|
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/. Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745. Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep? We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns of officials and people who support them. If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed. Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Tim -- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Yesterday I received a panicked call from a woman who is in a facility recovering from major surgery. She has a tent on the Springwater. Many of the tents were on the Pro Logis property and they allowed stay. Then their tools were started disappearing, an employee was shot with a pellet gun and yesterday a little creep stole a set of keys right out of a truck and in front of employees.
Pro Logis had enough and wants everyone to be swept on a Police Abatement. The good campers like the woman who is convalescing is caught up with the bad.
We know who it was that took the keys. I hear complaints about this jerk from other campers. They complain these problematic people are causing the trouble but they all have to pay the price.
Thanks,
Trena
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/. Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745. Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep? We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns of officials and people who support them. If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed. Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Tim -- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Don't know if this is how
to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive
to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent
camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers
won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first
place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go
that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots
throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of
creating communities and policing themselves if left to their own
devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues
present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community
at large. Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even
when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they
cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon,
either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters,
we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or
more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with
reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and
Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late
last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of
these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.'
'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply
that campers are not offered alternative acceptable shelter,
or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk
arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex
situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on
this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,'
tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to
address concerns of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and
how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from
Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've
particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop
the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other
week. We particularly invite comments from them, and thank
them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂ
|
|
|
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Candee Wilson via groups.io <candee@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:15 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
Punitive approaches to homelessness and poverty are not evidenced based, are not trauma informed, don't fit with most best practices, and above all are inherently unethical. Our city does not provide sufficient affordable housing and certainly not sufficient
supportive housing to it's most vulnerable residents. Many shelters are restrictive and institutional in their operations (a result in part of funding restrictions and contract stipulations). Contrary to popular belief shelters rarely provide the same sense
of safety, stability, security, and community that often exists in urban camping environments (obviously this differs between individual people and communities as Candee touched on). When the city routinely sweeps camps they are engaging in active destabilization
of community for our houseless neighbors despite an abject failure to provide any real alternative solutions.
It is important to be realistic about pedestrian right-of-way, business accessibility, bike path safety, and camper safety (eg highway campsites), but sweeping
camps that do not raise such concerns is a highly questionable practice, and that's putting it lightly.
It is painfully obvious that camp sweeps are motivated entirely by an "out of sight out of mind" mentality that is not solution-oriented.
If we are not able to guarantee a shelter bed or city-sanctioned campsite for those that we are sweeping, how can we possibly justify these actions?
When our governing entities fail to provide sufficient housing, mental healthcare, and livable income to our most marginalized
citizens then all arguments around livability, drug use, and crime in this conversation become significantly less relevant. The negative consequences of homelessness in our city are symptoms of larger systemic and societal issues and it is unhelpful to blame
homeless individuals for these problems when they are almost exclusively trying simply to survive or cope.
Sorry for the wordy response, thanks all for being willing to engage in this conversation.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Candee Wilson via groups.io <candee@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 11:15 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of Aisha Musa via groups.io <draymusa@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 12:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
In case some folks on this list aren’t aware: there is a group of neighborhood associations that are collaborating to promote a plan for neighborhood-approved campsites/villages across the city. There was an original joint statement that got some attention, and a newer, more clear version is in the works right now.
The gist of the idea: as many on this thread have pointed out, constantly “sweeping” campsites back and forth between neighborhoods is ineffective, counter-productive, and wrong when there’s isn’t anywhere they’re allowed to go. Meanwhile, neighborhoods deserve a voice in how/where campsites are established. So the statement calls on neighborhoods to step up and designate reasonable places where camping is tolerated, and perhaps even supported. In exchange, they earn the right to enforce no-camping rules in the surrounding vicinity.
There are details still getting worked out, but the general idea sounds very sensible to me.
You can join that conversation here:
On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
Emerson, do you know any of the neighborhood associations who are involved in this collaboration?
Jill
Jill Spencer
On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
In case some folks on this list aren’t aware: there is a group of neighborhood associations that are collaborating to promote a plan for neighborhood-approved campsites/villages across the city. There was an original joint statement that got some attention, and a newer, more clear version is in the works right now.
The gist of the idea: as many on this thread have pointed out, constantly “sweeping” campsites back and forth between neighborhoods is ineffective, counter-productive, and wrong when there’s isn’t anywhere they’re allowed to go. Meanwhile, neighborhoods deserve a voice in how/where campsites are established. So the statement calls on neighborhoods to step up and designate reasonable places where camping is tolerated, and perhaps even supported. In exchange, they earn the right to enforce no-camping rules in the surrounding vicinity.
There are details still getting worked out, but the general idea sounds very sensible to me.
You can join that conversation here: On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
The Downtow Neighborhood Association is strongly involvef on and supportive of alternative campsites, etc
On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Jill <jillspencer@...> wrote:
Emerson, do you know any of the neighborhood associations who are involved in this collaboration?
Jill
Jill Spencer On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
In case some folks on this list aren’t aware: there is a group of neighborhood associations that are collaborating to promote a plan for neighborhood-approved campsites/villages across the city. There was an original joint statement that got some attention, and a newer, more clear version is in the works right now.
The gist of the idea: as many on this thread have pointed out, constantly “sweeping” campsites back and forth between neighborhoods is ineffective, counter-productive, and wrong when there’s isn’t anywhere they’re allowed to go. Meanwhile, neighborhoods deserve a voice in how/where campsites are established. So the statement calls on neighborhoods to step up and designate reasonable places where camping is tolerated, and perhaps even supported. In exchange, they earn the right to enforce no-camping rules in the surrounding vicinity.
There are details still getting worked out, but the general idea sounds very sensible to me.
You can join that conversation here: On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
The ones with good ideas. :-) I believe most all N/NE other than Portsmouth are for it but perhaps Emerson can confirm.
On Jul 9, 2020, at 13:36, Jill <jillspencer@...> wrote:
Emerson, do you know any of the neighborhood associations who are involved in this collaboration?
Jill
Jill Spencer On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
In case some folks on this list aren’t aware: there is a group of neighborhood associations that are collaborating to promote a plan for neighborhood-approved campsites/villages across the city. There was an original joint statement that got some attention, and a newer, more clear version is in the works right now.
The gist of the idea: as many on this thread have pointed out, constantly “sweeping” campsites back and forth between neighborhoods is ineffective, counter-productive, and wrong when there’s isn’t anywhere they’re allowed to go. Meanwhile, neighborhoods deserve a voice in how/where campsites are established. So the statement calls on neighborhoods to step up and designate reasonable places where camping is tolerated, and perhaps even supported. In exchange, they earn the right to enforce no-camping rules in the surrounding vicinity.
There are details still getting worked out, but the general idea sounds very sensible to me.
You can join that conversation here: On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
All neighborhoods are invited and have been invited to participate. Invitations to neighborhoods went out through the neighborhood coalitions. There has only been one meeting on this issue for all neighborhood associations thus far.
Darlene Urban Garrett DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------- From: Jan Radle Roberson <janr2@...> Date: 7/9/20 1:43 PM (GMT-08:00) To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Portland to resume homeless camp sweeps/cleanups
The Downtow Neighborhood Association is strongly involvef on and supportive of alternative campsites, etc On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:36 PM, Jill <jillspencer@...> wrote:
Emerson, do you know any of the neighborhood associations who are involved in this collaboration?
Jill
Jill Spencer On Jul 9, 2020, at 1:13 PM, Emerson This <emersonthis@...> wrote:
In case some folks on this list aren’t aware: there is a group of neighborhood associations that are collaborating to promote a plan for neighborhood-approved campsites/villages across the city. There was an original joint statement that got some attention, and a newer, more clear version is in the works right now.
The gist of the idea: as many on this thread have pointed out, constantly “sweeping” campsites back and forth between neighborhoods is ineffective, counter-productive, and wrong when there’s isn’t anywhere they’re allowed to go. Meanwhile, neighborhoods deserve a voice in how/where campsites are established. So the statement calls on neighborhoods to step up and designate reasonable places where camping is tolerated, and perhaps even supported. In exchange, they earn the right to enforce no-camping rules in the surrounding vicinity.
There are details still getting worked out, but the general idea sounds very sensible to me.
You can join that conversation here: On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
@Jill:
I don't have the exact list of NAs who signed on to the first version, but it included Bridgeton, Arbor Lodge, Overlook and University Park. I live in St Johns and that NA will consider it in our next meeting this coming week. I suspect that additional NAs will get on board with the new version, which will be more clear and direct.
Emerson, do you know any of the neighborhood associations who are involved in this collaboration?
Jill
Jill Spencer In case some folks on this list aren’t aware: there is a group of neighborhood associations that are collaborating to promote a plan for neighborhood-approved campsites/villages across the city. There was an original joint statement that got some attention, and a newer, more clear version is in the works right now.
The gist of the idea: as many on this thread have pointed out, constantly “sweeping” campsites back and forth between neighborhoods is ineffective, counter-productive, and wrong when there’s isn’t anywhere they’re allowed to go. Meanwhile, neighborhoods deserve a voice in how/where campsites are established. So the statement calls on neighborhoods to step up and designate reasonable places where camping is tolerated, and perhaps even supported. In exchange, they earn the right to enforce no-camping rules in the surrounding vicinity.
There are details still getting worked out, but the general idea sounds very sensible to me.
You can join that conversation here: On Jul 9, 2020, at 12:08 PM, Aisha Musa <draymusa@...> wrote:
I know that Kaia Sand and others from Street Roots are involved. I am not on the Sanctioned Camps workgroup, so I am not aware of who all else is involved. If you contact the OTCA board chair, Helen Ying, she can give you more information.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
Hi Aisha,
Do you happen to know which agencies and advocates are involved with OTCA's effort who have intimate knowledge and/or experience with these issues?
The Old Town Community Association (OTCA)'s Covid-19 Response Action Team (RAT) has a group working on sanctioned camps, looking for potential locations and ways to get people from the sidewalks
to safer locations.
Dr. Aisha Y. Musa
AYM Education and Consulting, LLC
That's very well said Candee.
Is there any way we can start pushing for legal camp spots for our houseless community? I'm definitely willing to be involved in that process.
Marissa Donovan, CRM PSS
Peer Support Specialist
Central City Concern Recovery Center
P:503-935-7200 F: 503 295 3777
Don't know if this is how to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of creating communities
and policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community at large. Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon, either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters, we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not
offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns
of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim McCormick
Portland, OregonÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our
YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click
here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee
confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal
rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such
identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or
other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
www.centralcityconcern.org
Visit our blog
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Instagram
View new videos on our YouTube channel.
To sign up for the CCC e-newsletter, click here
The information contained in this message may be legally privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If the reader has received this communication in error, please notify the sender of this message and destroy the original message. Central City Concern recognizes that encrypted e-mail is insecure and does not guarantee confidentiality. The confidentiality of replies to this message cannot be guaranteed unless the replies are encrypted.
If this email contains information related to the diagnosis, referral, and/or treatment of substance dependence or abuse: This information has been disclosed to you from records protected by federal confidentiality rules (42 CFR part 2). The federal rules prohibit you from making any further disclosure of information in this record that identifies a patient as having or having had a substance use disorder either directly, by reference to publicly available information, or through verification of such identification by another person unless further disclosure is expressly permitted by the written consent of the individual whose information is being disclosed or as otherwise permitted by 42 CFR part 2. A general authorization for the release of medical or other information is NOT sufficient for this purpose (see § 2.31). The federal rules restrict any use of the information to investigate or prosecute with regard to a crime any patient with a substance use disorder, except as provided at §§ 2.12(c)(5) and 2.65.
|
|
|
Candee,
Please say more about, "Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can’t.” What is the background here, and what is the issue you are addressing?
Thank you.
Andy Harris
Don't know if this is how
to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive
to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent
camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers
won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first
place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go
that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots
throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of
creating communities and policing themselves if left to their own
devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues
present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community
at large. Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even
when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they
cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon,
either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters,
we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick
wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or
more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with
reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and
Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late
last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of
these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.'
'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply
that campers are not offered alternative acceptable shelter,
or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk
arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex
situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on
this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,'
tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to
address concerns of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and
how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from
Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've
particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop
the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other
week. We particularly invite comments from them, and thank
them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂ
|
|
|
Candee, Which rights that were granted to "them" by the ACLU would you like to see stripped ?
"Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even
when people want to help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say more about, "Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even when people want to help them, they can’t.” What is the background here, and what is the issue you are addressing?
Thank you.
Andy Harris
Don't know if this is how
to respond, but I don't know another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they are disruptive
to someone whose only home is a tent. On the other hand, tent
camping on sidewalks is a violation of a city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin providing a place where tent campers can
safely place a tent, sweeps will continue because the campers
won't move unless they are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are not supposed to be there in the first
place. I think it's wrong to sweep those that have set up a tent
in out-of-the-way, inconspicuous places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go
that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal camping spots
throughout the city/county/state. The homeless have a way of
creating communities and policing themselves if left to their own
devices. Of course, those with mental health and addiction issues
present an entirely different set of problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless community and the general community
at large. Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights that even
when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the fact that they
cannot build their way out of the homeless crisis anytime soon,
either through affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters,
we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick
wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or
more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with
reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article:Â https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and
Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late
last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of
these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.'
'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply
that campers are not offered alternative acceptable shelter,
or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk
arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex
situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on
this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,'
tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to
address concerns of officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and
how their concerns might be addressed.Â
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from
Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've
particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop
the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other
week. We particularly invite comments from them, and thank
them for coming together in this discussion. Â
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂ
|
|
|
The ACLU's most important Supreme Court case involving the rights of
people with mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth Donaldson,
who had been involuntarily confined in a Florida State Hospital for
15 years. He was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental health law in 1975, a
unanimous Supreme Court ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on his own, or with help
from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led to the inability to
help the mentally ill unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is literally nothing a
person can do to effect involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for their relative to no
avail. To date, one has died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't live in the housed
community due to their continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35 PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that were granted to "them" by the
ACLU would you like to see stripped ?
"Thank the ACLU for
giving them so many rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say more about, "Thank the ACLU for
giving them so many rights that even when people want to
help them, they can’t.† What is the background
here, and what is the issue you are addressing?
Thank you.
Andy Harris
Don't
know if this is how to respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they
are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent.
On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a
violation of a city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a tent, sweeps will
continue because the campers won't move unless they
are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps
being swept. They are not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those
that have set up a tent in out-of-the-way,
inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering
anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go
that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal
camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of creating communities and
policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of
course, those with mental health and addiction
issues present an entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the
homeless community and the general community at
large. Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights
that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the
fact that they cannot build their way out of the
homeless crisis anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters,
we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming
'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8 or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by
opponents of these practices, while officials in
Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly
well-defined, as the city's current practices;
'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it
imply that campers are not offered alternative
acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving
belongings? or that they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing,
conflicted, and complex situation. Please give
us, especially, considered thoughts on this
situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as
alternative, or how else to address concerns of
officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think
others don't, and how their concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP,
representatives from Downtown and N. Portland
neighborhood associations who've particularly
raised concerns on this, and organizers from
Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX
Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for
coming together in this discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
|
|
|
Thank you for clarifying.
Andy
The ACLU's most important Supreme Court case involving the rights of
people with mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth Donaldson,
who had been involuntarily confined in a Florida State Hospital for
15 years. He was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental health law in 1975, a
unanimous Supreme Court ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on his own, or with help
from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led to the inability to
help the mentally ill unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is literally nothing a
person can do to effect involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for their relative to no
avail. To date, one has died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't live in the housed
community due to their continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35 PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that were granted to "them" by the
ACLU would you like to see stripped ?
"Thank the ACLU for
giving them so many rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say more about, "Thank the ACLU for
giving them so many rights that even when people want to
help them, they can’t.† What is the background
here, and what is the issue you are addressing?
Thank you.
Andy Harris
Don't
know if this is how to respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they
are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent.
On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a
violation of a city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a tent, sweeps will
continue because the campers won't move unless they
are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps
being swept. They are not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those
that have set up a tent in out-of-the-way,
inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering
anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go
that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal
camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of creating communities and
policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of
course, those with mental health and addiction
issues present an entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the
homeless community and the general community at
large. Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights
that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the
fact that they cannot build their way out of the
homeless crisis anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters,
we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming
'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8 or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by
opponents of these practices, while officials in
Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly
well-defined, as the city's current practices;
'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it
imply that campers are not offered alternative
acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving
belongings? or that they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing,
conflicted, and complex situation. Please give
us, especially, considered thoughts on this
situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as
alternative, or how else to address concerns of
officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think
others don't, and how their concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP,
representatives from Downtown and N. Portland
neighborhood associations who've particularly
raised concerns on this, and organizers from
Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX
Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for
coming together in this discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
|
|
|
There is also the Boise, Id court decision of 2019. It states that a local jurisdiction cannot outlaw unsanctioned camping unless it provides adequate sanctioned alternatives to campers. In December 2019 the US Supreme Court let that ruling stand. The decision is based on the fact that making unsanctioned camping illegal without providing an alternative amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. (I invite other more astute legal minds to offer additional thoughts here.) Some might argue that walking past an unsafe and unsanitary camp that endangers the housed community but even more the unhoused community is in itself cruel and unusual punishment.
The plan to provide sanctioned and humane alternatives to fully meet the needs of our unhoused population allows the city to free itself from the terrible situation of unsanctioned camps. This will take time and be tremendously challenging, but if we don’t establish this as a goal, we will surely never get there.
And for those who argue (rightly) that putting campers "out of sight and out of mind”, as has been done in jurisdiction like New York City, it becomes even more critical to link services and a commitment to self reliance to the alternative sheltering approach. Mental health and addiction services will be required and necessary to address the more complex needs of some campers. Self governance, including agreed upon rules and the requirement that everyone contributes (cash or work) to the good of the whole will be important. And last but not least, there must be a commitment to self sufficiency and employment through vocational training and job placement services. Self sufficiency and self esteem are the products of employment. Without this “people oriented solution”, a focus on shelter only will never succeed.
Thank you for clarifying.
Andy
The ACLU's most important Supreme Court case involving the rights of
people with mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth Donaldson,
who had been involuntarily confined in a Florida State Hospital for
15 years. He was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental health law in 1975, a
unanimous Supreme Court ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on his own, or with help
from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led to the inability to
help the mentally ill unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is literally nothing a
person can do to effect involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for their relative to no
avail. To date, one has died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't live in the housed
community due to their continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35 PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that were granted to "them" by the
ACLU would you like to see stripped ?
"Thank the ACLU for
giving them so many rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say more about, "Thank the ACLU for
giving them so many rights that even when people want to
help them, they can’t.† What is the background
here, and what is the issue you are addressing?
Thank you.
Andy Harris
Don't
know if this is how to respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they
are disruptive to someone whose only home is a tent.
On the other hand, tent camping on sidewalks is a
violation of a city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a tent, sweeps will
continue because the campers won't move unless they
are forced to. I do not object to sidewalk camps
being swept. They are not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's wrong to sweep those
that have set up a tent in out-of-the-way,
inconspicuous places where they aren't bothering
anyone for lack of having an alternative place to go
that wouldn't be swept. There should be legal
camping spots throughout the city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of creating communities and
policing themselves if left to their own devices. Of
course, those with mental health and addiction
issues present an entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be outcasts in both the
homeless community and the general community at
large. Thank the ACLU for giving them so many rights
that even when people want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state come to terms with the
fact that they cannot build their way out of the
homeless crisis anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive housing or shelters,
we will continue to have this discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06 AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of Portland is officially resuming
'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8 or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by
opponents of these practices, while officials in
Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly
well-defined, as the city's current practices;
'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it
imply that campers are not offered alternative
acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving
belongings? or that they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very polarizing,
conflicted, and complex situation. Please give
us, especially, considered thoughts on this
situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as
alternative, or how else to address concerns of
officials and people who support them.
If you support them, tell us why you think
others don't, and how their concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP,
representatives from Downtown and N. Portland
neighborhood associations who've particularly
raised concerns on this, and organizers from
Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX
Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly
invite comments from them, and thank them for
coming together in this discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
Below is a link to a November, 2019 message from the mayor of San Diego regarding that city’s response to the homelessness crisis there. It is quite relevant to our conversation.
David
The City of Portland is officially resuming 'sweeps', or 'cleanups,' of homeless camps, focusing on those with 8 or more structures, blocking sidewalks or entrances, or with reports of criminal behavior or conspicuous drug use.
WW article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/. Notice from Office of Management and Finance, Homelessness and Urban Camping Impact Reduction Program (HUCIRP), posted late last month: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745. <Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is generally used by opponents of these practices, while officials in Portland say 'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is fairly well-defined, as the city's current practices; 'sweeps' is less so -- for example, does it imply that campers are not offered alternative acceptable shelter, or assistance in moving belongings? or that they would risk arrest for not complying? Could there be some form of, say, 'relocation' of campers that is not a sweep? We realize this is a very polarizing, conflicted, and complex situation. Please give us, especially, considered thoughts on this situation. If you are opposed to 'sweeps' or 'cleanups,' tell us what you might propose as alternative, or how else to address concerns of officials and people who support them. If you support them, tell us why you think others don't, and how their concerns might be addressed. Note, we had staffers from HUCIRP, representatives from Downtown and N. Portland neighborhood associations who've particularly raised concerns on this, and organizers from Stop the Sweeps PDX coalition, at the PDX Shelter Forum the other week. We particularly invite comments from them, and thank them for coming together in this discussion. Tim -- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
|
|
