equality, charges equal fees to skyscrapers and shelters, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges..."


3) Don't prohibit use of all right-of-way land for Outdoor Shelter use. This is a huge amount of the public land that is not Open Space, park, or occupied; it’s where many of the city’s houseless live now, and it includes all kinds of potentially usable spaces such as the current site of Right 2 Dream Too village. As one relatively simple, scalable mode of use, we suggest that certain areas of existing, underutilized parking spaces on public right of way might allow permitted vehicle dwelling in certain locations, for example on the model used in some areas of Eugene. We believe that, in a crisis, this large stock of public land should be considered for helping to house people, not just to store and convey vehicles. 


4) Open Space (OS): possible use of OS for Outdoor Shelters emerged as a contentious issue on this proposal, with concerns raised especially by code sections 33.296.030.G (existing) and 33.296.030.H (proposed)

33.296.030.H: This new provision accommodates the temporary operation of a mass shelter or an outdoor shelter on a site in all zones of the city for up to 180 days within a calendar year. ...without the need for an emergency that is generally declared by City Council in Title 15. and is usually the mechanism to invoke G. above. 

This seems to unconditionally allow Outdoor Shelters, of same 6-month tenure as discussed in proposal generally, anywhere in the city; but we don't think that is really the intent of BPS, or shouldn't be, nor is necessary.

Public hearings and testimony show there is significant complexity, and often misunderstanding, about what Open Space comprises. It includes city parks and sensitive natural areas including on waterways and in flood plains, which generally have protections from other use, and which few people seem to support the use of for shelter. However, Open Space may also include areas such as leftover space around state or Federal highways, or surplus from other transportation and development projects, which might at times be plausible shelter sites. 

Observing the unclear definition and understanding of Open Space, we suggest that the best path is neither allow all, nor prohibit all potential use of OS for shelters. Rather, exclude from shelter consideration the subsets of OS that people are truly concerned about, and allow specific other sites to be considered by City Council action.  


5) S2HC so far has concerned rules for hypothetical locating of shelters, but we urge you to direct BPS and other departments’ resources to helping locate actual plausible shelter sites. We believe an open community effort is needed to propose, assess and launch implementation projects to ASAP create shelter or village sites on the scale of need, which might plausibly require 50+ sites. To ensure equitable placement of shelters, and achieve city-wide community acceptance, establish a process (e.g. by use of public land, funding, etc.) to balance concentration of shelters across city areas. Every neighborhood should be asked to propose preferred village/shelter sites.  

City, County, & Metro departments have unparallelled resources to support this – such as GIS and mapping tools, Metro Supportive Housing Services measure funding, the alternative shelter RFPQ program, and existing inventories of public lands. We ask that the City seek to facilitate and accelerate efforts on this, for example by publishing city-wide, lot-level mapping of sites’ eligibility for shelters under the S2HC guidelines once approved, and a publicly usable spreadsheet listing of potential sites. This list should also include public land and facilities the City and County have that could be used for shelters.



6) Allow temporary housing in Outdoor Shelters. BPS was directed by Council resolution in 2019 to enable “temporary housing,” and interpreted that to a new concept  of “Outdoor Shelter,” using State-defined "transitional accommodation" structure types, excluding legal housing. There is no reason or norm that temporary housing not be, housing; this is generally less preferable to residents; and it works strongly against sites or dwellings transitioning to permanent housing, one of the simplest ways to achieve the permanent housing which everyone says is the real goal. 

This major restriction was not in the City Council ordinance authorizing S2HC project and we repeatedly advocated to remove it. It doesn’t align with common village models, and is at odds with the 2021 Oregon housing emergency legislation HB 2006, which defines emergency-usable housing to include all types of structures. This is also consistent with California emergency shelter law, and general practice. These restrictions should be removed. 


7) Don't require water/sewer connections for shelters, or mobile dwellings. Contrary to overwhelming public and expert testimony, and the recommendation of the PSC, the draft requires a sewer-water connection for vehicles with plumbing, and state titling. The sewer connection in particular is prohibitive for a huge portion of possible cases of vehicle residence on private property. It’s also backward looking, hooking users into a costly and disaster-fragile mass sewage system, rather than ecological, adaptable, and autonomous composting, greywater, and solar energy systems. We urge that accommodations and mobile dwellings permitted by S2HC be allowed to innovate and use non-grid water, waste, and electric systems; and as PSC recommends, not be required to meet state titling.


8) For Outdoor Shelters, don't require 25' setback from adjoining residential property. This is unreasonable, prohibitive for small lots, and inconsistent with other residential setback rules. 


9)  Don't require shelters to be 'compatible' with adjacent residential.
33.815.107 requires that Outdoor Shelters “ will be compatible with adjacent residential developments based on characteristics such as the site size, building scale and style.”  This is  nonsensical: if outdoor shelters are not and can not include housing structures, they can’t reasonably be required to be compatible in building scale and style with area residences. 

We respectfully request incorporation of these recommendations into the S2HC ordinance and implementation, and look forward to working together to support our unhoused neighbors.


On Mar 30, 2021, at 2:57 PM, Tommy Kiser <tommy@...> wrote:

I assume this is because the ammendments put forward by this group previously were not considered or implemented into the current draft right? This is the list copy pasted from past notes on the website.

FWIW, I’ve shared this letter with others who have also asked for more details on why this group is endorsing the delay. If the organizers could validate or correct my assumption here, that would be helpful to those of us who haven’t been in all the meetings. Thanks!

Cheers,

-Tommy

——

Actions and amendments proposed by Portland: Neighbors Welcome:

  1. Extend the Housing Emergency at least until the end of the declared public health emergency, plus six months to help ensure a safe transition back to some version of normal. Although the Shelter to Housing Continuum will make huge strides in codifying the best tools of the Housing Emergency, it is designed for long-term thinking, not an emergency and removes some important tools while the real-world emergency continues.
    1. Limiting properties to 1 RV or tiny home on wheels per site may make sense for the long term but some sites are currently hosting more than one, and it would be tragic to upend these stable situations during a public health crisis.
    2. [Note: The Housing State of Emergency is not currently being considered by Portland City Council as part of S2HC but is due to expire in April, and will require action by City Council to renew soon.]
  2. Allow sanctioned Outdoor Shelters in appropriate, approved sites in Open Space zones and in the right-of-way (ROW). Nobody expects outdoor shelters to be sited in parks or sensitive natural areas, but Open Space zones extend beyond that. We ask the City to remove the blanket ban on sanctioned shelters in Open Space Zones and the ROW and allow small sanctioned shelters in specific sites, if approved by a vote of City Council. Open Space Zones covers enough viable territory that, if the community identifies an appropriate place, City Council should be able to approve it without going through an onerous rezoning process. Otherwise, the City will be taking good sites off the table and limiting our ability to respond to the crisis.
    1. For example, Right 2 Dream Too is technically in the ROW, which could be forbidden by the current language in Volume 3. We should not evict R2DToo.
    2. There are currently Portlanders living in an Open Space zone right next to the Hygiene4All Hygiene Hub under the Morrison Bridge on MLK that is not a sensitive natural area nor a park. This is one example of public land zoned OS that we may want to consider for an Outdoor Shelter. Other examples included publicly owned parking lots or ROW.
    3. These are just two of many examples of potential adverse effects of removing Open Space zones or ROW from siting options.
  3. Reduce time and cost for setting up Outdoor Shelters. Currently, conditional-use permit fees can cost over $20,000 in land-use fees per application, and often far more in professional services fees. These fees require six months or more to have a decision rendered. Conditional use permit requirements can act as a functional ban on siting shelters and they are rightly waived in many zones under Shelter to Housing. We believe they should also be waived in narrow, appropriate circumstances in residential and Open Space zones. To solve our housing crisis, we need the ability to use every tool, and the right tools, and not take viable sites off the table through arduous conditional use processes.
    1. In low-density zones, we recommend allowing churches, faith-based organizations, and other community-based organizations to host sanctioned shelters without conditional use review if they are below 20 accommodations on site. This is aligned with Expanding Opportunities for Affordable Housing, which Council passed last year to partner with community-based organizations to address the housing crisis. Exempting churches and nonprofit organizations from costly and long conditional-use reviews on their sites will speed providing shelter to our most vulnerable populations.
    2. Any site in an Open Space zone that is approved by a City Council vote for a sanction shelter with 20 or fewer accommodations should not require conditional-use review.
  4. Don’t undermine existing vehicle dwellings. Do not require vehicle dwelling to have sewer connections, which would make many existing dwellings illegal or prohibitively expensive ($10-20k per connection). Adopt alternative best-practice sanitation solutions, such as establishing dumping sites, a mobile street team, or a pumping service such as those used for portable toilets, as Eugene does.
——



On Mar 30, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Larry McCool via groups.io <mysticllamafarm@...> wrote:

Not sure but seems groups have vested interests that might conflict with the main goal of providing secure but affordable shelter. Some of the plans proposed are so far out there when it comes to affordability. You can't spend your way out of this crisis. 


On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:57 PM, Elise Aymer
<elise@...> wrote:
The PDX Shelter Forum organizers/facilitators. Sean who posted is one of them. Tim McCormick, another. 

They've been great about putting together issues-based letters that we can sign, as events warrant. Collective efforts often get more of a result. 

You can read the letter and decide whether you agree or not and then sign or not. There is more information on the PDX Shelter Forum here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/



Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Tommy Kiser
 

I assume this is because the ammendments put forward by this group previously were not considered or implemented into the current draft right? This is the list copy pasted from past notes on the website.

FWIW, I’ve shared this letter with others who have also asked for more details on why this group is endorsing the delay. If the organizers could validate or correct my assumption here, that would be helpful to those of us who haven’t been in all the meetings. Thanks!

Cheers,

-Tommy

——

Actions and amendments proposed by Portland: Neighbors Welcome:

  1. Extend the Housing Emergency at least until the end of the declared public health emergency, plus six months to help ensure a safe transition back to some version of normal. Although the Shelter to Housing Continuum will make huge strides in codifying the best tools of the Housing Emergency, it is designed for long-term thinking, not an emergency and removes some important tools while the real-world emergency continues.
    1. Limiting properties to 1 RV or tiny home on wheels per site may make sense for the long term but some sites are currently hosting more than one, and it would be tragic to upend these stable situations during a public health crisis.
    2. [Note: The Housing State of Emergency is not currently being considered by Portland City Council as part of S2HC but is due to expire in April, and will require action by City Council to renew soon.]
  2. Allow sanctioned Outdoor Shelters in appropriate, approved sites in Open Space zones and in the right-of-way (ROW). Nobody expects outdoor shelters to be sited in parks or sensitive natural areas, but Open Space zones extend beyond that. We ask the City to remove the blanket ban on sanctioned shelters in Open Space Zones and the ROW and allow small sanctioned shelters in specific sites, if approved by a vote of City Council. Open Space Zones covers enough viable territory that, if the community identifies an appropriate place, City Council should be able to approve it without going through an onerous rezoning process. Otherwise, the City will be taking good sites off the table and limiting our ability to respond to the crisis.
    1. For example, Right 2 Dream Too is technically in the ROW, which could be forbidden by the current language in Volume 3. We should not evict R2DToo.
    2. There are currently Portlanders living in an Open Space zone right next to the Hygiene4All Hygiene Hub under the Morrison Bridge on MLK that is not a sensitive natural area nor a park. This is one example of public land zoned OS that we may want to consider for an Outdoor Shelter. Other examples included publicly owned parking lots or ROW.
    3. These are just two of many examples of potential adverse effects of removing Open Space zones or ROW from siting options.
  3. Reduce time and cost for setting up Outdoor Shelters. Currently, conditional-use permit fees can cost over $20,000 in land-use fees per application, and often far more in professional services fees. These fees require six months or more to have a decision rendered. Conditional use permit requirements can act as a functional ban on siting shelters and they are rightly waived in many zones under Shelter to Housing. We believe they should also be waived in narrow, appropriate circumstances in residential and Open Space zones. To solve our housing crisis, we need the ability to use every tool, and the right tools, and not take viable sites off the table through arduous conditional use processes.
    1. In low-density zones, we recommend allowing churches, faith-based organizations, and other community-based organizations to host sanctioned shelters without conditional use review if they are below 20 accommodations on site. This is aligned with Expanding Opportunities for Affordable Housing, which Council passed last year to partner with community-based organizations to address the housing crisis. Exempting churches and nonprofit organizations from costly and long conditional-use reviews on their sites will speed providing shelter to our most vulnerable populations.
    2. Any site in an Open Space zone that is approved by a City Council vote for a sanction shelter with 20 or fewer accommodations should not require conditional-use review.
  4. Don’t undermine existing vehicle dwellings. Do not require vehicle dwelling to have sewer connections, which would make many existing dwellings illegal or prohibitively expensive ($10-20k per connection). Adopt alternative best-practice sanitation solutions, such as establishing dumping sites, a mobile street team, or a pumping service such as those used for portable toilets, as Eugene does.
——



On Mar 30, 2021, at 1:57 PM, Larry McCool via groups.io <mysticllamafarm@...> wrote:

Not sure but seems groups have vested interests that might conflict with the main goal of providing secure but affordable shelter. Some of the plans proposed are so far out there when it comes to affordability. You can't spend your way out of this crisis. 


On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:57 PM, Elise Aymer
<elise@...> wrote:
The PDX Shelter Forum organizers/facilitators. Sean who posted is one of them. Tim McCormick, another. 

They've been great about putting together issues-based letters that we can sign, as events warrant. Collective efforts often get more of a result. 

You can read the letter and decide whether you agree or not and then sign or not. There is more information on the PDX Shelter Forum here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/


Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Larry McCool
 

Not sure but seems groups have vested interests that might conflict with the main goal of providing secure but affordable shelter. Some of the plans proposed are so far out there when it comes to affordability. You can't spend your way out of this crisis. 


On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 12:57 PM, Elise Aymer
<elise@...> wrote:
The PDX Shelter Forum organizers/facilitators. Sean who posted is one of them. Tim McCormick, another. 

They've been great about putting together issues-based letters that we can sign, as events warrant. Collective efforts often get more of a result. 

You can read the letter and decide whether you agree or not and then sign or not. There is more information on the PDX Shelter Forum here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/


Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Elise Aymer
 

The PDX Shelter Forum organizers/facilitators. Sean who posted is one of them. Tim McCormick, another. 

They've been great about putting together issues-based letters that we can sign, as events warrant. Collective efforts often get more of a result. 

You can read the letter and decide whether you agree or not and then sign or not. There is more information on the PDX Shelter Forum here: https://groups.io/g/pdxshelterforum/


Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Andrew Olshin
 

All
I implore u all not to submit this letter.  Our community needs these changes NOW.  

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 30, 2021, at 8:45 AM, Andy O <andrew.olshin@...> wrote:

I do not support delay.  

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 30, 2021, at 4:08 AM, Sean Green <green@...> wrote:



We have developed a letter that you may sign and share (click here) asking Portland City Council to extend the State of Housing Emergency and delaying the vote on the Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) to give our community more time to develop and discuss amendments.


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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Andrew Olshin
 

I do not support delay.  

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Mar 30, 2021, at 4:08 AM, Sean Green <green@...> wrote:



We have developed a letter that you may sign and share (click here) asking Portland City Council to extend the State of Housing Emergency and delaying the vote on the Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) to give our community more time to develop and discuss amendments.


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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO


on now!: Cohousing presentation, by legend Charles Durrett

Tim McCormick
 

  • on now, started at 11:00am! 
  • Creating Neighborhoods Through Cohousing" by Charles Durrett of the Cohousing Company. 
    Go to https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88381565914 

    Rogue Valley Housing Solutions Zoom Series

    Every Tuesday from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM
  • Many of the fire affected lost everything and are having difficulties replacing their homes. Fire affected areas need renewal and restoration. Business districts and infrastructure need rebuilding. 

    How can we create the best future for all?  

     

    Join us on Zoom every Tuesday morning from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM.

     

    OUR REUSABLE ZOOM LINK 

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88381565914 

     

    Let's all work together to create a beautiful and equitable rebuild in the Rogue Valley! 

  • Name 
    First Name Last Name 
  • Email 
  • Phone Number (optional) 
    Please enter a valid phone number. 
  • Want to receive our newsletter? 
    YES! No 
  • Upcoming Calls: 

    March 30th, "Creating Neighborhoods Through Cohousing" by Charles Durrett of the Cohousing Company

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


Re: Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC

Mh Kincaid
 

Who is "we"?


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Sean Green <green@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 7:07 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Letter Ask City Council to Extend Housing Emergency & Delay Final Vote on S2HC
 

We have developed a letter that you may sign and share (click here) asking Portland City Council to extend the State of Housing Emergency and delaying the vote on the Shelter to Housing Continuum project (S2HC) to give our community more time to develop and discuss amendments.


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

c 971.998.7376 IG:
 
@AFORMACO

141 - 160 of 609