Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.


Andrew Olshin
 


In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters.   Both have accelerated and deepened the resources available for these endeavors.  

This will not be enough. 

Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership.  I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders.  After all, it takes a village. 

Please let me know if you’d like to get involved. 

Thanks, 
Andy Olshin
Founder, Executive Director
CascadiaClusters.org

On Jul 21, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:


A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, etc:

"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski. 

I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s of mostly irrelevant lots.

Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for  'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.

The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed S2HC.  As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City). 

For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages under their leadership: see 

Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers.  In my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing. 

Bcc:
Commissioner Dan Ryan
  + housing lead Mark Bond 
Homer Williams
Alex Zielinkski
[note to all:  you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially, those closest to homelessness].
--
--
Tim McCormick
Moderator PDX Shelter Forum, Editor at HousingWiki,
Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


Peter Finley Fry
 

I understand the frustration driven by crisis.

 

The City is not one perfect and focused entity.  It is composed of us and we need to take responsibility for it.  The Planning Bureau’s work was evolutionary and updated our “TREATY” – THE ZONING CODE.  This is what is used to enable us to live together.  An alternative is the 720 acre approximately 65,000 person refugee village in Syria that is self governed by the strong and loud.  This is resulting in the death of women and children.

 

I know it seems that it can not happen here.

 

We live together by a rule of common law.  Our institutions are evolving to address the very different situations that faces us as people are fleeing to our land.

 

The evolution is occurring both in the area of human settlement patterns as evidenced by the emerging concepts of communal living – the village.  Not a new concept.

 

And in the institutions that help people who require assistance for what ever personal reason.  The outdoor shelter system allows a way to bring people together to aid those who are suffering.  This is not a all the same as a village system of permanent habitation.

 

These two efforts are being confused.

 

My concern is that this new outdoor shelter system to provide for the poor and weak is being shoved aside by the agendas of others.

 

Again, I appreciate how valuable this forum is and thank you for creating and maintaining it.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Andrew Olshin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 



In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters.   Both have accelerated and deepened the resources available for these endeavors.  

 

This will not be enough. 

 

Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership.  I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders.  After all, it takes a village. 

 

Please let me know if you’d like to get involved. 

Thanks, 

Andy Olshin

Founder, Executive Director

CascadiaClusters.org



On Jul 21, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:



A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, etc:

 

"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski. 

 

I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s of mostly irrelevant lots.

 

Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for  'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.

 

The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed S2HC.  As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City). 

 

For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages under their leadership: see 

 

Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers.  In my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing. 

 

Bcc:

Commissioner Dan Ryan

  + housing lead Mark Bond 

Homer Williams

Alex Zielinkski

[note to all:  you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially, those closest to homelessness].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


Elise Aymer
 

Hi Peter,

How do you see a connection between Syrian refugee camps and the situation in Portland?

You've detailed before the conceptual distinction between shelter and permanent villages and the need for shelter.

How do you think outdoor shelters are being shoved aside in this instance?

Wanting to understand what you've written further,
Elise

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:36 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

I understand the frustration driven by crisis.

 

The City is not one perfect and focused entity.  It is composed of us and we need to take responsibility for it.  The Planning Bureau’s work was evolutionary and updated our “TREATY” – THE ZONING CODE.  This is what is used to enable us to live together.  An alternative is the 720 acre approximately 65,000 person refugee village in Syria that is self governed by the strong and loud.  This is resulting in the death of women and children.

 

I know it seems that it can not happen here.

 

We live together by a rule of common law.  Our institutions are evolving to address the very different situations that faces us as people are fleeing to our land.

 

The evolution is occurring both in the area of human settlement patterns as evidenced by the emerging concepts of communal living – the village.  Not a new concept.

 

And in the institutions that help people who require assistance for what ever personal reason.  The outdoor shelter system allows a way to bring people together to aid those who are suffering.  This is not a all the same as a village system of permanent habitation.

 

These two efforts are being confused.

 

My concern is that this new outdoor shelter system to provide for the poor and weak is being shoved aside by the agendas of others.

 

Again, I appreciate how valuable this forum is and thank you for creating and maintaining it.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Andrew Olshin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 



In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters.   Both have accelerated and deepened the resources available for these endeavors.  

 

This will not be enough. 

 

Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership.  I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders.  After all, it takes a village. 

 

Please let me know if you’d like to get involved. 

Thanks, 

Andy Olshin

Founder, Executive Director

CascadiaClusters.org



On Jul 21, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:



A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, etc:

 

"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski. 

 

I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s of mostly irrelevant lots.

 

Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for  'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.

 

The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed S2HC.  As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City). 

 

For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages under their leadership: see 

 

Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers.  In my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing. 

 

Bcc:

Commissioner Dan Ryan

  + housing lead Mark Bond 

Homer Williams

Alex Zielinkski

[note to all:  you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially, those closest to homelessness].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 



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

Thanks for your message!


Peter Finley Fry
 

Hi Elise

 

The reference to the situation in Syria served several purpose; first to respond to the real and accurate criticism that we are too Portland centric and do not pay attention to what is going on in the world.  Second to identify the danger in self governing – recognizing the tension that will always exist between individuals (and small collection of people) demanding freedom to do what they want and exclude who they want versus the overreach and autonomy of a government.

 

I do not believe that the lack of housing is the cause of houselessness.  The cause is the fragmentation of our communities.  Causes include the 60s.  The revelation and atonement for  slavery and racism.    The infusion of refugees from all parts of the world (a very very positive thing) bringing their cultures and histories.  The diversification and evolution of our cultural tapestry is fundamental.   Cultures are not absorbed or blended.  We must learn to communicate across cultures.

 

I believe that the outdoor shelters should operate as “emergency rooms” where people in desperate situations can find a safe place to pause and be nursed.

 

Outdoor villages; camps; etc. are a form of housing.  I was fortunate in being involved with the formation of Dignity Village and have learned much from that brave effort.  I see Dignity Village as a form of housing not an emergency shelter.  I recognize that that line is not always clear and requires public debate.

 

I am concerned that the “emergency room” which is desperately needed will get lost as these become forms of permanent housing and not places of refuge.

 

Our shelter system is horribly dysfunctional in my opinion.  Thirty/twenty years ago I had visited all the shelters in Portland and in San Francisco.  In Portland, we aggressively moved away from that with the Homeless Reconfiguration Plan where the warehouses were broken up in size and become more specific to population.  Now, we are evolving much further where the shelters are being reintegrated into the fabric of the community.

 

This is driven both by the dramatic change in the demographics of the houseless and by the increase in compassion despite searing blow back.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 10:59 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 

Hi Peter,

 

How do you see a connection between Syrian refugee camps and the situation in Portland?

 

You've detailed before the conceptual distinction between shelter and permanent villages and the need for shelter.

 

How do you think outdoor shelters are being shoved aside in this instance?

 

Wanting to understand what you've written further,

Elise

 

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:36 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

I understand the frustration driven by crisis.

 

The City is not one perfect and focused entity.  It is composed of us and we need to take responsibility for it.  The Planning Bureau’s work was evolutionary and updated our “TREATY” – THE ZONING CODE.  This is what is used to enable us to live together.  An alternative is the 720 acre approximately 65,000 person refugee village in Syria that is self governed by the strong and loud.  This is resulting in the death of women and children.

 

I know it seems that it can not happen here.

 

We live together by a rule of common law.  Our institutions are evolving to address the very different situations that faces us as people are fleeing to our land.

 

The evolution is occurring both in the area of human settlement patterns as evidenced by the emerging concepts of communal living – the village.  Not a new concept.

 

And in the institutions that help people who require assistance for what ever personal reason.  The outdoor shelter system allows a way to bring people together to aid those who are suffering.  This is not a all the same as a village system of permanent habitation.

 

These two efforts are being confused.

 

My concern is that this new outdoor shelter system to provide for the poor and weak is being shoved aside by the agendas of others.

 

Again, I appreciate how valuable this forum is and thank you for creating and maintaining it.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Andrew Olshin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 



In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters.   Both have accelerated and deepened the resources available for these endeavors.  

 

This will not be enough. 

 

Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership.  I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders.  After all, it takes a village. 

 

Please let me know if you’d like to get involved. 

Thanks, 

Andy Olshin

Founder, Executive Director

CascadiaClusters.org

 

On Jul 21, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:



A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, etc:

 

"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski. 

 

I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s of mostly irrelevant lots.

 

Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for  'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.

 

The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed S2HC.  As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City). 

 

For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages under their leadership: see 

 

Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers.  In my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing. 

 

Bcc:

Commissioner Dan Ryan

  + housing lead Mark Bond 

Homer Williams

Alex Zielinkski

[note to all:  you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially, those closest to homelessness].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


 

--

Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions

Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!

 


Emerson This
 

I am concerned that the “emergency room” which is desperately needed will get lost as these become forms of permanent housing and not places of refuge.

@Peter I’m concerned about this, too. Fancy villages with 2 yr residency limits and wraparound services are lovey and they make for great press releases. But we’ve got THOUSANDS OF people who need shelter NOW.

When the fires burned 100s of homes last year, we didnt tell those people to sleep in the bushes for a couple years while we built fancy camps and bickered about zoning. We set up tents and cots right away. I’d take a 1000 “basic” villages / camps over 5 “fancy” villages any day of the week…

On Jul 22, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

I am concerned that the “emergency room” which is desperately needed will get lost as these become forms of permanent housing and not places of refuge.


Elise Aymer
 

Thanks for explaining, Peter. I think around shelters what is hard is that on the flip side there is the danger that permanent housing won't be considered. There should be a balance.

Elise

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 8:44 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

Hi Elise

 

The reference to the situation in Syria served several purpose; first to respond to the real and accurate criticism that we are too Portland centric and do not pay attention to what is going on in the world.  Second to identify the danger in self governing – recognizing the tension that will always exist between individuals (and small collection of people) demanding freedom to do what they want and exclude who they want versus the overreach and autonomy of a government.

 

I do not believe that the lack of housing is the cause of houselessness.  The cause is the fragmentation of our communities.  Causes include the 60s.  The revelation and atonement for  slavery and racism.    The infusion of refugees from all parts of the world (a very very positive thing) bringing their cultures and histories.  The diversification and evolution of our cultural tapestry is fundamental.   Cultures are not absorbed or blended.  We must learn to communicate across cultures.

 

I believe that the outdoor shelters should operate as “emergency rooms” where people in desperate situations can find a safe place to pause and be nursed.

 

Outdoor villages; camps; etc. are a form of housing.  I was fortunate in being involved with the formation of Dignity Village and have learned much from that brave effort.  I see Dignity Village as a form of housing not an emergency shelter.  I recognize that that line is not always clear and requires public debate.

 

I am concerned that the “emergency room” which is desperately needed will get lost as these become forms of permanent housing and not places of refuge.

 

Our shelter system is horribly dysfunctional in my opinion.  Thirty/twenty years ago I had visited all the shelters in Portland and in San Francisco.  In Portland, we aggressively moved away from that with the Homeless Reconfiguration Plan where the warehouses were broken up in size and become more specific to population.  Now, we are evolving much further where the shelters are being reintegrated into the fabric of the community.

 

This is driven both by the dramatic change in the demographics of the houseless and by the increase in compassion despite searing blow back.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 10:59 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 

Hi Peter,

 

How do you see a connection between Syrian refugee camps and the situation in Portland?

 

You've detailed before the conceptual distinction between shelter and permanent villages and the need for shelter.

 

How do you think outdoor shelters are being shoved aside in this instance?

 

Wanting to understand what you've written further,

Elise

 

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:36 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

I understand the frustration driven by crisis.

 

The City is not one perfect and focused entity.  It is composed of us and we need to take responsibility for it.  The Planning Bureau’s work was evolutionary and updated our “TREATY” – THE ZONING CODE.  This is what is used to enable us to live together.  An alternative is the 720 acre approximately 65,000 person refugee village in Syria that is self governed by the strong and loud.  This is resulting in the death of women and children.

 

I know it seems that it can not happen here.

 

We live together by a rule of common law.  Our institutions are evolving to address the very different situations that faces us as people are fleeing to our land.

 

The evolution is occurring both in the area of human settlement patterns as evidenced by the emerging concepts of communal living – the village.  Not a new concept.

 

And in the institutions that help people who require assistance for what ever personal reason.  The outdoor shelter system allows a way to bring people together to aid those who are suffering.  This is not a all the same as a village system of permanent habitation.

 

These two efforts are being confused.

 

My concern is that this new outdoor shelter system to provide for the poor and weak is being shoved aside by the agendas of others.

 

Again, I appreciate how valuable this forum is and thank you for creating and maintaining it.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Andrew Olshin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 



In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters.   Both have accelerated and deepened the resources available for these endeavors.  

 

This will not be enough. 

 

Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership.  I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders.  After all, it takes a village. 

 

Please let me know if you’d like to get involved. 

Thanks, 

Andy Olshin

Founder, Executive Director

CascadiaClusters.org

 

On Jul 21, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:



A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, etc:

 

"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski. 

 

I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s of mostly irrelevant lots.

 

Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for  'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.

 

The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed S2HC.  As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City). 

 

For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages under their leadership: see 

 

Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers.  In my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing. 

 

Bcc:

Commissioner Dan Ryan

  + housing lead Mark Bond 

Homer Williams

Alex Zielinkski

[note to all:  you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially, those closest to homelessness].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


 

--

Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions

Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!

 



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

Thanks for your message!


Peter Finley Fry
 

Thank you Elise

 

I do want to be clear that more housing is absolutely necessary.  Especially housing that enhances communication between neighbors and communal approach to things like gardens, green space; play areas; child care; etc.

 

I just want to focus on the cause of the illegal urban camping.  Every specific situation is personal to the individual/family.  Portland needs to build a shelter system that allows the specific and personal needs of an individual/family to be addressed and not just herding groups.

 

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 8:49 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 

Thanks for explaining, Peter. I think around shelters what is hard is that on the flip side there is the danger that permanent housing won't be considered. There should be a balance.

 

Elise

 

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 8:44 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

Hi Elise

 

The reference to the situation in Syria served several purpose; first to respond to the real and accurate criticism that we are too Portland centric and do not pay attention to what is going on in the world.  Second to identify the danger in self governing – recognizing the tension that will always exist between individuals (and small collection of people) demanding freedom to do what they want and exclude who they want versus the overreach and autonomy of a government.

 

I do not believe that the lack of housing is the cause of houselessness.  The cause is the fragmentation of our communities.  Causes include the 60s.  The revelation and atonement for  slavery and racism.    The infusion of refugees from all parts of the world (a very very positive thing) bringing their cultures and histories.  The diversification and evolution of our cultural tapestry is fundamental.   Cultures are not absorbed or blended.  We must learn to communicate across cultures.

 

I believe that the outdoor shelters should operate as “emergency rooms” where people in desperate situations can find a safe place to pause and be nursed.

 

Outdoor villages; camps; etc. are a form of housing.  I was fortunate in being involved with the formation of Dignity Village and have learned much from that brave effort.  I see Dignity Village as a form of housing not an emergency shelter.  I recognize that that line is not always clear and requires public debate.

 

I am concerned that the “emergency room” which is desperately needed will get lost as these become forms of permanent housing and not places of refuge.

 

Our shelter system is horribly dysfunctional in my opinion.  Thirty/twenty years ago I had visited all the shelters in Portland and in San Francisco.  In Portland, we aggressively moved away from that with the Homeless Reconfiguration Plan where the warehouses were broken up in size and become more specific to population.  Now, we are evolving much further where the shelters are being reintegrated into the fabric of the community.

 

This is driven both by the dramatic change in the demographics of the houseless and by the increase in compassion despite searing blow back.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Elise Aymer via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2021 10:59 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 

Hi Peter,

 

How do you see a connection between Syrian refugee camps and the situation in Portland?

 

You've detailed before the conceptual distinction between shelter and permanent villages and the need for shelter.

 

How do you think outdoor shelters are being shoved aside in this instance?

 

Wanting to understand what you've written further,

Elise

 

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 7:36 PM Peter Finley Fry <peter@...> wrote:

I understand the frustration driven by crisis.

 

The City is not one perfect and focused entity.  It is composed of us and we need to take responsibility for it.  The Planning Bureau’s work was evolutionary and updated our “TREATY” – THE ZONING CODE.  This is what is used to enable us to live together.  An alternative is the 720 acre approximately 65,000 person refugee village in Syria that is self governed by the strong and loud.  This is resulting in the death of women and children.

 

I know it seems that it can not happen here.

 

We live together by a rule of common law.  Our institutions are evolving to address the very different situations that faces us as people are fleeing to our land.

 

The evolution is occurring both in the area of human settlement patterns as evidenced by the emerging concepts of communal living – the village.  Not a new concept.

 

And in the institutions that help people who require assistance for what ever personal reason.  The outdoor shelter system allows a way to bring people together to aid those who are suffering.  This is not a all the same as a village system of permanent habitation.

 

These two efforts are being confused.

 

My concern is that this new outdoor shelter system to provide for the poor and weak is being shoved aside by the agendas of others.

 

Again, I appreciate how valuable this forum is and thank you for creating and maintaining it.

 

 

Peter Finley Fry    AICP PhD MUP

Land Use Planning

Cultural Anthropologist

303 NW Uptown Terrace; Unit 1B

Portland, Oregon 97210

503 703-8033

 

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Andrew Olshin via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:01 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: [pdxshelterforum] Faith, private, foundation and non-profit efforts are moving forward.

 



In my opinion Commissioners Ryan and Meieran are working thoughtfully and willfully to encourage development of alternative shelters.   Both have accelerated and deepened the resources available for these endeavors.  

 

This will not be enough. 

 

Agape Village and now Beacon Village continue to evolve without government leadership.  I hope our local foundations and private donors will embrace these current efforts and support development of more projects that bring together diverse groups of housed and unhoused Portlanders.  After all, it takes a village. 

 

Please let me know if you’d like to get involved. 

Thanks, 

Andy Olshin

Founder, Executive Director

CascadiaClusters.org

 

On Jul 21, 2021, at 10:43 AM, Tim McCormick <tmccormick@...> wrote:



A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan's office breaks down the 71 potential [city owned] village properties the City has identified, location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, etc:

 

"Here Are Where the City’s New Houseless Villages May Be Located." by Alex Zielinski. 

 

I'm glad the city has finally produced this list publically. I think they might have done it years ago, as suggested to them, without the several years of intervening, possibly partly diversionary, activity on Shelter to Housing Continuum to revise entire city code to hypothetically guide this for every lot citywide. Everyone knew all along that the key need was a list of most-likely 100+ sites, not revising all city code for 100,000s of mostly irrelevant lots.

 

Also, I'd note that the actions so far by City and Dan Ryan's office do not appear to offer support for  'village' aka "Outdoor Shelters" (note: oxymoron) sites developed independently or on non-city land. The "Safe Rest Villages" ordinance creates a concept of and focus solely on City-determined, City-owned sites.

 

The city still has not, and doesn't appear to have any intent to, release the long-requested citywide lot-level map showing eligible sites for Outdoor Shelters under recently passed S2HC.  As many people have articulated, such mapping and inventorying is a crucial resource for involving the community broadly in this effort, allowing a healthy diversity of responses, and achieving response on the scale of need. (which is far larger than the six "Safe Rest Villages" contemplated by the City). 

 

For example, Portland developer/philanthropist Homer Williams, and his organization Harbor of Hope, have worked extensively to propose a broder city-wide network of shelter villages under their leadership: see 

 

Also, more fundamentally, the City's approach here illustrates its relentless reduction of 'village' concepts to temporary shelters, operated by behavioral-health providers.  In my view, and discussion of it in Village Buildings book draft, it represents a political recuperation of and conservative reaction against, Portland's former leadership in envisioning & developing resident-governed, long-term, alternative 'village' housing. 

 

Bcc:

Commissioner Dan Ryan

  + housing lead Mark Bond 

Homer Williams

Alex Zielinkski

[note to all:  you can reply to full PDX Shelter Forum group by doing Reply to All to this email. We invite open discussion between officials and staff, publics, and especially, those closest to homelessness].

--

--

Tim McCormick

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

Portland, Oregon 

 


 

--

Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions

Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!

 


 

--

Elise Aymer
Co-founder, Critical Diversity Solutions

Pronouns: She/her

Thanks for your message!

 


Sue Gemmell
 

I agree that lack of housing is not responsible for homelessness - Portland has thousands of empty units waiting for renters who'll pay those prices. 

But what's missing from the discussion is how to close the gap between what people earn and can pay, and what housing costs. Options can be achieved many ways, and could include:
Cheaper housing - changes in code is a start. 
Subsidies - private grants or from new tax structure
Increased wages - subsidized? No tax on the first $30,000? 

Somehow, the "K-shape" recovery needs to change. That lower leg of the K needs to go up.

<rant>We need to crowbar off some of the superfluous assets of the wealthiest people and distribute it to the most vulnerable.  All wages should be livable wages, with retirement plans and sick leave, healthcare must be decoupled from employment (medicare for all), and post-12 education needs to be affordable without debt. After these basic needs are met, the ultra rich can buy as many mega-yachts with art collections as they need. </rant>

After working for a decade in international aid, I see how an emergency response to house IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons - different status than refugees) is needed here in the US. 

Sue

--

Sue Gemmell (she/ella)

Online Communities and Knowledge Management

suegemmell.com