Date   

Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Andrew Olshin
 

Skip
Cascadia Clusters, BeaconPDX started work on a new, 10 unit village a few weeks ago.  Our architect, Sermin, is leading our efforts to work with BDS and appropriate City bureaus to review plans, etc. This will give us a template for future projects - that will benefit from the recent changes to City codes.  
We are developing a full set of construction plans for Beacon Village, and will apply for whatever permits are required.
What we need now is some discretionary private funding to pay for some architect time. 
Cheers, 

Andy Olshin

On Jun 20, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Skip Trantow <skiptrantow@...> wrote:



I think the feasibility of the Slavin Village project will depend upon two basic determinations: Can it pass city permitting requirements and can it be built at a low enough cost.  We want to make these determinations early on and I think this can be done with a conversation with Portland’s Bureau of Development Services (BDS) using their ‘Early Assistance’ service.  With this service you get a 15-minute (but hopefully more) video conference with a city planner/expert to describe the project and expose potential showstopper problems upfront.  (See: https://www.portland.gov/bds/zoning-land-use/early-assistance  Also:  https://www.portland.gov/construction-and-development ). By doing this, we also stand to build expertise on the overall process of creating a Tiny House Village (THV) that can be applied to future projects.


Here are design aspects (with my informal italicized comments) that
I think need to be considered in a discussion with the BDS:

  • Site Acquisition:   Assuming it’s legally possible for the city to repurpose this dead-end street, the site will likely be either free or very inexpensive. If we have to pay, say, $200K or more, for a lot to site a THV, I think the cost per bed will be too high to make the model work. The advantage of a THV should be in ‘development agility’, i.e., in our ability to build them inexpensively and quickly in places that are infeasible for conventional development – like Slavin Rd.
  • Design work:  Need to draft building plans adequate for BDS review and get the engineering stamp of approval.
  • Electrical and Water Utilities hook-up and distribution:  While it would be nice to go 'off-grid' and build a fully self-sufficient village, I don’t think this is feasible for a THV sited within the city. Yes, we could design in solar panels and a storage battery for electricity needs but when the winter cold temperatures come the units are going to need AC power for heat. The site would also need AC power for a washer and dryer.  So, solar power would be appropriate only to augment AC power and reduce electricity bills.  Regarding freshwater and wastewater utilities, you definitely need to hook into the City’s water and sewer systems (wastewater has to have somewhere to go).  Given its location, the Slavin Rd. site will likely be close to electrical and water access points. It is unlikely that there would be any unusual expense in running those utilities to and throughout the THV.
  •  Construction of walkways, common areas, and pads for housing unit placement:  The Slavin Rd. dead-end area might already be paved providing ready-to-go walkways and house pads.  Pavement and ground stability needs to be assessed.
  •  Housing Unit Fabrication and Installation:   The ideal model is: Off-site fabrication of finished tiny houses and common structures (e.g., kitchen, toilet, shower, and washing units).  Then transport units to site and place them onto ready ground pads.  All units to meet structural and safety standards and are inspected and approved at fabrication site before being transported to the site.  To speed up development time, off-site unit fabrication work is done in parallel with site preparation.   I think it is most cost effective to design living units that are built on skids.  Just trailer them in, slide them onto a pad. It appears that the new S2HC building codes may apply to THVs where the units are on wheels – is that correct?
  •  On-site construction of entry gate and any perimeter fencing needed for security:
  • On-site construction of garbage / recycling collection area: Likely just need a simple rectangular corral with doors.
  • Internet and Phone:  Internet and phone needs can likely be met through a single 5G wireless subscription that is WiFi’ed throughout the THV.
  • Parking:   Parking capacity needs to be investigated.  It looks like some parking space can be had on the public north end of Slavin Rd. before the barricade. 
  •  Life Safety / Fire Safety:  Acquisition and installation of fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, escape route signage

In the process of thinking about Tiny House Village design, I concluded that we really cannot design a THV and determine feasibility without first knowing what it is intended to achieve for its residents.  This led me to think that we probably need to define at least two THV types, each tailored to a particular need:  A short-term THV (STHV) intended for 0  - 2 year residencies, and a long-term/permanent residency THV (PTHV).  

The purpose of an STHV is to give a resident the breathing room to work toward getting into an apartment, whereas a PTHV is where a person can live for however long they want and create a community.  While a precise definition of the design of each THV type is needed, generally speaking, a living unit in an STHV would be small, spartan and the village would offer fewer community amenities (remember, it’s short-term).  You would likely squeeze as many STHV units as possible into a given site to get to the lowest cost-per-bed.  An STHV would probably be funded and managed by a public housing agency and have low or fully subsidized rent cost. 

A PTHV would have larger living units (though still tiny) that are aesthetic and comfortable with more community amenities, like patios, a commons area, workshop spaces, etc.  It would cost more to develop a PTHV, and rent would be higher.  Fewer living units per given site.  A PTHV could be publicly or privately funded and managed, and potentially, units could be privately owned.

As opposed to large apartment complexes and towers that make sense in purely economic terms (i.e., you can house more people per given lot size) with THV’s I believe we have the opportunity to favor humanistic terms and create housing that supports the innate desire to build community and be creative, something that I do not think large apartment complexes are conducive to.  I believe that, in many situations, a well-designed THV will foster the success of its residents to where the need for supporting social services is greatly lessened, representing a huge savings for the city over the long term.

Andy, what do you think about having a discussion with BDS Early Assistance?

Regards,

Skip Trantow

 

 


Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Skip Trantow
 

I think the feasibility of the Slavin Village project will depend upon two basic determinations: Can it pass city permitting requirements and can it be built at a low enough cost.  We want to make these determinations early on and I think this can be done with a conversation with Portland’s Bureau of Development Services (BDS) using their ‘Early Assistance’ service.  With this service you get a 15-minute (but hopefully more) video conference with a city planner/expert to describe the project and expose potential showstopper problems upfront.  (See: https://www.portland.gov/bds/zoning-land-use/early-assistance  Also:  https://www.portland.gov/construction-and-development ). By doing this, we also stand to build expertise on the overall process of creating a Tiny House Village (THV) that can be applied to future projects.


Here are design aspects (with my informal italicized comments) that
I think need to be considered in a discussion with the BDS:

  • Site Acquisition:   Assuming it’s legally possible for the city to repurpose this dead-end street, the site will likely be either free or very inexpensive. If we have to pay, say, $200K or more, for a lot to site a THV, I think the cost per bed will be too high to make the model work. The advantage of a THV should be in ‘development agility’, i.e., in our ability to build them inexpensively and quickly in places that are infeasible for conventional development – like Slavin Rd.
  • Design work:  Need to draft building plans adequate for BDS review and get the engineering stamp of approval.
  • Electrical and Water Utilities hook-up and distribution:  While it would be nice to go 'off-grid' and build a fully self-sufficient village, I don’t think this is feasible for a THV sited within the city. Yes, we could design in solar panels and a storage battery for electricity needs but when the winter cold temperatures come the units are going to need AC power for heat. The site would also need AC power for a washer and dryer.  So, solar power would be appropriate only to augment AC power and reduce electricity bills.  Regarding freshwater and wastewater utilities, you definitely need to hook into the City’s water and sewer systems (wastewater has to have somewhere to go).  Given its location, the Slavin Rd. site will likely be close to electrical and water access points. It is unlikely that there would be any unusual expense in running those utilities to and throughout the THV.
  •  Construction of walkways, common areas, and pads for housing unit placement:  The Slavin Rd. dead-end area might already be paved providing ready-to-go walkways and house pads.  Pavement and ground stability needs to be assessed.
  •  Housing Unit Fabrication and Installation:   The ideal model is: Off-site fabrication of finished tiny houses and common structures (e.g., kitchen, toilet, shower, and washing units).  Then transport units to site and place them onto ready ground pads.  All units to meet structural and safety standards and are inspected and approved at fabrication site before being transported to the site.  To speed up development time, off-site unit fabrication work is done in parallel with site preparation.   I think it is most cost effective to design living units that are built on skids.  Just trailer them in, slide them onto a pad. It appears that the new S2HC building codes may apply to THVs where the units are on wheels – is that correct?
  •  On-site construction of entry gate and any perimeter fencing needed for security:
  • On-site construction of garbage / recycling collection area: Likely just need a simple rectangular corral with doors.
  • Internet and Phone:  Internet and phone needs can likely be met through a single 5G wireless subscription that is WiFi’ed throughout the THV.
  • Parking:   Parking capacity needs to be investigated.  It looks like some parking space can be had on the public north end of Slavin Rd. before the barricade. 
  •  Life Safety / Fire Safety:  Acquisition and installation of fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, escape route signage

In the process of thinking about Tiny House Village design, I concluded that we really cannot design a THV and determine feasibility without first knowing what it is intended to achieve for its residents.  This led me to think that we probably need to define at least two THV types, each tailored to a particular need:  A short-term THV (STHV) intended for 0  - 2 year residencies, and a long-term/permanent residency THV (PTHV).  

The purpose of an STHV is to give a resident the breathing room to work toward getting into an apartment, whereas a PTHV is where a person can live for however long they want and create a community.  While a precise definition of the design of each THV type is needed, generally speaking, a living unit in an STHV would be small, spartan and the village would offer fewer community amenities (remember, it’s short-term).  You would likely squeeze as many STHV units as possible into a given site to get to the lowest cost-per-bed.  An STHV would probably be funded and managed by a public housing agency and have low or fully subsidized rent cost. 

A PTHV would have larger living units (though still tiny) that are aesthetic and comfortable with more community amenities, like patios, a commons area, workshop spaces, etc.  It would cost more to develop a PTHV, and rent would be higher.  Fewer living units per given site.  A PTHV could be publicly or privately funded and managed, and potentially, units could be privately owned.

As opposed to large apartment complexes and towers that make sense in purely economic terms (i.e., you can house more people per given lot size) with THV’s I believe we have the opportunity to favor humanistic terms and create housing that supports the innate desire to build community and be creative, something that I do not think large apartment complexes are conducive to.  I believe that, in many situations, a well-designed THV will foster the success of its residents to where the need for supporting social services is greatly lessened, representing a huge savings for the city over the long term.

Andy, what do you think about having a discussion with BDS Early Assistance?

Regards,

Skip Trantow

 

 


Action Alerts from Housing Oregon - Affordable housing funding

Tim McCormick
 

please take a minute to contact your state legislators about any of these bills - it's the final 12 days of session.

Tip: if you don't know your state Senator and Representative or their contact info, you can look that up easily here:  
Copy it down and keep handy to contact them in future.

Also, consider getting on the mailing lists that most of them have, to find out about local Town Halls and what they are working on. Go to a Town Hall (online or in person), introduce yourself to the official and/or their chief of staff or housing advisor who'll likely be there, tell them briefly what you're most interested in and why, and any group(s) you advocate with (could be PDX Shelter Forum, eg). This probably helps later letters or testimony from you or your orgs have impact on them. It's a bit like Sales, you usually need many touch points, so to speak.
-Tim. 

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Housing Oregon <housingoregon@...>
Date: Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 11:34 AM
Subject: Action Alert - Affordable housing funding measures
To: Tim McCormick <housingoregon.org@...>



Final Weeks of Oregon Legislative Session

Contact your legislators on racial justice,  development, preservation, and homeless services funding bills

Now is the time to send a last message(s) to your State legislators to remind them how critical funding is needed for affordable housing, emergency shelters, and homeownership as the effects of the COVID pandemic continue to disproportionately affect low-income and Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities across Oregon. 

Reach out to your Representative and Senator to ask for their support on one or several of the bills listed below. If you have more time, consider reaching out to members of one of the Joint Committees considering these bills.

Housing Oregon is a member of the Oregon Housing Alliance. Check out our legislative agenda priorities and endorsements. Thanks to the Housing Alliance for legislation descriptions.

How to contact your Legislators

Racial Justice bills

Contact your Senator for HB 2007.  Contact your Representative and Senator for SB 291.


Sample messaging

Dear (Legislator):

I am writing to you today to express my support for (Pick a bill: SB 291 and/or HB 2007.)  (You can add some details about yourself or organization here.)

SB 291

The disparate impacts of the criminal justice system experienced by communities of color has significant, and negative consequences. An arrest or criminal record can have lifelong impacts on a person’s ability to access housing.

I support SB 291. Individualized assessments will give people who have a criminal history a chance at safe and stable housing.

HB 2007 (Already passed House. Contact Senators.)

Due to systemic racism, red lining, disparities in wealth and wages, people of color are less likely to own their home than their white peers. Homeownership is one of the best strategies to help families build intergenerational wealth, while providing a stable home.

I support HB 2007 so the Joint Task Force to Address Racial Disparities in Homeownership can continue to identify strategies which could reduce disparities.

Thank you.

Name

HB 2007 - Addressing Racial Disparities in Homeownership

Due to systemic racism, red lining, disparities in wealth and wages, people of color are less likely to own their home than their white peers. In Oregon, approximately 35% of Black people own their homes, compared to 65% of White people in Oregon. Homeownership is one of the best strategies to help families build intergenerational wealth, while providing a stable home. Strategies are needed to increase homeownership for BIPOC communities.

Initiated in 2018, the workgroup developed a set of recommendations  addressing bias training for real estate professionals, investment in down payment assistance, and investment in individual development accounts (IDAs) to support access to homeownership.

This bill just passed in the House and is going to the Senate.  Contact your Senator.

SB 291 - Individualized Assessment

People who rent their homes who have previous contact with the criminal justice system face additional barriers when trying to secure a new apartment. A landlord may discard their application automatically upon learning of a previous arrest or conviction, without considering the circumstances. Current federal law requires each tenant to be screened individually and assess their circumstances.

This proposal will require an individualized assessment by a landlord, and would prohibit landlords from screening people out for an arrest with no conviction, or previous criminal history for situations that are no longer illegal in Oregon.

Passed by the House Committee on Rules.  Contact your Representative and Senator.

Development, Preservation and Homeless Services bills

Bills before the Joint Committee on Ways and Means and/or Subcommittee on Capital Construction.

Sample Messaging

Dear (Legislator):

I am writing to you today to ask for your support for (Bill number), which (purpose).

Add some details about your organization here – name, geographic area served, mission, etc.

How would you use funding item you listed above? How could it help you? Share an example of how this resource could be important to your work.

This bill is in Ways & Means, and I am asking you today to advocate for and support this proposal.

Thank you,

Name

New Rental and Homeownership Development

SB 5505  - Local Innovation and Fast Track, or LIFT

Additional resources to develop regulated affordable housing are needed, including rental and homeownership opportunities. Since 2015, developers have successfully utilized general obligation bonds to build affordable housing through the Local Innovation and Fast Track, or LIFT Housing program. The Legislature should commit $250 million or more in general obligation bonds for this program.

This bill is before the Subcommittee on Capital Construction of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

SB 5505  - Permanent Supportive Housing

We need to advocate to ensure that rent and services dollars for newly constructed projects approved in 2019 ($50 million in Article XI-Q      general obligation bonds) remain available to build permanent supportive housing across Oregon. The Legislature should commit $50 million or more plus rent and services funding in 2021-23.

This bill is before the Subcommittee on Capital Construction of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Preservation and healthy homes

SB 5534 - Preserve and Maintain existing affordable housing

We need to maintain our supply of existing affordable housing, and reinvestment is needed to maintain safe, stable, and affordable homes. These funds are needed to help to maintain all regulated, multifamily affordable housing, as well as public housing and manufactured home parks. The Legislature should commit $100 million in Lottery Bonds to maintain existing affordable housing across Oregon.

This bill is before the Subcommittee on Capital Construction of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 2842 - Healthy Homes

Across Oregon, too many of our neighbors live in homes that may have fallen in disrepair or need small investments to improve their health and safety.  These investments help maintain stability, improve their health outcomes, and protect the housing stock in our communities for the next generation.

This proposal will create a Healthy Homes Program and Healthy Homes Repair Fund within the Oregon Health Authority, which will distribute grants to local governments, housing authorities, non-profit organizations, and Tribes to assist low income households with home repairs and retrofits. The proposal would also allow repairs of rental homes.

This bill is before the full Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Homelessness services

HB 5011 - Prevent and End Homelessness (EHA/SHAP)

Across Oregon, we have an effective statewide system to distribute emergency rent assistance, rapid re-housing resources, and emergency shelter support through the Emergency Housing Account (EHA) and the State Homelessness Assistance Program (SHAP). Significant resources are needed to meet the needs of people experiencing housing instability. The Legislature should commit $50 million to support ongoing funding for these critical programs.

This bill is before the full Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 2544 - Supporting runaway and homeless youth

Oregon has one of the highest rates of youth homelessness, including youth in the K-12 system, youth exiting the foster care system, and unaccompanied youth. The Legislature should invest resources in expanding an existing host home network, which provides a home for unaccompanied homeless youth while they finish high school; and expand existing shelter, mental health, transitional housing, and other services for Runaway and Homeless Youth.

This bill is before the Subcommittee on Capital Construction of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

HB 2163 - Long Term Rent Assistance Pilot for Former Foster Youth

In Oregon, three out of four households with extremely low incomes pay over half of their income towards rent. Today, half of youth who experience homelessness become adults who are chronically homeless, meaning they have years of homelessness coupled with disabling conditions.

This pilot proposal would provide $4.5 million to support youth who are no longer able to receive support through the foster care system with rent assistance. It seeks to provide stability and support to youth as they transition from childhood to adulthood so they can have access to the same education and training opportunities just like their counterparts who are housed and living with family.

This bill is before the full Joint Committee on Ways and Means.

Tax Credit and Property Tax Exemption bills

Sample Messaging

What to say to your Representative and Senator about your tax credit priorities:

Dear (Legislator):

I am writing to you today to express my support for (Pick one: HB 2584: the expansion of the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit; HB 2096: The expansion of the Agricultural Workforce Housing Tax Credit; HB 3364: A credit to help preserve existing affordable housing).

Add some details about your organization here – name, geographic area served, mission, etc.

How would you use the tax credit you listed above? How has it helped you? Share at least one example of a development you’ve built with the credit, and why it was critical to building that development.

If you’re planning to build a new development with the tax credit, please share that here. If you have land already built, and project plans, share two sentences about that – who will the project serve, how many units will it have, who is the target population.

This credit is critical to expanding housing opportunity in Oregon. I urge your support.

Thank you,

Name

HB 2584 - Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit

The Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit or OAHTC helps fund development and preservation of affordable housing. The Legislature should increase the cap to $35 million (currently $25 million) to develop and preserve more homes for people with low incomes. There are two proposed technical changes: first, to allow USDA Rural Development projects to take the credit over a 30-year period, not a 20-year period; and second, to allow more flexibility with rent assistance contracts to include local and state rent assistance to be included in the definition of rent assistance.

This bill is before the Joint Committee on Tax Expenditures.

HB 2096 and HB 2433 (omnibus bill) - Agricultural Workforce Housing Tax Credit Expansion

Agricultural workers and their families are in need of safe and affordable homes to live in, either temporarily during harvest or permanently. Many agricultural workers live in substandard or overcrowded housing, while working hard to put food on the table for Oregon families. Oregon Housing and Community Services is seeking to increase the cap for the Agricultural Workforce Housing Tax Credit. The credit is used to develop housing for agricultural workers both on farms and in the community. The current program is capped at $15 million per biennium, and the Governor’s Budget proposes to expand this to $24 million.

The HB 2433 omnibus bill passed in the House and is going to the Senate.  Contact your Senator.

HB 3364 - Preservation Tax Credit

Across Oregon, we need to maintain our supply of existing affordable housing, and reinvestment is needed to maintain safe, stable, and affordable homes. These funds are needed to help to maintain all regulated, multifamily affordable housing, as well as public housing and manufactured home parks. Additional tools are needed to maintain this housing. This proposal would create a tax credit to incentivize the sale of a building that meets the definition of publicly supported affordable housing (ORS 456.250) to a non-profit or a public housing authority, in order to maintain the housing as affordable.

This bill is before the Joint Committee on Tax Expenditures.

HB 2456 - Property Tax Exemption, Updates for affordable housing

Over the years, the Legislature has authorized several local option property tax exemptions for affordable housing, including ORS 307.515 and ORS 307.540. Local option property tax exemptions are one tool local jurisdictions can use to help incentivize and make affordable housing developments financially viable in their communities. Recently, the federal government made a critical change that will allow for more people of different income levels to be served by affordable housing. The Legislature should update the local option property tax exemptions to align with this new criteria.

This bill passed the House and referred to Senate Committee on Finance and Revenue Contact your Senator.

Questions? Need info?

Brian Hoop, Housing Oregon, 503-475-6056, brian@...

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


Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for explaining,  Peter.


On Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 7:28 PM Peter Finley Fry, <peter@...> wrote:

Land is owned by deed.  Portland (and other public agencies) can and do own land by deed.  A right of way (street) is a super easement across deeded land granted by the original subdivider to provide access to lots.

 

The easiest way to see this is on Portland Maps that clearly shows the deeded land (which are also tax lots) and the interconnected right of ways.  Portlandmaps will reveal the answer.  It is possible that the right of way extends but is not improved.  It is not uncommon for people to develop unimproved right of ways and extend a yard or garden into the right of way.  I know of a street in Corbett Terwilliger where every property along the street was built into the right of way. 

 

On deeded land, the owner can prohibit trespass of the land.  On right of way, public access can not be blocked or prohibited – i.e. public right of way can not be privatized by anyone – the city of private party without a public street vacation process.  Ironically, the city in the last few years made it almost impossible to vacate right of ways.  

 

These areas have a lot of conflict inherent in them.  In my world the laws are the bones and when the bones are broken or ignored then they cause the organism to fail.  I am trying to reduce the breakage so we can discuss the moral principles and not get sidetracked by litigation or illegal action even when innocent.  Keep in mind that there is no final judgement except death.   Litigation only stops when people fade away.  The Boise case provides a road sign, but it is not a definitive conclusion.

 

My observation, is that no one is really paying attention to reality.  It is no different then attempting to cross a desert without water.

 

The Salvin idea looks very interesting and conceptually  could work.

 

I would like to help to make it happen.

 

 

 

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: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 2:52 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

 

Hi Andy, Peter and Skip,

 

I very much appreciate Andy's plan and sharing it with the community here on the listserv.

 

Could you explain what your exchange a bit more. I'm not as versed in planning terms and land use and suspect there are others like me on the listserv.

 

Right now Slavin Street is a dead end. Is the land at the end of the dead end owned by the City? 

 

Or is the idea that it's being held by the City because although the road stops where the proposed village site would be it still counts as a right of way that in theory could be extended?

 

Is it that the land at the end of the dead end cannot be legally designated for another use as any other use than extending the road would be trumped by the rights of the property holders along the road?

 

I understood, I think, the part about how camps in right of way designated areas are seen to block right of passage and so to be an attempt to privatize public use.

 

Last question, does this mean that it would be necessary (with legalities in mind) to find a piece of City owned land for which they hold the title vs. a parcel such as on Slavin St. where they seem to hold usage in which to site villages?

 

Thanks a bunch, in advance for the clarification.

 

Elise

 

 

 


Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Peter Finley Fry
 

Land is owned by deed.  Portland (and other public agencies) can and do own land by deed.  A right of way (street) is a super easement across deeded land granted by the original subdivider to provide access to lots.

 

The easiest way to see this is on Portland Maps that clearly shows the deeded land (which are also tax lots) and the interconnected right of ways.  Portlandmaps will reveal the answer.  It is possible that the right of way extends but is not improved.  It is not uncommon for people to develop unimproved right of ways and extend a yard or garden into the right of way.  I know of a street in Corbett Terwilliger where every property along the street was built into the right of way. 

 

On deeded land, the owner can prohibit trespass of the land.  On right of way, public access can not be blocked or prohibited – i.e. public right of way can not be privatized by anyone – the city of private party without a public street vacation process.  Ironically, the city in the last few years made it almost impossible to vacate right of ways.  

 

These areas have a lot of conflict inherent in them.  In my world the laws are the bones and when the bones are broken or ignored then they cause the organism to fail.  I am trying to reduce the breakage so we can discuss the moral principles and not get sidetracked by litigation or illegal action even when innocent.  Keep in mind that there is no final judgement except death.   Litigation only stops when people fade away.  The Boise case provides a road sign, but it is not a definitive conclusion.

 

My observation, is that no one is really paying attention to reality.  It is no different then attempting to cross a desert without water.

 

The Salvin idea looks very interesting and conceptually  could work.

 

I would like to help to make it happen.

 

 

 

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: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 2:52 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

 

Hi Andy, Peter and Skip,

 

I very much appreciate Andy's plan and sharing it with the community here on the listserv.

 

Could you explain what your exchange a bit more. I'm not as versed in planning terms and land use and suspect there are others like me on the listserv.

 

Right now Slavin Street is a dead end. Is the land at the end of the dead end owned by the City? 

 

Or is the idea that it's being held by the City because although the road stops where the proposed village site would be it still counts as a right of way that in theory could be extended?

 

Is it that the land at the end of the dead end cannot be legally designated for another use as any other use than extending the road would be trumped by the rights of the property holders along the road?

 

I understood, I think, the part about how camps in right of way designated areas are seen to block right of passage and so to be an attempt to privatize public use.

 

Last question, does this mean that it would be necessary (with legalities in mind) to find a piece of City owned land for which they hold the title vs. a parcel such as on Slavin St. where they seem to hold usage in which to site villages?

 

Thanks a bunch, in advance for the clarification.

 

Elise

 

 

 


Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Elise Aymer
 

Hi Andy, Peter and Skip,

I very much appreciate Andy's plan and sharing it with the community here on the listserv.

Could you explain what your exchange a bit more. I'm not as versed in planning terms and land use and suspect there are others like me on the listserv.

Right now Slavin Street is a dead end. Is the land at the end of the dead end owned by the City? 

Or is the idea that it's being held by the City because although the road stops where the proposed village site would be it still counts as a right of way that in theory could be extended?

Is it that the land at the end of the dead end cannot be legally designated for another use as any other use than extending the road would be trumped by the rights of the property holders along the road?

I understood, I think, the part about how camps in right of way designated areas are seen to block right of passage and so to be an attempt to privatize public use.

Last question, does this mean that it would be necessary (with legalities in mind) to find a piece of City owned land for which they hold the title vs. a parcel such as on Slavin St. where they seem to hold usage in which to site villages?

Thanks a bunch, in advance for the clarification.

Elise



Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Peter Finley Fry
 

Again;  It looks great.

 

FYI; if you vacate the street; the property reverts back to the underlying property owners which is typically fifty fifty to the abutting owners.  A right of way is essentially a super easement across private property which is why the existing camps on right of way are technically illegal as they block people’s right of passage and attempt to privatize property rights that are owned by all of us.

 

I understand in times of crisis we tend to ignore things though we attempt to do no harm.

 

 

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: Skip Trantow via groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 10:18 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

 

Andy,

This looks reasonable to me.  I doubt if Slavin St. can be extended and thus will always be a dead-end street.  As such, the city may be amenable to vacating/abandoning the far end portion for another purpose, such as, a tiny house village.  To make the adjacent apartment complex more accepting of this use, you would probably need to specify a fence along the east side to give a sense of separation/security.  

Overall, this is the kind of strategy the city should adopt, i.e., find 'un-purposed' city property, near transportation and shopping, that can be purposed into a tiny home village.  I think you’re on a promising track here.

Skip Trantow

 


Re: Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Skip Trantow
 

Andy,

This looks reasonable to me.  I doubt if Slavin St. can be extended and thus will always be a dead-end street.  As such, the city may be amenable to vacating/abandoning the far end portion for another purpose, such as, a tiny house village.  To make the adjacent apartment complex more accepting of this use, you would probably need to specify a fence along the east side to give a sense of separation/security.  

Overall, this is the kind of strategy the city should adopt, i.e., find 'un-purposed' city property, near transportation and shopping, that can be purposed into a tiny home village.  I think you’re on a promising track here.

Skip Trantow


ON NOW, 4-5pm: AHFE Safety Off the Streets monthly meeting - join and comment

Tim McCormick
 

meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr
Phone: 1 484-424-4823  (PIN: 661 453 175#)

June 15 agenda: 
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/566631e8c21b864679fff4de/t/60c3d888a6c97c64459566f0/1623447702712/SOS_Agenda_20210615.pdf


AHFE Safety Off the Streets Workgroup mtgTuesday, June 15⋅3:00 – 5:00pmMonthly on the third TuesdayLocation:https://meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykrDescription:please join today for 3-5pm monthly (on 3rd Tuesdays), open meeting of the Safety Off the Streets Workgroup, a subcommittee of the Coordinating Board of A Home For Everyone:  
   Google Meet:  meet.google.com/svq-vkja-ykr
   Phone: 1 484-424-4823  (PIN: 661 453 175#)
   Agenda for Feb 16


Meeting agendas, materials (posted shortly before meeting), and minutes (posted some months after meeting): http://ahomeforeveryone.net/safety-off-the-streets-workgroup

SOS Workground is the shelter, immediate-response focused part, and advisory group, of the county homelessness administrative authority (A Home For Everyone). So it's a key place, in terms of funding / general policy, where many of us in PDX Shelter Forum might engage given our interests here. See 'About SOS'' below for more about it. 


ABOUT SOS

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

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




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


Slavin Village feasibility_210609.pdf

Andrew Olshin
 

Happy weekend. Please take a look at this when u get a chance and let me know what u think.





Thanks,
Andy Olshin


letter from Business for a Better Portland

Sally Bachman
 

FYI

 

Letter to City and County Leaders on Homeless Services Budget

https://bbpdx.org/updates/2021/6/3/letter-to-portland-leaders-on-homeless-services-budget?fbclid=IwAR3El-S1Tnwsme-0g9VLYsiiUM5Q6no3ls45QjeJBT-q1aCEB5zaT3lGO7M

 

June 3, 2021

 

Mayor Ted Wheeler
Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty
Commissioner Mingus Mapps
Commissioner Carmen Rubio
Commissioner Dan Ryan

 

Chair Deborah Kafoury
Commissioner Sharon Meiran
Commissioner Susheela Jayapal
Commissioner Jessica Vega Pederson
Commissioner Lori Stegmann

Dear Chair Kafoury, Mayor Wheeler and Commissioners:

 

Business for a Better Portland is an innovative chamber of commerce that represents over 400 companies and organizations. Our unique approach to advocacy for business interests ensures that the volume of a member’s voice is not determined by the amount of their dues. Our advocacy for shared prosperity is guided by a fundamental understanding that the well-being of the business community is inherently tied to that of the entire community. One only needs to look at conditions on our streets to recognize that the rising income inequality which has fueled human suffering and social instability is not good for business. Our members look to us to navigate the complex and nearly impenetrable public policy arena on their behalf and to advocate for the policies and funding priorities that will benefit not only their immediate bottom line but also the social stability that will create greater shared prosperity for all.

 

Thank you for working together to allocate resources to both provide housing and services for people experiencing homelessness, as well as to establish near-term alternative safe camping options for people who currently have no choice but to sleep on the street. Homelessness is a problem our region has struggled with for decades. While its origins are traceable to the systematic defunding of the federal social safety net and neoliberal economic policies that have led to extreme income inequality, we must not let the scale of the problem deter us from taking decisive action to ameliorate the suffering of our fellow Portlanders who are in crisis and support our community’s businesses who also find themselves in crisis as they must step in as ad hoc social service and public safety providers.

 

Until recently, efforts to advance solutions have been stymied not only by a scarcity of resources, but also a lack of political will to accept the difficult trade-offs of short-term solutions. We applaud the arrival of your “all hands on deck” approach and hope it means that we are finally ready to prioritize action over the qualms of select constituencies. As City Commissioner Dan Ryan so aptly called out at last week’s meeting of the Executive Committee of the A Home For Everyone board, public demand for safe camping locations provides an excellent opportunity for our city’s private landowners to step up and participate in this critical community initiative. We trust that those who have been most insistent about the need for safe camping areas outside of downtown will be the first to step up and collaborate with the city to secure land for them. Intense, sustained and generous collaboration among all stakeholders will be required to ensure the success of these programs.

We were honored to play an active role in the HereTogether coalition that brought together a wide array of service providers, business leaders and community stakeholders to advance one of the most thoughtful and pragmatic responses to the housing crisis in the country. Passage of the measure in May 2020 was a watershed moment for our region. We fully support that vision, and remain committed to the philosophy that housing--not shelter--is the solution to homelessness. Housing is not only the most sensible and humane solution, it is also the most cost effective. As dozens of Portland-area business, government and community leaders learned during our 2018 “Best Practices Trip” to Brooklyn, New York, the New York City “right to shelter” approach costs billions to maintain and has become so vast that it requires its own police force. We must not fall prey to the temptation of simplistic solutions that put people out of sight but do not give them a safe place to call home.

Still, businesses and people living on the street alike are united in calling for safe, sanitary and organized places for people to go until they can be housed. The humanitarian crisis is plain for all to see, and constant political and community conflict over sweeps serves no one. We are at a pivotal moment now that multiple significant sources of funding are available to finally enable us to both operationalize the voter-supported vision of providing housing and supportive services to people who need them, as well as provide safe, sanitary and organized places for people to go until they can be housed.

 

Embracing the pragmatism of safe rest villages means letting go of ideal answers in the near term: we should never equate a tent or a pod with access to sanitation with housing. But how we build these safe rest villages can demonstrate our intent. Safe rest villages give us an opportunity to be more efficient and effective in how we get resources to people; they should never be mistaken for a solution in and of themselves. We must develop a village model that includes pathways out of them from the very beginning, which means supportive services must be co-located: employment, rental assistance and behavioral health resources are all essential if these villages are to succeed. It is also imperative that we distribute these villages equitably throughout the city, lest they become “out of sight, out of mind.”

As we evaluate any of these programs, we must choose metrics that align with our values, namely that housing is a human right. There may be stakeholders who suggest that the Martin v. Boise framework should set our Region’s and City’s guiding standard, but this is misguided. The so-called “standard” set by Martin vs. Boise is not something we should aspire to. The enduring value of that decision is that law enforcement tools will not fix homelessness. Penalizing people for living outside is a misguided and flatly unconstitutional strategy that falsely assumes that these people most directly impacted have any choice about where to go. In no sense is pure compliance with this important, yet failingly minimal, baseline set by the courts in line with the bold aspirations of our community. A focus on Martin v. Boise alone distracts from the imperative to secure the resources to offer people experiencing houselessness humane and voluntary options. Our goal as a city should be to create public environments that are conducive to commerce because they are welcoming for all, not ones that are defined by exclusion and enforcement. Rather than setting the low bar of available shelter beds, we should instead be striving for year over year decreases in unsheltered and chronic homelessness until we have successfully reached an end to homelessness.

 

We must invest not only in data collection, but in communications resources so that the public can clearly and regularly understand what progress is being made. We who have engaged closely on these issues see the passion and commitment of our elected leaders and their team members, and we see the staggering complication of these issues. We know that you have been asked to do too much with too little for too long. And yet we speak for our members who are beyond frustrated by our apparent inability to collectively improve appallingly bad conditions for both street-level businesses and people who have no choice but to subsist on those same streets. Besides the social and economic drivers of the ongoing housing crisis, there is nothing more detrimental to our efforts to address homelessness than the appearance of inaction and poor results. Confidence in government is approaching a nadir, and no time should be wasted in reversing that trend.

 

Thank you for your commitment to Portland and Multnomah County. We are grateful for your service and look forward to a better community for all.

 

Respectfully,

Ashley Henry, Executive Director

Business for a Better Portland (BBPDX)

 

Business for a Better Portland • 911 NE Davis Street, Portland, OR, 97232 • www.bbpdx.org

 

 


Beacon Village call for volunteers

jes.maran@...
 

Come help build Beacon Village at Bridgeport UCC! Calling all volunteers to spend a few hours build this alternative shelter village.

Beacon Village in partnership with Bridgeport United Church of Christ is building our first alternative shelter community with homes for up to fifteen residents in ten heated, powered, secure, hard-walled shelters, featuring a handmade shower & laundry trailer and open-air community living space.

Over the next month, we are requesting community support for our builder, Cascadia Clusters, as we build platforms and make other site improvements.

Choose a date/time-RSVP here!-Bring your enthusiasm and ANY level of skill! Visit beaconvillagepdx.org to learn more.

Thank you and kind regards,

Jes Maran
Beacon Village Board

 

 

 


Re: Opinions he on National Alliance to End Homelessness

Andrew Olshin
 

I’m downtown at 4th and Everett.  I’m watching the Central City concern / Downtown Clean and Safe street cleanup team.   And I’m wondering if Proud Ground isn’t the more direct route to getting folks off the streets.  Isn’t the contract for Clean and Safe up for grabs?  Open? Willing?

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin

On Jun 7, 2021, at 10:35 AM, Donna Cohen <dcohen@...> wrote:



This webinar from the National Alliance to End Homelessness, transcript and, especially, the SLIDES from the speaker from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities are very good.

 

Slides also suggest specific advocacy steps.

 

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homeless-policy-in-the-recovery-plans-webinar/

 

Donna

 

Donna L Cohen, MLIS, MEd

Portland, Oregon

503-737-1425

dcohen@...

Civics for Adults – and Others – Workshops: To Enhance Civic Knowledge and Inspire Political Engagement

Webpage www.civicthinker.info

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Civics-for-Adults-1490728887922036/

“My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not fair, not right, not just – stand up, say something, speak up!” Rep. John Lewis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6lzPpqc2WY

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Keliferous Goodwoman
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 10:11 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Opinions on National Alliance to End Homelessness

 

Very cool! Have you checked out Health Care for the homeless? It started in Boston. 

 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 11:01 AM Tommy Kiser <tommy@...> wrote:

Hi all - really appreciate everyone on this list and all you’re doing to make real change for our unhoused and housing-unstable neighbors.

 

I just wanted to solicit some opinions from the group. I’m making a short film right now that’s meant to make a statement on houselessness, and I was looking for a website to link to in the credits for good explanations of housing-first solutions, and the importance/efficacy of them. The potential audience is national (not local/state level). The call to action is to support housing-first solutions and living wage jobs, and to demand the same of elected leaders.

 

I found the National Alliance to End Homelessness (https://endhomelessness.org/), and from the website it looks like they have some really good data and messaging around the topic. Anyone here have any experience with them? I looked them up on Charity Navigator and they have a good score there for fiscal transparency and accountability. Mainly want to do some due diligence and make sure they are a worthy org to drive traffic to before I highlight their site. (Not that I expect millions of viewers here, this is just a personal project, but nonetheless.)

 

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome and appreciated. Also if you have any other organizations or web resources to suggest, please send them my way. Thanks in advance!

 

Cheers,

-Tommy


Re: Opinions on National Alliance to End Homelessness

Donna Cohen
 

This webinar from the National Alliance to End Homelessness, transcript and, especially, the SLIDES from the speaker from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities are very good.

 

Slides also suggest specific advocacy steps.

 

https://endhomelessness.org/resource/homeless-policy-in-the-recovery-plans-webinar/

 

Donna

 

Donna L Cohen, MLIS, MEd

Portland, Oregon

503-737-1425

dcohen@...

Civics for Adults – and Others – Workshops: To Enhance Civic Knowledge and Inspire Political Engagement

Webpage www.civicthinker.info

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Civics-for-Adults-1490728887922036/

“My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not fair, not right, not just – stand up, say something, speak up!” Rep. John Lewis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6lzPpqc2WY

 

 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Keliferous Goodwoman
Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 10:11 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Opinions on National Alliance to End Homelessness

 

Very cool! Have you checked out Health Care for the homeless? It started in Boston. 

 

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 11:01 AM Tommy Kiser <tommy@...> wrote:

Hi all - really appreciate everyone on this list and all you’re doing to make real change for our unhoused and housing-unstable neighbors.

 

I just wanted to solicit some opinions from the group. I’m making a short film right now that’s meant to make a statement on houselessness, and I was looking for a website to link to in the credits for good explanations of housing-first solutions, and the importance/efficacy of them. The potential audience is national (not local/state level). The call to action is to support housing-first solutions and living wage jobs, and to demand the same of elected leaders.

 

I found the National Alliance to End Homelessness (https://endhomelessness.org/), and from the website it looks like they have some really good data and messaging around the topic. Anyone here have any experience with them? I looked them up on Charity Navigator and they have a good score there for fiscal transparency and accountability. Mainly want to do some due diligence and make sure they are a worthy org to drive traffic to before I highlight their site. (Not that I expect millions of viewers here, this is just a personal project, but nonetheless.)

 

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome and appreciated. Also if you have any other organizations or web resources to suggest, please send them my way. Thanks in advance!

 

Cheers,

-Tommy


Re: Opinions on National Alliance to End Homelessness

Keliferous Goodwoman
 

Very cool! Have you checked out Health Care for the homeless? It started in Boston. 


On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, 11:01 AM Tommy Kiser <tommy@...> wrote:
Hi all - really appreciate everyone on this list and all you’re doing to make real change for our unhoused and housing-unstable neighbors.

I just wanted to solicit some opinions from the group. I’m making a short film right now that’s meant to make a statement on houselessness, and I was looking for a website to link to in the credits for good explanations of housing-first solutions, and the importance/efficacy of them. The potential audience is national (not local/state level). The call to action is to support housing-first solutions and living wage jobs, and to demand the same of elected leaders.

I found the National Alliance to End Homelessness (https://endhomelessness.org/), and from the website it looks like they have some really good data and messaging around the topic. Anyone here have any experience with them? I looked them up on Charity Navigator and they have a good score there for fiscal transparency and accountability. Mainly want to do some due diligence and make sure they are a worthy org to drive traffic to before I highlight their site. (Not that I expect millions of viewers here, this is just a personal project, but nonetheless.)

Any thoughts or opinions are welcome and appreciated. Also if you have any other organizations or web resources to suggest, please send them my way. Thanks in advance!

Cheers,
-Tommy


Re: Opinions on National Alliance to End Homelessness

Jayme Delson
 

Hi Tommy and all,

Most people end up homeless due to lack of sufficient economic opportunities. For most this is a statement of the prevailing economy, not an issue rooted in their own failing. We can see this by the disappearance of the mass size middle class of the mid 20th century, having been now transformed into a mass size poor class of the 21st century.

I see nothing out there changing this long term trend. Given this, expecting to put the most vulnerable back into the prevailing economy through Transitional housing, Rapid rehousing, and Housing First, has proven to be largely ineffective over the last 40 years or so in establishing long term housed people.

I think its high time we deploy additional opportunities for all who wish. Given prevailing reality, we must work within the existing laws, until such time as we can change them.

Seek solutions that are low enough cost that they are within reach and can be scaled up.

That are uplifting, placing the individuals involved at the center of what is going on.

Making ends meet in the face of declining incomes, can be done if we produce for ourselves and with each other, an increasing portion of what we need.

People have done this throughout history, it was done in the US on a widespread basis as recently as 130 years ago. Currently the Amish do this, some land based intentional communities to this, people with bundles of money do this. The homeless have been forced to do this in the most untenable ways.

Imagine what some people, homeless and otherwise could do, if they were not on the run, all too often. And had modest access to materials to build tiny homes and cottages, opportunities to grow a garden, a place to work on things and perhaps run a small business of their choosing.

This can be done on a very low per person budget, if there were a team of people wanting to make it so. Clearly getting such an enterprise going will take some money, to get up and running. However done in a most cost conserving way, it can cost as little as 1/10 the cost of the other low cost options, and in time can be self sustaining.

When the wealthy need rest and drug rehab they go to beautiful places with cottages and nature.   When poor people need help they are filled with drugs and placed in a room with 4 white walls, this is not rehabilitation. 

Fortunately the garden and enjoying working on projects, with no pressure is.   

So that is a rendition of what I see as a viable option, what do you think?

Cheers,

Jayme

Jayme@...

On 6/3/2021 2:32 PM, Tommy Kiser wrote:
Hmm, ok, thanks very much for this Jayme. I’m much newer to focused activism on this issue than probably most on this list, so I very much appreciate the added historical perspective.

Would you consider the village approach (individual shelters, shared services, etc.) to fall under the umbrella of “Housing First”? That is the sort of solution that seems most promising to me at this point if adopted widely. That’s the sort of thing I was hoping to advocate for with this message.

Of course I also realize no one approach will solve the entire problem, I’m also wholly in favor of more services/outreach to camps and meeting people where they are, while we work towards longer term solutions.

All that said, I realize this issue is insanely complex, and there’s no great way to boil it down to one or two sentences. But if you had a few seconds to give a very short message to a large audience, what would you say that you think might make an impact? (Maybe this is the question I should have asked this group to begin with.)

And thanks Donna for the background on the Alliance. Great to hear, and I look forward to watching the webinar you shared.

Cheers,
-Tommy




On Jun 3, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Jayme Delson <jayme@...> wrote:

Hi Tommy,

Housing first is Transitional housing without the barer to entry of substance abuse, this is a good upgrade in my opinion.

Sadly Transitional housing (housing first) in general has an poor track record on mid and longer term outcomes, in the cases that are tracked which are few.   (Under 20% remain housed longer than 6months or so)  its no ones fault, as you say living wage jobs are needed.  However if you think as i do, that that is not the prevailing long term trend, than how could this work?  I have watched this for 40 years now, its just getting worse.  

I am happy for the few it helps.  I am sad for the majority who are asked to trod the bridge to no where, over and over again.  To say nothing of the mental health impacts of the few who do gain housing, with no upward mobility, and 4 walls a TV,  no yard, no uplifting culture, or way out.  For most this is a perfect recipe  for depression or worse.

Thanks,

Jayme 

On 6/3/2021 11:20 AM, Donna Cohen wrote:
I recently saw a webinar from the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Yes, they are a good group.
 
Homeless Policy in the Recovery Plans (recorded webinar) May 12, 2021 
From National Alliance to End Homelessness
 
The webpage has a video of the webinar, a transcript and a set of excellent slides from the second speaker, who was from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
 
Donna
 
 
Donna L Cohen, MLIS, MEd
Portland, Oregon
503-737-1425
Civics for Adults – and Others – Workshops: To Enhance Civic Knowledge and Inspire Political Engagement
“My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not fair, not right, not just – stand up, say something, speak up!” Rep. John Lewis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6lzPpqc2WY
 
 
From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Tommy Kiser
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:02 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Opinions on National Alliance to End Homelessness
 
Hi all - really appreciate everyone on this list and all you’re doing to make real change for our unhoused and housing-unstable neighbors.
 
I just wanted to solicit some opinions from the group. I’m making a short film right now that’s meant to make a statement on houselessness, and I was looking for a website to link to in the credits for good explanations of housing-first solutions, and the importance/efficacy of them. The potential audience is national (not local/state level). The call to action is to support housing-first solutions and living wage jobs, and to demand the same of elected leaders.
 
I found the National Alliance to End Homelessness (https://endhomelessness.org/), and from the website it looks like they have some really good data and messaging around the topic. Anyone here have any experience with them? I looked them up on Charity Navigator and they have a good score there for fiscal transparency and accountability. Mainly want to do some due diligence and make sure they are a worthy org to drive traffic to before I highlight their site. (Not that I expect millions of viewers here, this is just a personal project, but nonetheless.)
 
Any thoughts or opinions are welcome and appreciated. Also if you have any other organizations or web resources to suggest, please send them my way. Thanks in advance!
 
Cheers,
-Tommy


Re: Community segment left out of homeless debate

Amalie Roberts
 

Jeffrey, how wonderful to read this post.  At this moment, I am on a US road trip across the country sleeping in various configurations  of “home”  while I travel,  and visiting organizations that are attempting to address the world-wide  looming question of what to do about people living outside of a permanent physical structure.  The short of it is that People Living Outside exist in a wide range of configurations and all should be part of the larger conversations.  The younger people I meet don’t really have attachment to the idea of the end goal of a mortgage and a yard to mow but just a safe and comfortable place to sleep while trying to live a rich life.  Some talk about commune style arrangements.   Some family units have lived  outside of traditional housing structures generationally.  It is refreshing to hear their stories and again reimagine what the future looks like regarding the issues before us,  but we need to consider so many more ideas of what “shelter” can be.  Take care!

On Jun 2, 2021, at 8:20 PM, Jeffrey Liddicoat via groups.io <outsideartsale5@...> wrote:



On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jeffrey Liddicoat <outsideartsale5@...> wrote:
Hi,
I’m not directing this at you or in response to your recent article on the six proposed outdoor shelters. 
As far as I can tell when it comes to consideration of issues related to homelessness whether by policy makers, journalists, or even the general public, that part of the homeless community that I am a part of is seldom heard from, considered, or in the end properly or fairly dealt with in terms of public policy.
There is not an established label for the community segment I am concerned about. However they can be described as long term committed urban campers. They are not likely to ever sleep on a sidewalk or in a doorway. They tend to have a fair amount of belongings that provide shelter, comfort, privacy, and that are used to take care of bodily needs like food storage, preparation, and disposal. Similarly they tend to have practices or systems or even technologies to deal with other solid waste disposal issues, including appropriate ways of  doing bodily waste disposal. And since they tend to have a high quantity of belongings and stable consistent methods for meeting the needs of their lifestyle, they tend to be less transient than other homeless people. Indeed some members of this community are less transient than many of the so called ‘housed’ who move frequently from house to apartment, apartment to apartment. and even apartment to shared living space with other housed transients.
This begins to speak to why I don’t much care for either the term homeless or the term houseless. We usually don’t use standard tents either. Our shelters tend to be more substantial. We consider our shelters to be small houses and after living in the same place for a while that house becomes a home. 
Unfortunately it is consistently the case that our homes are torn away from us,
the materials and belongings we have used to survive and provide comfort are confiscated from us or destroyed and discarded.
Now as with these six outdoor shelters the whole aim is to provide a justification for brutal sweeps of the homeless The claim is that these or other shelters will make it so that no one need camp on public land or sidewalks or any other space once these 
government shelter areas are available.
And for some of those we call homeless these places will be a good thing and will provide better access to a secure rest area, hygiene services, and opportunities to connect with various agencies for jobs or more permanent housing.
But for many of the long term dedicated urban campers, being displaced by sweeps aimed at forcing us into shelters will represent huge decreases in the quality of shelter we have provided for ourselves.  And the pride we take in our shelter homes should not be dismissed. Nor is it a minor issue that this whole process will strip us of the dignity and freedom that many of us have fought for for many years.
A part of the reason (indeed it is a big part) 
I live outdoors is that as best as possible I want to avoid participation in the types of lifestyle choices that are now risking tremendous human suffering perhaps the collapse of civilization and maybe even a massive extinction event that includes humanity. It really isn’t debatable the homeless clearly have very low carbon footprints. So when it comes to threats to public health, policy makers and their public supporters might look a little closer at  their own reflections in a nearby mirror.
For my part I don’t just live outside I also work outside. (I won’t go into detail but I’ll attach examples of the wood work I do as well as some photos of my living space).
Many other urban campers have similar beliefs and practices that are not compatible with the public policy approaches outlined in your recent article.
Bottom-lines - we are not doing anything that is objectionable - we aren’t blocking sidewalks - if anything we help rid Portland of visible garbage - we dispose of waste, including bodily waste in ways that are responsible. We are far less criminal than some segments of the housed community.
Some of us just want to be left alone. Others seek as best as possible to contribute to the community through art or music or politics or with bicycle repair I or by directly helping out  their neighbor with food or childcare, or whatever is needed.
But for the urban camper (and many others who are homeless), past as well as current public policy takes none of that into account. Instead policies that diminish us, disrupt our ability to function, and destroy any hope we have in terms of making a contribution are the policies that get adopted.
And so as far as the future goes since we are once again not even considered or taken into account in the public discussion I know we will simply get more of the same.
We are victims.
Sorry I’m sending this without proofreading. It’s kind of long - maybe I should apologize for that as well.
Jeffrey Liddicoat
503 482 3188
OutsideArtSale@...
<IMG_1011.jpeg>
<IMG_0726.jpeg>
<IMG_1615.jpeg>
<20200402_140436_Original.jpeg>
<20200512_034158_Original.jpeg>
<IMG_0948.jpeg>


Amalie Roberts
amalie@...


 You have the
right to breathe and remain
 Imagine
that
Rosamond S. King


Re: Community segment left out of homeless debate

Aisha Musa
 

Jeffrey (if I may),
Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed email. Yours is, indeed, a perspective that I have not heard expressed in the policy discussions. Do you have suggestions for ways that policies could recognize and include the segment of the community that you describe?

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









On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Jeffrey Liddicoat <outsideartsale5@...> wrote:


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jeffrey Liddicoat <outsideartsale5@...> wrote:
Hi,
I’m not directing this at you or in response to your recent article on the six proposed outdoor shelters. 
As far as I can tell when it comes to consideration of issues related to homelessness whether by policy makers, journalists, or even the general public, that part of the homeless community that I am a part of is seldom heard from, considered, or in the end properly or fairly dealt with in terms of public policy.
There is not an established label for the community segment I am concerned about. However they can be described as long term committed urban campers. They are not likely to ever sleep on a sidewalk or in a doorway. They tend to have a fair amount of belongings that provide shelter, comfort, privacy, and that are used to take care of bodily needs like food storage, preparation, and disposal. Similarly they tend to have practices or systems or even technologies to deal with other solid waste disposal issues, including appropriate ways of  doing bodily waste disposal. And since they tend to have a high quantity of belongings and stable consistent methods for meeting the needs of their lifestyle, they tend to be less transient than other homeless people. Indeed some members of this community are less transient than many of the so called ‘housed’ who move frequently from house to apartment, apartment to apartment. and even apartment to shared living space with other housed transients.
This begins to speak to why I don’t much care for either the term homeless or the term houseless. We usually don’t use standard tents either. Our shelters tend to be more substantial. We consider our shelters to be small houses and after living in the same place for a while that house becomes a home. 
Unfortunately it is consistently the case that our homes are torn away from us,
the materials and belongings we have used to survive and provide comfort are confiscated from us or destroyed and discarded.
Now as with these six outdoor shelters the whole aim is to provide a justification for brutal sweeps of the homeless The claim is that these or other shelters will make it so that no one need camp on public land or sidewalks or any other space once these 
government shelter areas are available.
And for some of those we call homeless these places will be a good thing and will provide better access to a secure rest area, hygiene services, and opportunities to connect with various agencies for jobs or more permanent housing.
But for many of the long term dedicated urban campers, being displaced by sweeps aimed at forcing us into shelters will represent huge decreases in the quality of shelter we have provided for ourselves.  And the pride we take in our shelter homes should not be dismissed. Nor is it a minor issue that this whole process will strip us of the dignity and freedom that many of us have fought for for many years.
A part of the reason (indeed it is a big part) 
I live outdoors is that as best as possible I want to avoid participation in the types of lifestyle choices that are now risking tremendous human suffering perhaps the collapse of civilization and maybe even a massive extinction event that includes humanity. It really isn’t debatable the homeless clearly have very low carbon footprints. So when it comes to threats to public health, policy makers and their public supporters might look a little closer at  their own reflections in a nearby mirror.
For my part I don’t just live outside I also work outside. (I won’t go into detail but I’ll attach examples of the wood work I do as well as some photos of my living space).
Many other urban campers have similar beliefs and practices that are not compatible with the public policy approaches outlined in your recent article.
Bottom-lines - we are not doing anything that is objectionable - we aren’t blocking sidewalks - if anything we help rid Portland of visible garbage - we dispose of waste, including bodily waste in ways that are responsible. We are far less criminal than some segments of the housed community.
Some of us just want to be left alone. Others seek as best as possible to contribute to the community through art or music or politics or with bicycle repair I or by directly helping out  their neighbor with food or childcare, or whatever is needed.
But for the urban camper (and many others who are homeless), past as well as current public policy takes none of that into account. Instead policies that diminish us, disrupt our ability to function, and destroy any hope we have in terms of making a contribution are the policies that get adopted.
And so as far as the future goes since we are once again not even considered or taken into account in the public discussion I know we will simply get more of the same.
We are victims.
Sorry I’m sending this without proofreading. It’s kind of long - maybe I should apologize for that as well.
Jeffrey Liddicoat
503 482 3188


Re: Community segment left out of homeless debate

Jeffrey Liddicoat <outsideartsale5@...>
 



On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:10 PM Jeffrey Liddicoat <outsideartsale5@...> wrote:
Hi,
I’m not directing this at you or in response to your recent article on the six proposed outdoor shelters. 
As far as I can tell when it comes to consideration of issues related to homelessness whether by policy makers, journalists, or even the general public, that part of the homeless community that I am a part of is seldom heard from, considered, or in the end properly or fairly dealt with in terms of public policy.
There is not an established label for the community segment I am concerned about. However they can be described as long term committed urban campers. They are not likely to ever sleep on a sidewalk or in a doorway. They tend to have a fair amount of belongings that provide shelter, comfort, privacy, and that are used to take care of bodily needs like food storage, preparation, and disposal. Similarly they tend to have practices or systems or even technologies to deal with other solid waste disposal issues, including appropriate ways of  doing bodily waste disposal. And since they tend to have a high quantity of belongings and stable consistent methods for meeting the needs of their lifestyle, they tend to be less transient than other homeless people. Indeed some members of this community are less transient than many of the so called ‘housed’ who move frequently from house to apartment, apartment to apartment. and even apartment to shared living space with other housed transients.
This begins to speak to why I don’t much care for either the term homeless or the term houseless. We usually don’t use standard tents either. Our shelters tend to be more substantial. We consider our shelters to be small houses and after living in the same place for a while that house becomes a home. 
Unfortunately it is consistently the case that our homes are torn away from us,
the materials and belongings we have used to survive and provide comfort are confiscated from us or destroyed and discarded.
Now as with these six outdoor shelters the whole aim is to provide a justification for brutal sweeps of the homeless The claim is that these or other shelters will make it so that no one need camp on public land or sidewalks or any other space once these 
government shelter areas are available.
And for some of those we call homeless these places will be a good thing and will provide better access to a secure rest area, hygiene services, and opportunities to connect with various agencies for jobs or more permanent housing.
But for many of the long term dedicated urban campers, being displaced by sweeps aimed at forcing us into shelters will represent huge decreases in the quality of shelter we have provided for ourselves.  And the pride we take in our shelter homes should not be dismissed. Nor is it a minor issue that this whole process will strip us of the dignity and freedom that many of us have fought for for many years.
A part of the reason (indeed it is a big part) 
I live outdoors is that as best as possible I want to avoid participation in the types of lifestyle choices that are now risking tremendous human suffering perhaps the collapse of civilization and maybe even a massive extinction event that includes humanity. It really isn’t debatable the homeless clearly have very low carbon footprints. So when it comes to threats to public health, policy makers and their public supporters might look a little closer at  their own reflections in a nearby mirror.
For my part I don’t just live outside I also work outside. (I won’t go into detail but I’ll attach examples of the wood work I do as well as some photos of my living space).
Many other urban campers have similar beliefs and practices that are not compatible with the public policy approaches outlined in your recent article.
Bottom-lines - we are not doing anything that is objectionable - we aren’t blocking sidewalks - if anything we help rid Portland of visible garbage - we dispose of waste, including bodily waste in ways that are responsible. We are far less criminal than some segments of the housed community.
Some of us just want to be left alone. Others seek as best as possible to contribute to the community through art or music or politics or with bicycle repair I or by directly helping out  their neighbor with food or childcare, or whatever is needed.
But for the urban camper (and many others who are homeless), past as well as current public policy takes none of that into account. Instead policies that diminish us, disrupt our ability to function, and destroy any hope we have in terms of making a contribution are the policies that get adopted.
And so as far as the future goes since we are once again not even considered or taken into account in the public discussion I know we will simply get more of the same.
We are victims.
Sorry I’m sending this without proofreading. It’s kind of long - maybe I should apologize for that as well.
Jeffrey Liddicoat
503 482 3188


Housing Innovation Collaborative

Skip Trantow
 

A nicely done website on housing ideas:




101 - 120 of 718