Date   

Re: Guerilla Homeless camps & Ted Wheeler

Mimi German
 

JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 6:53 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it.

On May 24, 2021, at 6:23 PM, Ree Campbell <reethefaerie@...> wrote:


Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.
Ree Campbell 
Executive Director 
BootsOnTheGroundPDX

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera <drivera@...> wrote:
Tom, 

Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters.
Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner.
Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.

Your mileage might vary.

(not an opinion of my employer)


 



On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:
I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Peter Finley Fry
 

Thank you for providing this public forum as a means to share ideas and experiences.

 

I read with interest the interview and learned a great deal.

 

The issue of shelter and housing are not a dichotomy.

 

Permanent housing is a home not a place that you rent.  A home is where you root and grow.

A shelter is a safe place to pause, reassess, access resources, and move forward.

 

We are seeing many forms of housing (re) emerge.  The housing needs to be embedded in a community and not a sterile place to sleep.  Housing and neighborhoods do not have to be the subdivisions first aggressively built after World War Two.  Older neighborhoods and new villages can be blended.  These need to efficiently and effectively provide for the collection and disposal of waste, the provision of water and energy; and sustainable within the natural environment.

 

I supported Portland’s Planning Bureau in the creation of the Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) provision.  We filled the entire City Council chambers (and overflow) with opposition to ADUs.  Now everyone loves them.

 

People are community based and require a community to deal with the challenges we all face while collectively building wealth.  We are the government and we must take responsibility for what we consume and what we do.  Collectively, we must address the systemic racism and inequity.  As humans, we compete, bully, challenge.  The shy must be protected from the loud.

 

The shelter is not a home or a place to stay.  The shelter is a safe place to pause away from the demands of other  people, to find a calm place to move forward from.  The street is a community.  A comforting community without safety or security or privacy.   A shelter can provide these human needs without breaking the link to the comfort and acceptance of the street community.

 

A shelter is like an emergency room that is embedded in the community and not an institution. The concept and purpose of a shelter can not be lost in the politics of camping and villages.  The shelter is a particularly important thing and it is not a village or a campground or a camp site.

 

A Shelter is a critically important facility.

 

And then there is the fight over land and land use.

 

 

 

Peter Finley Fry   AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

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: Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:44 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

 

WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

 

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

 

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

 

discussing, among others: 

County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 

County Chair Deborah Kafoury 

PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 

Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope

Councilmember Dan Ryan.

 

Bcc:

Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW

Mark Zusman, Publisher WW

Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 

Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW

Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW

Tess Riski, Reporter, WW

[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


Re: Guerilla Homeless camps & Ted Wheeler

Tommy Kiser
 

I’m sure some of you are already involved, but for anyone interested in helping out with the effort to recall Wheeler, you can sign up on the website here: www.totalrecallpdx.com. We should all demand leaders who are willing to look for solutions to this issue. Wheeler consistently demonstrates he is not.

Cheers,
-Tommy

On May 24, 2021, at 6:08 PM, Ree Campbell <reethefaerie@...> wrote:

Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.
Ree Campbell 
Executive Director 
BootsOnTheGroundPDX

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera <drivera@...> wrote:
Tom, 

Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters.
Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner.
Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.

Your mileage might vary.

(not an opinion of my employer)


 



On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:
I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents. 

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive. 

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be. 

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of 
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward. 

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All, 
Emerson, I fully agree.  

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc.  
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint? 

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhereto stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas. 

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
-- 
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 





Re: Guerilla Homeless camps & Ted Wheeler

Emerson This
 

Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it.

On May 24, 2021, at 6:23 PM, Ree Campbell <reethefaerie@...> wrote:


Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.
Ree Campbell 
Executive Director 
BootsOnTheGroundPDX

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera <drivera@...> wrote:
Tom, 

Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters.
Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner.
Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.

Your mileage might vary.

(not an opinion of my employer)


 



On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:
I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Guerilla Homeless camps & Ted Wheeler

Ree Campbell <reethefaerie@...>
 

Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.
Ree Campbell 
Executive Director 
BootsOnTheGroundPDX

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera <drivera@...> wrote:
Tom, 

Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters.
Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner.
Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.

Your mileage might vary.

(not an opinion of my employer)


 



On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:
I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Suzanne Huffman
 

I'll post pics of how we are occupying a strip of park :-)


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Mimi German <mirgerman0000@...>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 6:44:35 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles
 
Suzanne! You are fabulous. I so love what you are doing. I'm going to put some of your actions on repeat for our village, Jason Barns Landing. Looking up your toilet from Amazon, now. Regarding you being on anyone's shit list, I'm on everybody's shit list. It's really just another way of saying you're doing the work, not talking about it.

With so much appreciation!
Mimi
St. Johns

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 5:55 AM Suzanne Huffman <slhphd@...> wrote:

Good morning! Coming to you from West Salem, where I have been getting to know neighbors  camping ay Wallace Marine Park, 2 miles from my condo in a 55 plus golfing community. I’ve identified a core group who have skills and inclinations to form a makers co-op and have been taking art supplies to the park.

 

Last night I camped there with a couple of people I’ve gotten to know, came home in my Jetta Sportwagen, but left the SUV tent behind Today we will be constructing a façade over a 7x7x6 foot backpacking canopy. It will look like a tiny home. God willing, we will have the canister toilet delivered from Amazon today and have supplies to create a tiny sink for hygiene. If not, I have plenty of buckets, pool noodles cat liter and a Coleman picnic jug with a spout!

 

Tonight I will be Zooming into the Salem City Council meeting from Wallace Marine Village, asking them to suspend planned sweeps and allow us to develop a self-managed primitive campground, to open to the public on July 1. I used to do business incubation and have several micro-enterprise schemes, including constructing bamboo bikes, bike teardrop campers and boats from Wooden Widgets.

 

Honestly, I am on the “advocacy” community’s shit list for making public the contract and financials between the local CAT and the “Church” at the Park. See attached conversation with their former employee. C@TP  was incorporated and registered with SOS 8/18/2020 and issued essentially an open-ended sole-sourced contract for the current pallet shelter fiasco -- $225k for three months’ wages and benefits plus food service subbed (sole source again) Pastor DJ is working on the second emergency shelter and intends to build 6 more so there is one in each ward in Salem.

 

If anyone in this group would like to learn more, pitch in, help strategize  media and legal, etc.  visit… please call/text me at 503-875-5999 or if you do Facebook join our group Cascadian  Cooperative Arts.

 

FYI, through PPC Oregon I know Barbie at Hazelnut Grove and “Mo Edged” who was a founding member of Breitenbush Center. I’ll be reaching out to them today.

 

Attached, please find my testimony from two weeks ago. I have learned MUCH more since then. You will also find a chat conversation with the current moderator of Coalition of Advocates for Unsheltered of Salem, self-styled experts on homelessness in Salem. The mayor sends Gretchen Bennett, who coordinates homeless policy, along with human rights for the city.

 

Peace be with you!

 

Suzanne Lynn Huffman PhD

Counseling and Educational Psychology University of Memphis

Art Education and Special Education Memphis State University

 

Former Portland resident and communicant at Trinity Cathedral  

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Tim McCormick
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:44 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

 

WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

 

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

 

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

 

discussing, among others: 

County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 

County Chair Deborah Kafoury 

PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 

Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope

Councilmember Dan Ryan.

 

Bcc:

Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW

Mark Zusman, Publisher WW

Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 

Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW

Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW

Tess Riski, Reporter, WW

[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


Guerilla Homeless camps & Ted Wheeler

Diane Rivera
 

Tom, 

Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters.
Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner.
Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.

Your mileage might vary.

(not an opinion of my employer)


 



On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 4:33 PM Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:
I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Emerson This
 

Well said, Tom.

I like the bottom-up / “guerrilla” approach, too. The impasse I see is that NAs don’t have any money. The kinds of immediate, high-impact solutions we’re talking about would be a rounding error for the city budget, but very tough for ordinary citizens to self-fund from their own pockets.

Maybe the big question is how to get funding from the city while still giving them plausible deniability. Essentially allowing the NAs (or whoever) act as a liability shield for the politicians. Are we on to something here?



On May 24, 2021, at 4:33 PM, Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...> wrote:

 I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

<hickeyt+bna_pdx.vcf>


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Tom Hickey <Hickeyt+BNA.PDX@...>
 

I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.

I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.

Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.

I am disheartened when I see people on either side of
the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.

On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Adam kravitz
 

Thanks Tim

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:12 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
OutsiderInn, Vancouver WA


On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:11 PM Adam kravitz <homelessadvocate66@...> wrote:
Hello all I have been following and watching this thread since it started. I have a small non profit started by those with lived experience and currently have graduated to service providers. We operate small shelters using a peer and recovery model. Vancouver is on the brink of considering a sanctioned or supported incampment . Or village ? 
We are considering host a community discussion on this subject. Can you all recommend a leader in this area ?  Ours is the only organization that would consider taking on this project and we could use all the support ,guidance, and support we can get. Thank you all 
Adam Kravitz CPC
Executive director OutsidersInn 

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:11 PM Julia Mollner <juleamollner@...> wrote:
Hi Jayme,

I'm reaching out directly to ask if you would be willing to share your slideshow presentation with me and/or the larger group?

It sounds like that is a great resource of information and research for all.

All the best,
Julia

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

--
Thank you!

Adam Kravitz AAC CPC
AMCI Adult Mobile Crisis Intervention/CSNW/Sea-Mar
OutsidersInn  Executive Director St Paul's shelter
Email: outsidersinnorg@gmail.com         Homelessadvocate66@...
Web:   www.outsidersinn.org               (360) 830-6647

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

--
Thank you!

Adam Kravitz AAC CPC
AMCI Adult Mobile Crisis Intervention/CSNW/Sea-Mar
OutsidersInn  Executive Director St Paul's shelter
Email: outsidersinnorg@gmail.com         Homelessadvocate66@...
Web:   www.outsidersinn.org               (360) 830-6647


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Tim McCormick
 

OutsiderInn, Vancouver WA


On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 3:11 PM Adam kravitz <homelessadvocate66@...> wrote:
Hello all I have been following and watching this thread since it started. I have a small non profit started by those with lived experience and currently have graduated to service providers. We operate small shelters using a peer and recovery model. Vancouver is on the brink of considering a sanctioned or supported incampment . Or village ? 
We are considering host a community discussion on this subject. Can you all recommend a leader in this area ?  Ours is the only organization that would consider taking on this project and we could use all the support ,guidance, and support we can get. Thank you all 
Adam Kravitz CPC
Executive director OutsidersInn 

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:11 PM Julia Mollner <juleamollner@...> wrote:
Hi Jayme,

I'm reaching out directly to ask if you would be willing to share your slideshow presentation with me and/or the larger group?

It sounds like that is a great resource of information and research for all.

All the best,
Julia

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

--
Thank you!

Adam Kravitz AAC CPC
AMCI Adult Mobile Crisis Intervention/CSNW/Sea-Mar
OutsidersInn  Executive Director St Paul's shelter
Email: outsidersinnorg@gmail.com         Homelessadvocate66@...
Web:   www.outsidersinn.org               (360) 830-6647

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


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Adam kravitz
 

Hello all I have been following and watching this thread since it started. I have a small non profit started by those with lived experience and currently have graduated to service providers. We operate small shelters using a peer and recovery model. Vancouver is on the brink of considering a sanctioned or supported incampment . Or village ? 
We are considering host a community discussion on this subject. Can you all recommend a leader in this area ?  Ours is the only organization that would consider taking on this project and we could use all the support ,guidance, and support we can get. Thank you all 
Adam Kravitz CPC
Executive director OutsidersInn 

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:11 PM Julia Mollner <juleamollner@...> wrote:
Hi Jayme,

I'm reaching out directly to ask if you would be willing to share your slideshow presentation with me and/or the larger group?

It sounds like that is a great resource of information and research for all.

All the best,
Julia

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 

--
Thank you!

Adam Kravitz AAC CPC
AMCI Adult Mobile Crisis Intervention/CSNW/Sea-Mar
OutsidersInn  Executive Director St Paul's shelter
Email: outsidersinnorg@gmail.com         Homelessadvocate66@...
Web:   www.outsidersinn.org               (360) 830-6647


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Jayme Delson
 

Hi Mimi,

Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter.  without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly.  Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times.

With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!

Sincerely Jayme

On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Mimi German
 

Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Julia Mollner
 

Hi Jayme,

I'm reaching out directly to ask if you would be willing to share your slideshow presentation with me and/or the larger group?

It sounds like that is a great resource of information and research for all.

All the best,
Julia

On Mon, May 24, 2021, 10:22 AM Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Jayme Delson
 

Hi, I am all for "sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping" with just a no harassment and a dumpster. 

However i have found to win over most people we will need to satisfy many more issues at each location.  This is not easy, however with a team it is doable i propose.

Cheers,

Jayme

Aisha, i see the sentiment you point to sadly all the time. 

However,  the level of understanding and empathy is so much more widespread than 20 and even 10 years ago.  Right in step with the spread of poverty, people being poor, and or homeless.

Best to you,

Jayme

  

On 5/23/2021 10:09 PM, Aisha Musa wrote:
" sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? "

You are right. It is better. But the other issue I think we have is the sheer number of housed people who only care about the unhoused because they consider them a nuisance. They simply want to be rid of them. Then there are those housed people who feel the unhoused somehow deserve what they are going through and blame them because of bad choices they think that they made. They would rather see them punished than helped.

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









On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 9:33 PM Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Jayme Delson
 

Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree. 

I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.  It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2.  It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2.  As well as a cost comparison to current models.  Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves.

I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well.

So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action.  Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages.  As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc.

Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. 
Cheers,
Jayme


On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!

In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?

Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.

I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of  cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 3:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for sharing that interview with the listserv, Tim. 

Very often in interviews like that one most of what we hope will be conveyed is lost, as the reporter will just strip the comments for soundbytes or use the conversation as background for their piece. As such, it was great to be able to read all of it.

I picked up on the false dichotomy theme, as Emerson did. In this case, it seems especially false because both respective governments (county and municipal) seem to have a lot of money available to them from distinct sources and so money shouldn't be an obstacle, whatever the course. 

And I took in Tim's point about solving these issues not being about throwing money at them anyway. He referenced what he's noted about homelessness in the Bay Area where there is a lot of funding available but still very little meaningful, positive change.

Tim also talked about "permanent housing" and how that can be a shifting and subjective term. I had not thought before about how the insecurity that many renters face could render their apartment (as the push is always to build more apartment units) "temporary housing." That framing was new to me, but I think useful. What do we really mean when we are proposing either "permanent" or "temporary" housing solutions?

I appreciated Tim's disclosure that he himself is housing insecure yet isn't the accepted stereotype of a homeless person, as I think that the stereotypes around who is unhoused play a major part in how things play out politically and obscure the actual scope of the problem in Portland.

To Aisha's point, I do think that for a lot of the housed residents those who are homeless are a nuisance that they just want to be rid of. This attitude, which I would call out as enmeshed with racism, xenophobia and dripping with privilege also presents as othering and not being able to register the systemic issues that have created and maintain this crisis. 

It's always about that undesirable homeless person and what they as an individual have done or haven't done to land themselves in their situation even though this kind of thinking is at odds with reality.

As someone who pays such close attention to what's happening around housing and homelessness at the City and County levels and attends so many governmental sessions, I appreciate that TIm has been consistent in asking the elected officials to center the experiences and input of actual houseless people. I am cynical about how much those appeals can penetrate - but the ethical approach is to make them anyway.

Emerson makes good solutions-focused points that go beyond the dichotomy in instituting both short and long term fixes. My thought is that I am uncertain that the exercise municipally or at the county level is really ever about residents or solutions.

I think a lot about the similarities here with how for many people it seems it's been a revelation that the police aren't protecting and serving and that the justice system isn't actually about justice.    

In the interview with Tim, Sophie Peel referenced the article she was writing about Sam Adams' (proxy for Mayor Wheeler) meeting with downtown law firm partners about the homeless presence there. Someone else posted the finished article to this listserv originally. I'll repost it here: https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2021/05/19/portlands-mayor-asks-downtown-law-firms-for-help-with-a-plan-to-relocate-people-sleeping-in-front-of-their-offices/

The article speaks to a Mayor and his municipal supporters who are focused on giving big donors what they want and holding onto political power. Solutions and even the opinions of housed residents (however, skewed and unhelpful we might think those are) don't even come into it.

It seems like even in progressive Portland, that elected officials who view themselves as public servants are a rarity. I hesitate to say this, as I have often been disappointed in life, but it seems kudos are due to Commissioner Meiran in keeping the community in focus.

Tim mentioned Homer Williams and his efforts being stymied as the two levels of government square off. Some of his initiatives, such as his pod villages, require access to land. I wondered about the possibility of expanding some of his other solutions (such as mobile showers) in the interim -- plus, many of the other essential solutions that Emerson mentioned and that other listserv members keep bringing up as constant concerns on the street.

I wonder about grassroots coalition building and funding for initiatives outside of government. A maybe unanswerable question I have is how much can reasonably be expected of government on these issues? 

In other cities, where there is no illusion of progressive government, the activist moves have been simultaneously to try to replace elected officials, like Wheeler, who aren't there to serve anyone but themselves and to build grassroots capacity to get things done even when government isn't amenable or doing the right things. 

With so much energy focused on what's happening at the County and City, I wonder about that other work -- how we're moving ahead in other ways.

Thanks again, Tim for sharing the interview.

Elise

 

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:44 PM Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

discussing, among others: 
County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 
County Chair Deborah Kafoury 
PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.

Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim McCormick
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!


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Mimi German
 

Suzanne! You are fabulous. I so love what you are doing. I'm going to put some of your actions on repeat for our village, Jason Barns Landing. Looking up your toilet from Amazon, now. Regarding you being on anyone's shit list, I'm on everybody's shit list. It's really just another way of saying you're doing the work, not talking about it.

With so much appreciation!
Mimi
St. Johns


On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 5:55 AM Suzanne Huffman <slhphd@...> wrote:

Good morning! Coming to you from West Salem, where I have been getting to know neighbors  camping ay Wallace Marine Park, 2 miles from my condo in a 55 plus golfing community. I’ve identified a core group who have skills and inclinations to form a makers co-op and have been taking art supplies to the park.

 

Last night I camped there with a couple of people I’ve gotten to know, came home in my Jetta Sportwagen, but left the SUV tent behind Today we will be constructing a façade over a 7x7x6 foot backpacking canopy. It will look like a tiny home. God willing, we will have the canister toilet delivered from Amazon today and have supplies to create a tiny sink for hygiene. If not, I have plenty of buckets, pool noodles cat liter and a Coleman picnic jug with a spout!

 

Tonight I will be Zooming into the Salem City Council meeting from Wallace Marine Village, asking them to suspend planned sweeps and allow us to develop a self-managed primitive campground, to open to the public on July 1. I used to do business incubation and have several micro-enterprise schemes, including constructing bamboo bikes, bike teardrop campers and boats from Wooden Widgets.

 

Honestly, I am on the “advocacy” community’s shit list for making public the contract and financials between the local CAT and the “Church” at the Park. See attached conversation with their former employee. C@TP  was incorporated and registered with SOS 8/18/2020 and issued essentially an open-ended sole-sourced contract for the current pallet shelter fiasco -- $225k for three months’ wages and benefits plus food service subbed (sole source again) Pastor DJ is working on the second emergency shelter and intends to build 6 more so there is one in each ward in Salem.

 

If anyone in this group would like to learn more, pitch in, help strategize  media and legal, etc.  visit… please call/text me at 503-875-5999 or if you do Facebook join our group Cascadian  Cooperative Arts.

 

FYI, through PPC Oregon I know Barbie at Hazelnut Grove and “Mo Edged” who was a founding member of Breitenbush Center. I’ll be reaching out to them today.

 

Attached, please find my testimony from two weeks ago. I have learned MUCH more since then. You will also find a chat conversation with the current moderator of Coalition of Advocates for Unsheltered of Salem, self-styled experts on homelessness in Salem. The mayor sends Gretchen Bennett, who coordinates homeless policy, along with human rights for the city.

 

Peace be with you!

 

Suzanne Lynn Huffman PhD

Counseling and Educational Psychology University of Memphis

Art Education and Special Education Memphis State University

 

Former Portland resident and communicant at Trinity Cathedral  

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Tim McCormick
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:44 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

 

WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

 

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

 

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

 

discussing, among others: 

County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 

County Chair Deborah Kafoury 

PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 

Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope

Councilmember Dan Ryan.

 

Bcc:

Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW

Mark Zusman, Publisher WW

Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 

Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW

Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW

Tess Riski, Reporter, WW

[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


Re: Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

Suzanne Huffman
 

Good morning! Coming to you from West Salem, where I have been getting to know neighbors  camping ay Wallace Marine Park, 2 miles from my condo in a 55 plus golfing community. I’ve identified a core group who have skills and inclinations to form a makers co-op and have been taking art supplies to the park.

 

Last night I camped there with a couple of people I’ve gotten to know, came home in my Jetta Sportwagen, but left the SUV tent behind Today we will be constructing a façade over a 7x7x6 foot backpacking canopy. It will look like a tiny home. God willing, we will have the canister toilet delivered from Amazon today and have supplies to create a tiny sink for hygiene. If not, I have plenty of buckets, pool noodles cat liter and a Coleman picnic jug with a spout!

 

Tonight I will be Zooming into the Salem City Council meeting from Wallace Marine Village, asking them to suspend planned sweeps and allow us to develop a self-managed primitive campground, to open to the public on July 1. I used to do business incubation and have several micro-enterprise schemes, including constructing bamboo bikes, bike teardrop campers and boats from Wooden Widgets.

 

Honestly, I am on the “advocacy” community’s shit list for making public the contract and financials between the local CAT and the “Church” at the Park. See attached conversation with their former employee. C@TP  was incorporated and registered with SOS 8/18/2020 and issued essentially an open-ended sole-sourced contract for the current pallet shelter fiasco -- $225k for three months’ wages and benefits plus food service subbed (sole source again) Pastor DJ is working on the second emergency shelter and intends to build 6 more so there is one in each ward in Salem.

 

If anyone in this group would like to learn more, pitch in, help strategize  media and legal, etc.  visit… please call/text me at 503-875-5999 or if you do Facebook join our group Cascadian  Cooperative Arts.

 

FYI, through PPC Oregon I know Barbie at Hazelnut Grove and “Mo Edged” who was a founding member of Breitenbush Center. I’ll be reaching out to them today.

 

Attached, please find my testimony from two weeks ago. I have learned MUCH more since then. You will also find a chat conversation with the current moderator of Coalition of Advocates for Unsheltered of Salem, self-styled experts on homelessness in Salem. The mayor sends Gretchen Bennett, who coordinates homeless policy, along with human rights for the city.

 

Peace be with you!

 

Suzanne Lynn Huffman PhD

Counseling and Educational Psychology University of Memphis

Art Education and Special Education Memphis State University

 

Former Portland resident and communicant at Trinity Cathedral  

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Tim McCormick
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 3:44 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Interview with Willamette Week on PDX homelessness battles

 

WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:

 

"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".  

 

a field report from Portland's increasingly heated, fractious homelessness policy battles. https://tmccormick.medium.com/the-houseless-vs-the-settlement-interview-with-willamette-week-495f07b79d66

 

discussing, among others: 

County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, 

County Chair Deborah Kafoury 

PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata 

Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope

Councilmember Dan Ryan.

 

Bcc:

Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW

Mark Zusman, Publisher WW

Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW 

Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW

Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW

Tess Riski, Reporter, WW

[note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 

181 - 200 of 741