
Diane Rivera
Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Ree Campbell <reethefaerie@...>
Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On May 24, 2021, at 6:23 PM, Ree Campbell <reethefaerie@...> wrote:
Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
I’m sure some of you are already involved, but for anyone interested in helping out with the effort to recall Wheeler, you can sign up on the website here: www.totalrecallpdx.com. We should all demand leaders who are willing to look for solutions to this issue. Wheeler consistently demonstrates he is not.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer) I am not an expert on any of these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time a council person says anything in support of supported camping. So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true though, if the camps also have local support from their housed neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but I think that local people can negotiate with each other without the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson wrote:
Hi Mimi, Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away, sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this happen countless times. With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry on after it is established, in many locations it could be done in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created it will only lead to its already known end which is, with nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too many people will die on the streets by following the route of permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...> wrote: Hi All, Emerson, I fully agree. I have a slide show presentation that outlines this. It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such a place may look like as it evolves. I have found support within local planning departments and among elected officials as well. So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people who can make a little time to spear head such a course of action. Winning over elected officials, community development departments as well as the citizens in the general area of such villages. As well as all the documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's questions etc. Also a team is needed to help initially establish such places, as well as resolve and avert potential difficulties etc. Cheers, Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Tim!
In that interview you touched on several things that I've been thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away for me is that the debate between "permanent" housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense is that the conversation has devolved into competing factions mostly because we know there's insufficient political will and/or funding to do both. In other words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic that the options seem to have been reduced to expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative shelters / villages. I don't have anything against either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused people on a weekly basis, and they list the same urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks repeatedly ask for the same super basic things: trash bags. Anywhereto stay dry and not get harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything besides guard their stuff all day! These specific problems just aren't that complicated or expensive. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff... etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks on this forum already know all this. But I never hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems like the politics of the moment (and tons of red tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple, imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of this forum think? Do we have the stomach for admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For example, what if the city magically escaped the political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not "good enough" in the long term and flawed in many ways. But it's also 100 times better than the current situation, right? And it could literally be accomplished in days for less than the cost of a single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm not claiming this is the solution. It's just a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy, imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement: interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others: County Commissioner Sharon Meieran, County Chair Deborah Kafoury PSU Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata Homer Williams, founder of Oregon Harbor of Hope Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc: Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW Mark Zusman, Publisher WW Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW Tess Riski, Reporter, WW [note to WW staff or others receiving this email: you can reply to PDX Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io]. --
-- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon
|
|
JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Push-back is probably to be expected. But what would Wheeler threaten a private citizen with? JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Elise, it's a good question and one that I think I have a partial answer for.
When JBL first began, we were on Metro land. Metro gave control of the land over to Parks. Lynn Peterson was new and unfortunately, spineless, so instead of doing the right thing by just saying yes to us, she gave the "power" to evict us to Nick Fish. Here's where it gets really ugly. Fish had his Rangers harass our camp multiples times, weekly. There were racial slurs/attacks against a Black woman at our camp. There were issues from the Rangers who'd come in like Nazis, destroying everything they saw. They tore tents. They came in and tore our kitchen apart, throwing everything on the land while yelling at us. The abuse from Fish was extreme. We had one resident go to the hospital via ambulance from the trauma of the terror of the nazi Rangers. They started after me, early on. They came at me w/ exclusions to the Parks (and again, this time where they threatened me w/ a 2-year exclusion from the parks), which we fought. We fought back every single time we got exclusions. Then the cops started to follow me all over St. Johns. For months. It was a tactic. It didn't work because I knew what they were doing and didn't care. I let them know that. Then COVID happened. The story goes on, but it's more of cops being assholes than anything else. Ted has the power to get the cops to harass and terrorize anyone. Fish had that power, too. He did it w/ the Rangers and eventually, the cops came to assist in those efforts. It's just part of the thug mentality of politicians wanting money from PBA to destroy the lives of Houseless people so "their" city looks pretty.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:45 PM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Push-back is probably to be expected. But what would Wheeler threaten a private citizen with? JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Thanks for answering that, Mimi. What you said is extreme.
I assumed they would use violence and intimidation at the camps.
Never expected the police to follow activists like you during your day.
I keep thinking that as a black woman, I would feel like my life was seriously being threatened if they did that to me.
What a big gap between Wheeler's public image and the reality.
Other folks were saying minions came to their residences to threaten them. I wonder what with/how.
Elise
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Elise, it's a good question and one that I think I have a partial answer for.
When JBL first began, we were on Metro land. Metro gave control of the land over to Parks. Lynn Peterson was new and unfortunately, spineless, so instead of doing the right thing by just saying yes to us, she gave the "power" to evict us to Nick Fish. Here's where it gets really ugly. Fish had his Rangers harass our camp multiples times, weekly. There were racial slurs/attacks against a Black woman at our camp. There were issues from the Rangers who'd come in like Nazis, destroying everything they saw. They tore tents. They came in and tore our kitchen apart, throwing everything on the land while yelling at us. The abuse from Fish was extreme. We had one resident go to the hospital via ambulance from the trauma of the terror of the nazi Rangers. They started after me, early on. They came at me w/ exclusions to the Parks (and again, this time where they threatened me w/ a 2-year exclusion from the parks), which we fought. We fought back every single time we got exclusions. Then the cops started to follow me all over St. Johns. For months. It was a tactic. It didn't work because I knew what they were doing and didn't care. I let them know that. Then COVID happened. The story goes on, but it's more of cops being assholes than anything else. Ted has the power to get the cops to harass and terrorize anyone. Fish had that power, too. He did it w/ the Rangers and eventually, the cops came to assist in those efforts. It's just part of the thug mentality of politicians wanting money from PBA to destroy the lives of Houseless people so "their" city looks pretty.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:45 PM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Push-back is probably to be expected. But what would Wheeler threaten a private citizen with? JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|

Diane Rivera
Elise, that is why Ree ( who also a WOC) said what she did: Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX
|
Diane Rivera, Career Advisor Career Boost (for SNAP recipients) Direct phone number (503) 972-3243
FAX (503) 719-6169 Worksource Portland Metro - SE / SE Works We MOVED, NEW ADDRESS: 6401 SE FOSTER ROAD
PORTLAND, OR 97206 During COVID please send all mail to : (PO BOX 86280, PORTLAND .OR 97286) www.seworks.org 
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 7:59 AM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Thanks for answering that, Mimi. What you said is extreme.
I assumed they would use violence and intimidation at the camps.
Never expected the police to follow activists like you during your day.
I keep thinking that as a black woman, I would feel like my life was seriously being threatened if they did that to me.
What a big gap between Wheeler's public image and the reality.
Other folks were saying minions came to their residences to threaten them. I wonder what with/how.
Elise
Elise, it's a good question and one that I think I have a partial answer for.
When JBL first began, we were on Metro land. Metro gave control of the land over to Parks. Lynn Peterson was new and unfortunately, spineless, so instead of doing the right thing by just saying yes to us, she gave the "power" to evict us to Nick Fish. Here's where it gets really ugly. Fish had his Rangers harass our camp multiples times, weekly. There were racial slurs/attacks against a Black woman at our camp. There were issues from the Rangers who'd come in like Nazis, destroying everything they saw. They tore tents. They came in and tore our kitchen apart, throwing everything on the land while yelling at us. The abuse from Fish was extreme. We had one resident go to the hospital via ambulance from the trauma of the terror of the nazi Rangers. They started after me, early on. They came at me w/ exclusions to the Parks (and again, this time where they threatened me w/ a 2-year exclusion from the parks), which we fought. We fought back every single time we got exclusions. Then the cops started to follow me all over St. Johns. For months. It was a tactic. It didn't work because I knew what they were doing and didn't care. I let them know that. Then COVID happened. The story goes on, but it's more of cops being assholes than anything else. Ted has the power to get the cops to harass and terrorize anyone. Fish had that power, too. He did it w/ the Rangers and eventually, the cops came to assist in those efforts. It's just part of the thug mentality of politicians wanting money from PBA to destroy the lives of Houseless people so "their" city looks pretty.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:45 PM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Push-back is probably to be expected. But what would Wheeler threaten a private citizen with? JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Elise,
I completely understand.
The threats against advocates that came from RR/City were horrific. I've heard the stories of what happened from those directly affected.
Anything that threatens the status quo of making money off of Houselessness will be attacked by the machine that created and maintains poverty in the first place. It is for this reason that for me, the concept of asking permission from the machine to bring humanity to the people who are in need of it, is ridiculous. As a Jewish Queer woman, I would never ask a Nazi for directions, let alone ask permission to cross the street. And we, those of us who are doing the work with unhoused people, must maintain focus and keep urgency and humanity at the forefront of what we are doing for whom and with whom we are working. Class warfare/politics/racism/governments created and perpetuate houselessness and poverty. We need villages everywhere. Real toilets that get cleaned a few times a week. Food and clothing. A way to bathe. We need immediate housing. If we can bring any of this to those in need, that's what we should be doing. Let politicians politic. The rest of us should be land grabbing if that's what it takes, to bring humanity in droves to the people in need.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 8:03 AM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Elise, that is why Ree ( who also a WOC) said what she did: Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX
|
Diane Rivera, Career Advisor Career Boost (for SNAP recipients) Direct phone number (503) 972-3243
FAX (503) 719-6169 Worksource Portland Metro - SE / SE Works We MOVED, NEW ADDRESS: 6401 SE FOSTER ROAD
PORTLAND, OR 97206 During COVID please send all mail to : (PO BOX 86280, PORTLAND .OR 97286) www.seworks.org 
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 7:59 AM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Thanks for answering that, Mimi. What you said is extreme.
I assumed they would use violence and intimidation at the camps.
Never expected the police to follow activists like you during your day.
I keep thinking that as a black woman, I would feel like my life was seriously being threatened if they did that to me.
What a big gap between Wheeler's public image and the reality.
Other folks were saying minions came to their residences to threaten them. I wonder what with/how.
Elise
Elise, it's a good question and one that I think I have a partial answer for.
When JBL first began, we were on Metro land. Metro gave control of the land over to Parks. Lynn Peterson was new and unfortunately, spineless, so instead of doing the right thing by just saying yes to us, she gave the "power" to evict us to Nick Fish. Here's where it gets really ugly. Fish had his Rangers harass our camp multiples times, weekly. There were racial slurs/attacks against a Black woman at our camp. There were issues from the Rangers who'd come in like Nazis, destroying everything they saw. They tore tents. They came in and tore our kitchen apart, throwing everything on the land while yelling at us. The abuse from Fish was extreme. We had one resident go to the hospital via ambulance from the trauma of the terror of the nazi Rangers. They started after me, early on. They came at me w/ exclusions to the Parks (and again, this time where they threatened me w/ a 2-year exclusion from the parks), which we fought. We fought back every single time we got exclusions. Then the cops started to follow me all over St. Johns. For months. It was a tactic. It didn't work because I knew what they were doing and didn't care. I let them know that. Then COVID happened. The story goes on, but it's more of cops being assholes than anything else. Ted has the power to get the cops to harass and terrorize anyone. Fish had that power, too. He did it w/ the Rangers and eventually, the cops came to assist in those efforts. It's just part of the thug mentality of politicians wanting money from PBA to destroy the lives of Houseless people so "their" city looks pretty.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:45 PM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Push-back is probably to be expected. But what would Wheeler threaten a private citizen with? JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|
Diane and Mimi,
Yup, I get what you're saying.
Elise
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Elise,
I completely understand.
The threats against advocates that came from RR/City were horrific. I've heard the stories of what happened from those directly affected.
Anything that threatens the status quo of making money off of Houselessness will be attacked by the machine that created and maintains poverty in the first place. It is for this reason that for me, the concept of asking permission from the machine to bring humanity to the people who are in need of it, is ridiculous. As a Jewish Queer woman, I would never ask a Nazi for directions, let alone ask permission to cross the street. And we, those of us who are doing the work with unhoused people, must maintain focus and keep urgency and humanity at the forefront of what we are doing for whom and with whom we are working. Class warfare/politics/racism/governments created and perpetuate houselessness and poverty. We need villages everywhere. Real toilets that get cleaned a few times a week. Food and clothing. A way to bathe. We need immediate housing. If we can bring any of this to those in need, that's what we should be doing. Let politicians politic. The rest of us should be land grabbing if that's what it takes, to bring humanity in droves to the people in need.
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 8:03 AM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Elise, that is why Ree ( who also a WOC) said what she did: Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope.Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX
|
Diane Rivera, Career Advisor Career Boost (for SNAP recipients) Direct phone number (503) 972-3243
FAX (503) 719-6169 Worksource Portland Metro - SE / SE Works We MOVED, NEW ADDRESS: 6401 SE FOSTER ROAD
PORTLAND, OR 97206 During COVID please send all mail to : (PO BOX 86280, PORTLAND .OR 97286) www.seworks.org 
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 7:59 AM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Thanks for answering that, Mimi. What you said is extreme.
I assumed they would use violence and intimidation at the camps.
Never expected the police to follow activists like you during your day.
I keep thinking that as a black woman, I would feel like my life was seriously being threatened if they did that to me.
What a big gap between Wheeler's public image and the reality.
Other folks were saying minions came to their residences to threaten them. I wonder what with/how.
Elise
Elise, it's a good question and one that I think I have a partial answer for.
When JBL first began, we were on Metro land. Metro gave control of the land over to Parks. Lynn Peterson was new and unfortunately, spineless, so instead of doing the right thing by just saying yes to us, she gave the "power" to evict us to Nick Fish. Here's where it gets really ugly. Fish had his Rangers harass our camp multiples times, weekly. There were racial slurs/attacks against a Black woman at our camp. There were issues from the Rangers who'd come in like Nazis, destroying everything they saw. They tore tents. They came in and tore our kitchen apart, throwing everything on the land while yelling at us. The abuse from Fish was extreme. We had one resident go to the hospital via ambulance from the trauma of the terror of the nazi Rangers. They started after me, early on. They came at me w/ exclusions to the Parks (and again, this time where they threatened me w/ a 2-year exclusion from the parks), which we fought. We fought back every single time we got exclusions. Then the cops started to follow me all over St. Johns. For months. It was a tactic. It didn't work because I knew what they were doing and didn't care. I let them know that. Then COVID happened. The story goes on, but it's more of cops being assholes than anything else. Ted has the power to get the cops to harass and terrorize anyone. Fish had that power, too. He did it w/ the Rangers and eventually, the cops came to assist in those efforts. It's just part of the thug mentality of politicians wanting money from PBA to destroy the lives of Houseless people so "their" city looks pretty.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:45 PM Elise Aymer < elise@...> wrote: Push-back is probably to be expected. But what would Wheeler threaten a private citizen with? JBL is and has been an unsanctioned camp. We refuse to "ask" permission to exist. While it might seem a futile approach for some, waiting for politicians to receive our kisses on their asses is just not something we're willing to do while folks are dying on the streets. We've tried the other approaches. And people have died waiting for the lies to be unfurled. I'm all in on the guerilla approach to villages. The more, the better. For the people, with the people, by the people.
Sorry for not being more clear. When I said “guerilla” I meant it a bit more figuratively. Although building unsanctioned villages would certainly qualify, the idea I was trying to get at was more about just generally not waiting for the city and solving problems in a grassroots way. I thought the idea we were converging on is that the city is limited by political/legal constraints that individuals and perhaps NAs are not. And perhaps there is power in that... Perhaps there are things the city wishes it could do, or would at least tolerate, if not for those constraints. I think we’ve already seen examples of that. So I’m going to think more about it. Can confirm Diane Rivera's statements, Ted Wheeler sent Lucas Hillier to my house at 6:30 on a Friday night to threaten me in my own home with my children upstairs over Village of Hope. Ree Campbell Executive Director BootsOnTheGroundPDX On Mon, May 24, 2021, 5:49 PM Diane Rivera < drivera@...> wrote: Tom,
Guerilla Camps have led to Ted Wheeler's minions knocking on the doors of supporters. Late. after normal work hours. not in a friendly manner. Blind CC'ing persons who can attest to the trauma, and there are others in this group who can share how well-intentioned efforts can backfire.
Your mileage might vary.
(not an opinion of my employer)
I am not an expert on any of
these topics but I am the current chair of the Bridgeton
Neighborhood Association in North Portland, and for the last
year have written letters and sat on committees trying to break
down the bureaucratic walls that prevent government action to
authorize sanctioned locations for camps. I think that one
unspoken obstacle that prevents government participation is
liability. Every person who is injured, sickens or dies in a
sanctioned camp is a lawsuit waiting to happen and the city
legal team is probably having secret conniption fits every time
a council person says anything in support of supported camping.
So long as the camps are illegal, the government avoids
liability for the health of camp residents.
I think guerrilla camps are called for, and I think that, behind
closed doors, will get support from City Hall. This is only true
though, if the camps also have local support from their housed
neighbors as a buffer against sweeps. Sweeps are triggered when
housed neighbors protest, so camp locations need to be
negotiated in good faith from both sides of the situation in
order to thrive.
Neighborhood Associations are NOT city entities, although there
are links and influences. I am surely biased on the subject, but
I think that local people can negotiate with each other without
the city and its bureaucratic obstacles and come to mutually
agreeable terms, then TELL the city how it's going to be.
I am disheartened when I see people on either side of the conversation, including in this thread, name
calling or dehumanizing their counterparts. It reminds me of the
Palestine/Israel crisis, and is not productive. Enough fighting
amongst ourselves when working together is the way forward.
On 5/24/2021 1:03 PM, Jayme Delson
wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Can you advise , i do not see a choice in the matter. without
permission of the bureaucracy they end up being swept away,
sadly. Over the decades i have suffered thorough seeing this
happen countless times.
With a kind and competent team willing to do the work and carry
on after it is established, in many locations it could be done
in months, i propose!
Sincerely Jayme
On 5/24/2021 12:44 PM, Mimi German
wrote:
Jayme, everything about your email reminds me
that going at this via the very same bureaucracy that created
it will only lead to its already known end which is, with
nothing accomplished i.e., villages for houseless. Far too
many people will die on the streets by following the route of
permissions from here to eternity. I cringed when I read all
the hoops in your email. There is nothing in the route you
suggest that even hints at immediacy. Without immediate
action, more will die on the streets. We are beyond permission
to be humane for the sake of bureaucracy.
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at
10:22 AM Jayme Delson < jayme@...>
wrote:
Hi All,
Emerson, I fully agree.
I have a slide show presentation that outlines this.
It calls for an emergency iteration Phase 1, and a
permanent iteration Phase 2. It brakes down initial
start up costs and operating costs for Phase 1 and also
for Phase 2. As well as a cost comparison to current
models. Additionally it outlines a vision of what such
a place may look like as it evolves.
I have found support within local planning departments and
among elected officials as well.
So far i have had the most difficulty in finding people
who can make a little time to spear head such a course
of action. Winning over elected officials, community
development departments as well as the citizens in the
general area of such villages. As well as all the
documentation necessary to satisfies everyone's
questions etc.
Also a team is needed to help initially establish such
places, as well as resolve and avert potential
difficulties etc.
Cheers,
Jayme
On 5/23/2021 9:33 PM, Emerson This wrote:
Thanks for sharing this,
Tim!
In that interview you
touched on several things that I've been
thinking/feeling for a long time! The main take-away
for me is that the debate between "permanent"
housing vs immediate remedies to the humanitarian
crisis is a false dichotomy. We need BOTH! My sense
is that the conversation has devolved into competing
factions mostly because we know there's insufficient
political will and/or funding to do both. In other
words, there's no practical reason why we couldn't
walk AND chew gum. Rather, we feel like we can't afford
the gum and the walking shoes. Do we have to accept
this constraint?
Obviously, the money has to
come from somewhere. But it's frustrating and tragic
that the options seem to have been reduced to
expensive long-term "permanent" housing solutions or
slightly-less-expensive short-term alternative
shelters / villages. I don't have anything against
either of those approaches. But I talk to unhoused
people on a weekly basis, and they list the same
urgent needs you mention in your interview. Folks
repeatedly ask for the same super basic things:
trash bags. Anywhere to stay dry and not get
harassed. A way to prevent their stuff from getting
stolen so they can leave their campsite to do... anything
besides guard their stuff all day! These specific
problems just aren't that complicated or expensive.
I know because I've seen it with my own eyes. I've
seen ordinary citizens take it on themselves to
provide trash cans, upgrade tents to make them
warmer and drier, provide places to secure stuff...
etc. These kinds of things immediately improve the
lives of unhoused people and their housed neighbors
and they cost pennies. Of course, many of the folks
on this forum already know all this. But I never
hear anyone in City Hall talk like this. It seems
like the politics of the moment (and tons of red
tape) have made it suicideal to consider simple,
imperfect, commonsense ideas.
I wonder what readers of
this forum think? Do we have the stomach for
admittedly imperfect, short-term solutions? For
example, what if the city magically escaped the
political gridlock and sanctioned unused spaces all
across the city for camping. Maybe each one gets a
dumpster. And maybe they even buy hundreds of cheap
garden sheds. I'll be the first to admit this is not
"good enough" in the long term and flawed in many
ways. But it's also 100 times better than the
current situation, right? And it could literally be
accomplished in days for less than the cost of a
single fancy shelter or village. To be clear, I'm
not claiming this is the solution. It's just
a hypothetical example of the kinds of messy,
imperfect ideas that I wish there was more space
for.
WW interviewed me, I wrote it up:
"The houseless vs the settlement:
interview with Willamette Week".
discussing, among others:
County Commissioner Sharon
Meieran,
County Chair Deborah Kafoury
PSU Homelessness Research &
Action Collaborative director Dr. Marisa Zapata
Homer Williams, founder of Oregon
Harbor of Hope
Councilmember Dan Ryan.
Bcc:
Sophie Peel, Reporter, WW
Mark Zusman, Publisher WW
Aaron Mesh, Editor, WW
Nigel Jaquiss, Reporter, WW
Rachel Monahan, Reporter, WW
Tess Riski, Reporter, WW
[note to WW staff or others
receiving this email: you can reply to PDX
Shelter Forum by using Reply to All or
addressing to pdxshelterforum@groups.io].
--
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
Oregon
|
|