Tent Camping Solution


Candee Wilson
 

Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Jan Radle Roberson
 

The idea has some merit; the San Antonio has mixed reviews.   You would "require" a honmeless person who is camping to move to Term 2?    That will not happen and simply continues the oppressive, broken systems and care available to the unhoused community. 

Jan


On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:


Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Trena Sutton
 

When the T2 site came up before there was a big pushback from surrounding are when the T2 site came up before there was a big pushback from  The surrounding areas including businesses. I always thought it was absolutely ridiculous that the naysayers would rather have people sleeping on the sidewalks all over the Portland area.  You just can’t confuse people with logic.  In addition, this would get pushback from people that called themselves “Homeless Advocates”.  Make it mandatory how’s the echoes of what  Columbia, South Carolina try to do during the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement. Their city Council voted to have all homeless people move to an encampment outside the city which I thought was pretty rich since it was the 50th anniversary of the civil rights movement .  Many of the same naysayers also would tell any homeless person that would listen that the opening of Wapato 
(BLHC)  was going to be a depository for the police to force people out there which what is Ludacris but again you can’t confuse some people with logic. 

T2  is an excellent idea  as long as it is voluntary. Mercy Corp  is a  treasure And would be a great admin for places like that and would be a great admin for a place Such as this.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:














Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am

sending to anyone who will listen.








David Mitchell


















Pearl District Central












Our

city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn

phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with

homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved

property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home

office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee

camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take

Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a

multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a

model for Portland. I would require that every person in a

tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility

which would include drug treatment or mental health

resources or whatever is needed to address their needs.

Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a

gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for

tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream

sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the

streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public

policy and needs to be called out as such.


-- 

Candee Wilson

411 NW Flanders St. #406

Portland, OR 97209


503-789-0332















Tom Hickey <hickeyt@...>
 

“Requiring” smacks of internment camps. Patently unconstitutional. However, adequate alternative shelters in place, there is no longer a need to allow the current chaotic status quo to continue. 

Tom Hickey

On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Jan Radle Roberson <janr2@...> wrote:

The idea has some merit; the San Antonio has mixed reviews.   You would "require" a honmeless person who is camping to move to Term 2?    That will not happen and simply continues the oppressive, broken systems and care available to the unhoused community. 

Jan


On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:


Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Verna Dunlap
 

I agree with Candice!


Tim McCormick
 

an interesting 2016 overview of the Terminal 1 facility controversy, and profile of longtime local homelessness leader Ibrahim Mubarak, who was slated to be general manager of the facility: 
Screen Shot 2020-09-23 at 5.33.15 PM.png

"No shelter:  Homeless advocate Ibrahim Mubarak says social agencies turn backs on Terminal 1 homeless facility." by Thacher Schmid in NW Examiner, November 2016. https://nwexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/November-2016-FINALsmall.pdf.

There's the debate about a unified, large facility approach -- which supporters tend to characterize as a 'campus', and opponents as leading to  'warehousing' or 'transcarceration' (Sara Rankin 2019) or 'seclusion' (Chris Herring 2014) of the unhoused. 

Also here, as this article focuses on, a conflict between a) established non-profit service/shelter providers, and b) private (ie business)-sector led initiative proposing a new approach. 

Mubarak blames the city’s decision on a tendency to stick with the status quo despite an urgent crisis that calls for fresh approaches. In blunt terms, he said, the city’s nonprofit sector is impeding progress. 
 
“We would have been getting that pot of money that they used to get, and they don’t want to share,” Mubarak said.
 
A former director of the Portland Development Commission, Don Mazziotti said the same thing in different language. “The proposal to establish a shelter facility managed by the private sector in partnership with the public sector proved to be a perceived threat to the stream of public funding that many of the providers in the nonprofit community rely upon for their operation,” said Mazziotti, now director of OHOH.

This article for me is a reminder that many debates in this area are quite recurring, and tend to get repeated without gaining much historical/comparative sense or advancing beyond quite broad-brush concepts. (e.g., permanent housing is the answer, housing is a human right, stop the sweeps, shelter for all). Not necessarily, though, as for example we might say that the Bybee Lakes Hope Center opening is a clear development from these Terminal 1 debates 4+ years ago. 

Bcc: 
Thacher Schmidt
Don Mazziotti 

--
Tim McCormick
Editor at HousingWiki, Organizer at Village Collaborative
Portland, Oregon 


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:56 PM Tom Hickey <hickeyt@...> wrote:
“Requiring” smacks of internment camps. Patently unconstitutional. However, adequate alternative shelters in place, there is no longer a need to allow the current chaotic status quo to continue. 

Tom Hickey

On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Jan Radle Roberson <janr2@...> wrote:

The idea has some merit; the San Antonio has mixed reviews.   You would "require" a honmeless person who is camping to move to Term 2?    That will not happen and simply continues the oppressive, broken systems and care available to the unhoused community. 

Jan


On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:


Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Pearl District Central
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Jeff Liddicoat
 

Y’all that are stuck on the notion that the homeless are a threat to community health need to go take a long look in the mirror and reflect on you and your neighbor’s contribution to climate change. Climate change if the experts are even half right can’t even compared to the economic ruin

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:56 PM Tom Hickey <hickeyt@...> wrote:
“Requiring” smacks of internment camps. Patently unconstitutional. However, adequate alternative shelters in place, there is no longer a need to allow the current chaotic status quo to continue. 

Tom Hickey

On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Jan Radle Roberson <janr2@...> wrote:

The idea has some merit; the San Antonio has mixed reviews.   You would "require" a honmeless person who is camping to move to Term 2?    That will not happen and simply continues the oppressive, broken systems and care available to the unhoused community. 

Jan


On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:


Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Pearl District Central
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Aisha Musa
 

The reality is that everything we are enduring in 2020, from the pandemic to wildfires in Australia and the US, social unrest, and the explosion of homelessness, etc. are all the direct result of half a century of bad economic policies, bad social policies, and bad environmental policies. We are now all paying the price for generations of abusing each other and the only planet we have to live on. 

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









On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 7:50 PM Jeff Liddicoat <outsideartsale@...> wrote:
Y’all that are stuck on the notion that the homeless are a threat to community health need to go take a long look in the mirror and reflect on you and your neighbor’s contribution to climate change. Climate change if the experts are even half right can’t even compared to the economic ruin

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:56 PM Tom Hickey <hickeyt@...> wrote:
“Requiring” smacks of internment camps. Patently unconstitutional. However, adequate alternative shelters in place, there is no longer a need to allow the current chaotic status quo to continue. 

Tom Hickey

On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:10 PM, Jan Radle Roberson <janr2@...> wrote:

The idea has some merit; the San Antonio has mixed reviews.   You would "require" a honmeless person who is camping to move to Term 2?    That will not happen and simply continues the oppressive, broken systems and care available to the unhoused community. 

Jan


On Sep 23, 2020, at 4:05 PM, Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:


Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Pearl District Central
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Paola Eisner
 

I agree with Trena Sutton; "T2  is an excellent idea  as long as it is voluntary."

I am very concerned that this proposal involves a requirement that certain individuals reside only in certain identified facilities and would then presumably criminalize anyone who elected to use public city property for their own highest and best use based on a factually incorrect argument that individuals making use of city sidewalks is aesthetically displeasing.

This argument is extremely dangerous and it is my strong opinion that we must reject it at all costs. Discussions have already been circulating about rounding up unhoused people based on how they choose to use public space, which should not be a crime or a marker of personal identity, and caging them in facilities. Such a plan invites misuse of government contracts for private profit and treats free individuals exercising their right to use public space as cattle who can be herded, corralled, and controlled. I have been homeless as a child escaping an unsafe domestic situation, and as the economy tanks I may choose to use city sidewalks, parks, or other open spaces to spend the night in the future. Many people are sliding into poverty and unable to pay rent in our spiralling economy. We absolutely cannot allow the government to illegally label, corral, control, and criminalize a very large and quickly growing group of people based only on how they use public property and, in many cases, their economic means.

Secondly I consider myself "mainstream" and I think denying anyone the use of public space based on fringe and un-American political views, which are described here as aesthetic preferences, is selfish, barbaric, and flies in the face of the inalienable rights and personal freedoms of individuals living in the USA. Regardless of what I consider to be profoundly un-American vagrancy laws and other attempts at criminalizing homelessness, each individual has a right to use public space for their highest and best use, and denial of this right by the government or private groups should, at each instance, be firmly repudiated. I do not believe seeing individuals making use of public spaces is an eyesore; I think it is their basic right, just like it is my right to walk on those sidewalks, bike safely in the streets, and recreate in public parks; such a right is not extinguished at sunset or at any other time on American soil, regardless of illegal laws and edicts. The concept of prioritizing an individual's aesthetic preferences and subjective "sensibility" over another individual's need to take shelter in a public space is abhorrent.

We will not be able to stop the exploding rates of homelessness giving the compounding crises individuals are facing in a spiralling economy. Shantytowns, Hoovervilles, and other makeshift communities naturally take shape in public spaces when private markets are not incentivized or required to provide housing at rates every individual and family can afford, and when individuals are almost forced to sell their labor in the private marketplace to safely shelter their bodies. Individuals, groups, and communities seeking to take shelter in public spaces should be provided with government-funded facilities to ensure that they have access to sanitation and other requirements of health and welfare, since ensuring the health and welfare of each member of the public, not just the "housed" public or the "working" public, is the primary obligation of the state. No one can be required to trade in their liberty to access services a government has a duty to provide. Facilities can be built at Terminal 2 which allow individuals to freely come and go, and imposing a duty on the government or private actors to attract individuals to their facilities on their own free will is essential to curb abuse of vulnerable populations, who, if they are free to leave, can reject arbitrary requirements and substandard conditions. Should individuals ever be caged in such facilities or required to live there and nowhere else, such facilities become ghettos or concentration camps on American soil. May we never live to see such a nightmare in Portland.

I am not a lawyer but needless to say this proposal flies in the face of many constitutionally protected rights.


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:
Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Pearl District Central
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Sabra Marcroft
 

I support Paola's strong words. Very well said!
Also, however I feel compelled to say that what cannot be completely prevented in the near to midterm future we must attempt to mitigate as best as possible. This proposed facility, if it can be shaped and staffed by and with people who have actual empathy for the people they are serving would almost make freedom of entry and exit a given. However, this is a very difficult balance to maintain. Even the best contracted entity will not make perfect decisions every time and any contractor can be replaced for political reasons.
In the times we are in now, sanctuary will be needed at an increasing and quickly overwhelming scale and will become increasingly difficult to provide and maintain. More and more of us will be swept into the street.
 My advice is to build your life rafts now. Cooperate with friends and family to secure at least some of your housing. Raise money in your circle to start your own hostel, business, farm... Create ways to expand that circle. You are helpers. You will be sick at heart if you have no way to share with those you find along the way. Use these private life rafts to grow a network of support for political change and to survive in the meantime.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:36 AM Paola Eisner <peisner@...> wrote:
I agree with Trena Sutton; "T2  is an excellent idea  as long as it is voluntary."

I am very concerned that this proposal involves a requirement that certain individuals reside only in certain identified facilities and would then presumably criminalize anyone who elected to use public city property for their own highest and best use based on a factually incorrect argument that individuals making use of city sidewalks is aesthetically displeasing.

This argument is extremely dangerous and it is my strong opinion that we must reject it at all costs. Discussions have already been circulating about rounding up unhoused people based on how they choose to use public space, which should not be a crime or a marker of personal identity, and caging them in facilities. Such a plan invites misuse of government contracts for private profit and treats free individuals exercising their right to use public space as cattle who can be herded, corralled, and controlled. I have been homeless as a child escaping an unsafe domestic situation, and as the economy tanks I may choose to use city sidewalks, parks, or other open spaces to spend the night in the future. Many people are sliding into poverty and unable to pay rent in our spiralling economy. We absolutely cannot allow the government to illegally label, corral, control, and criminalize a very large and quickly growing group of people based only on how they use public property and, in many cases, their economic means.

Secondly I consider myself "mainstream" and I think denying anyone the use of public space based on fringe and un-American political views, which are described here as aesthetic preferences, is selfish, barbaric, and flies in the face of the inalienable rights and personal freedoms of individuals living in the USA. Regardless of what I consider to be profoundly un-American vagrancy laws and other attempts at criminalizing homelessness, each individual has a right to use public space for their highest and best use, and denial of this right by the government or private groups should, at each instance, be firmly repudiated. I do not believe seeing individuals making use of public spaces is an eyesore; I think it is their basic right, just like it is my right to walk on those sidewalks, bike safely in the streets, and recreate in public parks; such a right is not extinguished at sunset or at any other time on American soil, regardless of illegal laws and edicts. The concept of prioritizing an individual's aesthetic preferences and subjective "sensibility" over another individual's need to take shelter in a public space is abhorrent.

We will not be able to stop the exploding rates of homelessness giving the compounding crises individuals are facing in a spiralling economy. Shantytowns, Hoovervilles, and other makeshift communities naturally take shape in public spaces when private markets are not incentivized or required to provide housing at rates every individual and family can afford, and when individuals are almost forced to sell their labor in the private marketplace to safely shelter their bodies. Individuals, groups, and communities seeking to take shelter in public spaces should be provided with government-funded facilities to ensure that they have access to sanitation and other requirements of health and welfare, since ensuring the health and welfare of each member of the public, not just the "housed" public or the "working" public, is the primary obligation of the state. No one can be required to trade in their liberty to access services a government has a duty to provide. Facilities can be built at Terminal 2 which allow individuals to freely come and go, and imposing a duty on the government or private actors to attract individuals to their facilities on their own free will is essential to curb abuse of vulnerable populations, who, if they are free to leave, can reject arbitrary requirements and substandard conditions. Should individuals ever be caged in such facilities or required to live there and nowhere else, such facilities become ghettos or concentration camps on American soil. May we never live to see such a nightmare in Portland.

I am not a lawyer but needless to say this proposal flies in the face of many constitutionally protected rights.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:
Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am sending to anyone who will listen.


David Mitchell
Pearl District Central
Our city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a model for Portland. I would require that every person in a tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility which would include drug treatment or mental health resources or whatever is needed to address their needs. Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public policy and needs to be called out as such.
-- 
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332


Trena Sutton
 

 Well said  Paola Eisner. When the Columbia, South Carolina attempted to force the homeless into what I call a “FEMA Concentration Camp” the ACLU came in and stopped this. It is unconditional to take such an action.

That being said, protecting a homeless person’s rights doesn’t mean they can do as they please. We have laws that preclude a public right of way in the form of a Police Abatement. Having excessive garbage can be addressed with an Offense Littering charge which draws insects and Rats. Some even refuse to walk a block and use sidewalks and business properties to eliminate body wastes which could cause a Hepatitis outbreak as it has done in other large Metropolitan cities. Then there are the predatory homeless. A dear friend who owns a business in Northwest Portland have a knife pulled on him when he caught the homeless man urinating on his property. It was caught on video. 

 A person that is just trying to survive would find places like T2 and Bybee Lake Hope Center a God Send. Those  Who want to stay on the streets to  cause havoc and commit crimes have to be dealt with yeah another way. The problematic ones have been allowed to run amok and there in lies the rub.  

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:36 AM Paola Eisner <peisner@...> wrote:
I agree with Trena Sutton; "T2  is an excellent idea  as long as it is voluntary."

I am very concerned that this proposal involves a requirement that certain individuals reside only in certain identified facilities and would then presumably criminalize anyone who elected to use public city property for their own highest and best use based on a factually incorrect argument that individuals making use of city sidewalks is aesthetically displeasing.

This argument is extremely dangerous and it is my strong opinion that we must reject it at all costs. Discussions have already been circulating about rounding up unhoused people based on how they choose to use public space, which should not be a crime or a marker of personal identity, and caging them in facilities. Such a plan invites misuse of government contracts for private profit and treats free individuals exercising their right to use public space as cattle who can be herded, corralled, and controlled. I have been homeless as a child escaping an unsafe domestic situation, and as the economy tanks I may choose to use city sidewalks, parks, or other open spaces to spend the night in the future. Many people are sliding into poverty and unable to pay rent in our spiralling economy. We absolutely cannot allow the government to illegally label, corral, control, and criminalize a very large and quickly growing group of people based only on how they use public property and, in many cases, their economic means.

Secondly I consider myself "mainstream" and I think denying anyone the use of public space based on fringe and un-American political views, which are described here as aesthetic preferences, is selfish, barbaric, and flies in the face of the inalienable rights and personal freedoms of individuals living in the USA. Regardless of what I consider to be profoundly un-American vagrancy laws and other attempts at criminalizing homelessness, each individual has a right to use public space for their highest and best use, and denial of this right by the government or private groups should, at each instance, be firmly repudiated. I do not believe seeing individuals making use of public spaces is an eyesore; I think it is their basic right, just like it is my right to walk on those sidewalks, bike safely in the streets, and recreate in public parks; such a right is not extinguished at sunset or at any other time on American soil, regardless of illegal laws and edicts. The concept of prioritizing an individual's aesthetic preferences and subjective "sensibility" over another individual's need to take shelter in a public space is abhorrent.

We will not be able to stop the exploding rates of homelessness giving the compounding crises individuals are facing in a spiralling economy. Shantytowns, Hoovervilles, and other makeshift communities naturally take shape in public spaces when private markets are not incentivized or required to provide housing at rates every individual and family can afford, and when individuals are almost forced to sell their labor in the private marketplace to safely shelter their bodies. Individuals, groups, and communities seeking to take shelter in public spaces should be provided with government-funded facilities to ensure that they have access to sanitation and other requirements of health and welfare, since ensuring the health and welfare of each member of the public, not just the "housed" public or the "working" public, is the primary obligation of the state. No one can be required to trade in their liberty to access services a government has a duty to provide. Facilities can be built at Terminal 2 which allow individuals to freely come and go, and imposing a duty on the government or private actors to attract individuals to their facilities on their own free will is essential to curb abuse of vulnerable populations, who, if they are free to leave, can reject arbitrary requirements and substandard conditions. Should individuals ever be caged in such facilities or required to live there and nowhere else, such facilities become ghettos or concentration camps on American soil. May we never live to see such a nightmare in Portland.

I am not a lawyer but needless to say this proposal flies in the face of many constitutionally protected rights.

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:05 PM Candee Wilson <candee@...> wrote:














Not my idea, but a damn good one, so I am

sending to anyone who will listen.








David Mitchell


















Pearl District Central












Our

city and county elected officials mouth the same shopworn

phrases yet they accomplish little in dealing with

homelessness. We have dozens of acres of vacant paved

property at Terminal 2, owned by the city. We are the home

office for Mercy Corps, a world leader in managing g refugee

camps. If I were in charge of homelessness, I would take

Terminal 2 and recreate what San Antonio did in providing a

multifaceted homeless program that Homer Williams used as a

model for Portland. I would require that every person in a

tent camp on the streets move into a Terminal 2 facility

which would include drug treatment or mental health

resources or whatever is needed to address their needs.

Allowing people to camp on city sidewalks is not only a

gigantic health hazard, but it is also a huge black eye for

tourism, for general civil livability, and mainstream

sensibility. Allowing people to continue living on the

streets is not compassionate. It is plain stupid public

policy and needs to be called out as such.


-- 

Candee Wilson

411 NW Flanders St. #406

Portland, OR 97209


503-789-0332

























John Elizalde
 

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810


Mh Kincaid
 
Edited


John,
I don't know you but read your comments to the Google group. I am not vey active with the group but wanteed to comment to you as you made a very clear plan, all of which is addressed in a safe parking program in Eugene run by St Vincent DePaul.  https://www.eugene-or.gov/3703/Overnight-Parking-Program#:~:text=The%20Overnight%20Parking%20Program%20provides,permission%20of%20the%20property%20owners.
I (and 3 colleagues) visited, and spent the day with staff touring sites and learning of their program.  I was impressed with their compassion, organization and efficiency. We brought the information back and presented it to JOHS, Mayor Wheeler and staff, and it went nowhere.  That was May 2018. follow ups with JOHS were not responded to.  Mayor Wheeler punted to ONI who hired two staff who did nothing.  Commissioner in Charge changed from Fritz to Eudaly, ONI director changed, staff were not funded, and the project went nowhere.  $150,000 went to waste at the hands of Chole Eudaly and Suk Rhee.
 
There is also a program for safe parking in Beaverton. It was modeled after the Eugene program.  Recently (July 2020) KATU did a favorable story on the program. I never visited the sites.
 
In my work on trying to establish a safe parking project on City land we developed a proposal which has been circulated recently.  You may have seen it but in case you haven't I attached it.  I think it is still doable.  The four of us ran out of bandwidth after 2.5 years of meetings and presentations to anyone who would listen, or we perceived as being capable of making the project work.  We had a lot of support, but not enough to make it a reality, no one willing or capable of taking it on, and no one to put all the pieces together. Recently Commissioner Susheela Jayapal has had staff working on efforts and meeting with community members.  It is encouraging to me that people like you are showing interest and offering wonderful insights.  There are successful projects to model.  Funding and land are needed.  It exists in Portland/Multnomah County/Metro region.. A very big challenge we heard was liability and I do not know how the successful projects handle it.
 
I would be more than happy to talk further but my main advice would be to contact Sara Ryan, Chief of Staff for Multnomah County Commissioner Susheela Jayapal - sara.t.ryan@....
 
Maryhelen Kincaid
 
 


From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> on behalf of John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:53 PM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Tent Camping Solution
 
I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD
 
John Elizalde
503 740 9810


Marilyn Mauch
 

The following cut and paste below from John's remarks are key.  See Sandra Comstock's work in getting homeless folks into one of the 3 managed campsites the city erected and also, I believe, efforts/leadership of Raven.   The way the reach-out to the homeless is done is a key step.  I agree very much with John that we have the pieces needed for the city to move forward given there's lots of "push" and encouragement from the community.

John's remarks follow.  "We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive. Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place."

On 09/24/2020 8:53 PM John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:


I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810


Matthew Lembo
 

John,

This is great, thank you.

What does it mean to assume liability as described in #3 below?  Can anyone give examples of situations where liability has come into play?  There’s a plan floating around the Neighborhood Associations that would involve asking private land owners to allow small groups to camp on their land and I know liability will come up but don’t really understand what it means in this context.

Thank you!

-Matt Lembo

On Sep 24, 2020, at 8:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:


I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810


David Dickson
 

Very well said, John Elizalde!  I have something to add to the voluntary vs mandatory debate.  It doesn’t have to be either San Quentin or anything goes.  The key to the shelter strategy is diversity.  Everything from motel rooms for the infirm and at risk to micro landing campsites to large shelter/rehab facilities like Bybee Lakes Hope Center to parking lots for campers to mini house villages to large temporary/emergency shelters (especially in bad weather).  The goal should be to provide enough options so that our unhoused neighbors can make a choice that is right for them.  The community will have done its part by providing enough options to meet the needs of the unhoused.  At that point the community would be well within its rights from a legal and moral position to forbid ad hoc camping, which is both unsafe, unsanitary and a bad choice for all parties, especially the unhoused. Ultimately we all have to make a choice where we live.  Given that we have yet to discover the secret to a utopian society, everyone will not have equal choices.  But in my mind society has no obligation to grant a person the choice to live in an unsafe and unsanitary location that is harmful to both the individual and the community at large.  In fact society has an obligation to make sure this does not occur.

 Is A Shelter for Everyone too great a challenge for the people of Portland?  Was putting a human being on the moon too great a challenge for the US in 1968?  Was building what FDR called the Arsenal of Democracy too great a challenge for US to defeat Hitler in WWII?  Was public ownership of the Pacific coastline too big a challenge for Oregon?  Was the creation of Waterfront Park and the East Bank Esplanade and the Chinese Garden too great a challenge for the city of Portland?  To win the war on homelessness is a big goal, which will require many people stepping up to the plate in many ways.  It will require elected leaders who think big and are willing to use their bully pulpit to inspire us. Practically speaking, it will require us to spend the Metro 26-210 money wisely and place far greater emphasis on those who are living unsheltered in our community.  And government alone cannot solve the problem.  It will require the private sector to step up in a big way.  But this is possible.  Portland and other west coast cities not only have the greatest homelessness problems in the country.  They also have some of the most progressive populations and the most successful businesses in the country.  There is a saying that great ideas don’t fail for lack of money.  A dynamic Portland plan will surely entice the Amazons and the Apples and the Nikes and the Columbia Sportswears and the Microsofts to step up to the plate.  If Phil Knight gave $500 millions and $125 million to OHSU to fight cancer and cardiovascular disease, what would he and others give to fight the battle of our generation, homelessness?

And the problem goes far beyond shelter.  The national investment in high rises did not alone solve the problems of poverty and crime in the inner cities in the mid 20th century.  The solution begins with people.  We will need to do a far better job addressing the mental health and addiction challenges that our people face. Equally important, will need to help our unhoused neighbors connect to the world of work, as it is job skills, employment and self sufficiency that ultimately build pride and dignity in human beings.  It will require a brigade of community organizers to assist our houseless neighbors in setting up self governing communities that are capable of improving the quality of life for their residents. 

Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that holds a death grip on Portland and communities around the country, particularly on the west coast.  But we can beat homelessness, Portland, and if we succeed, it will become a model for the rest of the country.  

Thanks, John, for issuing the challenge!

David Dickson



On Sep 24, 2020, at 10:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810


Trena Sutton
 

I agree with David Dickson 100%. We need a multi faceted approach. We have so many living outdoors. 

I understand (per Rick Birkel, Director of Catholic Charities) that the Grotto land is ready for development but the City wants the land to have some Infrastructure put in place to the tune of $300K price tag. T2 would be a good option if the surrounding community would not oppose it as they did T1.

Each prospective shelter/Center must be inviting and the people residing there must be voluntary and have access to reasonable transportation. 

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 8:30 AM David Dickson <dicksondavidk@...> wrote:
Very well said, John Elizalde!  I have something to add to the voluntary vs mandatory debate.  It doesn’t have to be either San Quentin or anything goes.  The key to the shelter strategy is diversity.  Everything from motel rooms for the infirm and at risk to micro landing campsites to large shelter/rehab facilities like Bybee Lakes Hope Center to parking lots for campers to mini house villages to large temporary/emergency shelters (especially in bad weather).  The goal should be to provide enough options so that our unhoused neighbors can make a choice that is right for them.  The community will have done its part by providing enough options to meet the needs of the unhoused.  At that point the community would be well within its rights from a legal and moral position to forbid ad hoc camping, which is both unsafe, unsanitary and a bad choice for all parties, especially the unhoused. Ultimately we all have to make a choice where we live.  Given that we have yet to discover the secret to a utopian society, everyone will not have equal choices.  But in my mind society has no obligation to grant a person the choice to live in an unsafe and unsanitary location that is harmful to both the individual and the community at large.  In fact society has an obligation to make sure this does not occur.

 Is A Shelter for Everyone too great a challenge for the people of Portland?  Was putting a human being on the moon too great a challenge for the US in 1968?  Was building what FDR called the Arsenal of Democracy too great a challenge for US to defeat Hitler in WWII?  Was public ownership of the Pacific coastline too big a challenge for Oregon?  Was the creation of Waterfront Park and the East Bank Esplanade and the Chinese Garden too great a challenge for the city of Portland?  To win the war on homelessness is a big goal, which will require many people stepping up to the plate in many ways.  It will require elected leaders who think big and are willing to use their bully pulpit to inspire us. Practically speaking, it will require us to spend the Metro 26-210 money wisely and place far greater emphasis on those who are living unsheltered in our community.  And government alone cannot solve the problem.  It will require the private sector to step up in a big way.  But this is possible.  Portland and other west coast cities not only have the greatest homelessness problems in the country.  They also have some of the most progressive populations and the most successful businesses in the country.  There is a saying that great ideas don’t fail for lack of money.  A dynamic Portland plan will surely entice the Amazons and the Apples and the Nikes and the Columbia Sportswears and the Microsofts to step up to the plate.  If Phil Knight gave $500 millions and $125 million to OHSU to fight cancer and cardiovascular disease, what would he and others give to fight the battle of our generation, homelessness?

And the problem goes far beyond shelter.  The national investment in high rises did not alone solve the problems of poverty and crime in the inner cities in the mid 20th century.  The solution begins with people.  We will need to do a far better job addressing the mental health and addiction challenges that our people face. Equally important, will need to help our unhoused neighbors connect to the world of work, as it is job skills, employment and self sufficiency that ultimately build pride and dignity in human beings.  It will require a brigade of community organizers to assist our houseless neighbors in setting up self governing communities that are capable of improving the quality of life for their residents. 

Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that holds a death grip on Portland and communities around the country, particularly on the west coast.  But we can beat homelessness, Portland, and if we succeed, it will become a model for the rest of the country.  

Thanks, John, for issuing the challenge!

David Dickson



On Sep 24, 2020, at 10:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810












Linda Witt <linda.witt@...>
 

I totally agree with David Dickson. I’d also like to add that it’s a bit wearying to hear public officials bemoan the homeless problem as “really too big to solve.” That smacks of excuses. If our leaders and the public truly were invested in solving the problem, then we should be able to do it. As has been pointed out by many, if European countries can humanely shelter millions of refugees, we should be able to shelter a few thousand of our most vulnerable citizens and at the same time, keep our streets and public spaces clean and enjoyable for all.

 

Linda Witt 

From: pdxshelterforum@groups.io <pdxshelterforum@groups.io> On Behalf Of David Dickson
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 8:31 AM
To: pdxshelterforum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [pdxshelterforum] Tent Camping Solution

 

Very well said, John Elizalde!  I have something to add to the voluntary vs mandatory debate.  It doesn’t have to be either San Quentin or anything goes.  The key to the shelter strategy is diversity.  Everything from motel rooms for the infirm and at risk to micro landing campsites to large shelter/rehab facilities like Bybee Lakes Hope Center to parking lots for campers to mini house villages to large temporary/emergency shelters (especially in bad weather).  The goal should be to provide enough options so that our unhoused neighbors can make a choice that is right for them.  The community will have done its part by providing enough options to meet the needs of the unhoused.  At that point the community would be well within its rights from a legal and moral position to forbid ad hoc camping, which is both unsafe, unsanitary and a bad choice for all parties, especially the unhoused. Ultimately we all have to make a choice where we live.  Given that we have yet to discover the secret to a utopian society, everyone will not have equal choices.  But in my mind society has no obligation to grant a person the choice to live in an unsafe and unsanitary location that is harmful to both the individual and the community at large.  In fact society has an obligation to make sure this does not occur.

 

 Is A Shelter for Everyone too great a challenge for the people of Portland?  Was putting a human being on the moon too great a challenge for the US in 1968?  Was building what FDR called the Arsenal of Democracy too great a challenge for US to defeat Hitler in WWII?  Was public ownership of the Pacific coastline too big a challenge for Oregon?  Was the creation of Waterfront Park and the East Bank Esplanade and the Chinese Garden too great a challenge for the city of Portland?  To win the war on homelessness is a big goal, which will require many people stepping up to the plate in many ways.  It will require elected leaders who think big and are willing to use their bully pulpit to inspire us. Practically speaking, it will require us to spend the Metro 26-210 money wisely and place far greater emphasis on those who are living unsheltered in our community.  And government alone cannot solve the problem.  It will require the private sector to step up in a big way.  But this is possible.  Portland and other west coast cities not only have the greatest homelessness problems in the country.  They also have some of the most progressive populations and the most successful businesses in the country.  There is a saying that great ideas don’t fail for lack of money.  A dynamic Portland plan will surely entice the Amazons and the Apples and the Nikes and the Columbia Sportswears and the Microsofts to step up to the plate.  If Phil Knight gave $500 millions and $125 million to OHSU to fight cancer and cardiovascular disease, what would he and others give to fight the battle of our generation, homelessness?

 

And the problem goes far beyond shelter.  The national investment in high rises did not alone solve the problems of poverty and crime in the inner cities in the mid 20th century.  The solution begins with people.  We will need to do a far better job addressing the mental health and addiction challenges that our people face. Equally important, will need to help our unhoused neighbors connect to the world of work, as it is job skills, employment and self sufficiency that ultimately build pride and dignity in human beings.  It will require a brigade of community organizers to assist our houseless neighbors in setting up self governing communities that are capable of improving the quality of life for their residents. 

 

Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that holds a death grip on Portland and communities around the country, particularly on the west coast.  But we can beat homelessness, Portland, and if we succeed, it will become a model for the rest of the country.  

 

Thanks, John, for issuing the challenge!

 

David Dickson

 

 



On Sep 24, 2020, at 10:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

 

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.

A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.

Then:

  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.

Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

 

John Elizalde

503 740 9810

 


Candee Wilson
 

David--

I seriously think you ought to submit this as an op-ed piece to the Oregonian, Mercury, Willamette Week and send it off to City Hall, Multnomah County commissioners, the Governor or anyone else in authority. It's brilliant.

Do you mind if I post it wherever it's appropriate?

Candee Wilson
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR  97209
503-789-0332
On 9/25/2020 8:30 AM, David Dickson wrote:

Very well said, John Elizalde!  I have something to add to the voluntary vs mandatory debate.  It doesn’t have to be either San Quentin or anything goes.  The key to the shelter strategy is diversity.  Everything from motel rooms for the infirm and at risk to micro landing campsites to large shelter/rehab facilities like Bybee Lakes Hope Center to parking lots for campers to mini house villages to large temporary/emergency shelters (especially in bad weather).  The goal should be to provide enough options so that our unhoused neighbors can make a choice that is right for them.  The community will have done its part by providing enough options to meet the needs of the unhoused.  At that point the community would be well within its rights from a legal and moral position to forbid ad hoc camping, which is both unsafe, unsanitary and a bad choice for all parties, especially the unhoused. Ultimately we all have to make a choice where we live.  Given that we have yet to discover the secret to a utopian society, everyone will not have equal choices.  But in my mind society has no obligation to grant a person the choice to live in an unsafe and unsanitary location that is harmful to both the individual and the community at large.  In fact society has an obligation to make sure this does not occur.

 Is A Shelter for Everyone too great a challenge for the people of Portland?  Was putting a human being on the moon too great a challenge for the US in 1968?  Was building what FDR called the Arsenal of Democracy too great a challenge for US to defeat Hitler in WWII?  Was public ownership of the Pacific coastline too big a challenge for Oregon?  Was the creation of Waterfront Park and the East Bank Esplanade and the Chinese Garden too great a challenge for the city of Portland?  To win the war on homelessness is a big goal, which will require many people stepping up to the plate in many ways.  It will require elected leaders who think big and are willing to use their bully pulpit to inspire us. Practically speaking, it will require us to spend the Metro 26-210 money wisely and place far greater emphasis on those who are living unsheltered in our community.  And government alone cannot solve the problem.  It will require the private sector to step up in a big way.  But this is possible.  Portland and other west coast cities not only have the greatest homelessness problems in the country.  They also have some of the most progressive populations and the most successful businesses in the country.  There is a saying that great ideas don’t fail for lack of money.  A dynamic Portland plan will surely entice the Amazons and the Apples and the Nikes and the Columbia Sportswears and the Microsofts to step up to the plate.  If Phil Knight gave $500 millions and $125 million to OHSU to fight cancer and cardiovascular disease, what would he and others give to fight the battle of our generation, homelessness?

And the problem goes far beyond shelter.  The national investment in high rises did not alone solve the problems of poverty and crime in the inner cities in the mid 20th century.  The solution begins with people.  We will need to do a far better job addressing the mental health and addiction challenges that our people face. Equally important, will need to help our unhoused neighbors connect to the world of work, as it is job skills, employment and self sufficiency that ultimately build pride and dignity in human beings.  It will require a brigade of community organizers to assist our houseless neighbors in setting up self governing communities that are capable of improving the quality of life for their residents. 

Homelessness is a humanitarian crisis that holds a death grip on Portland and communities around the country, particularly on the west coast.  But we can beat homelessness, Portland, and if we succeed, it will become a model for the rest of the country.  

Thanks, John, for issuing the challenge!

David Dickson



On Sep 24, 2020, at 10:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810



Dave Albertine
 

John,

Actually John, this is a remarkably good list.  You have hit on most of the issues.  My only caution is that from my experience many folks are worried about sites that are too large.  In our micro landing concept we were looking for homeless groups of approximately 10 to 15 individuals in size who could be supported.  It is critical for any solutions to have input and buy-in from those on the street.  I see the biggest issue as land.  That is what we at Maddie’s Cart struggled with and the liability issues as well.

Dave



On Sep 24, 2020, at 8:53 PM, John Elizalde <john_elizalde@...> wrote:

I'm thinking there needs to be a blending of ideas swirling here.
A. expand existing villages where possible and soon.  Need a team doing that now.
Then:
  1. Land:  the city has land and is unable to make decisions about freeing it up for the houseless.  There is too much turf, bureaucracy and inertia and we have so many examples of that in practice.
  2. Land:  Private entities have land and are likely to have liability and clean up concerns.  Solve this and then see #10.
  3. Liability:  we'd need the city/county to assume liability, no small ask.
  4. Residents:  Mandatory = incarceration in the minds of many = DOA.  Voluntary = site would need to be attractive to potential residents.  And, we really don't want to spend a year or two conducting a survey of potential residents to find out they'd prefer a hotel room and won't go to a remote, hard to get to and hard to escape gravel lot on some windswept desert.  We have enough coalition folk who have lived or living experience with what would make a site attractive.  Seems a key is that it would need space for current campsites where people already know each other and have a sense of relationship to relocate easily, safely with the assurance that their posse is going to be together in the new place.
  5. Self-governed: yes, and with a new model:  A large space, capable of housing a hundred or more residents who self-divide into pre-existing camp-groups would need an operating model where each camp-group participates in the governing structure.  Lots of expertise in town for such a system.
  6. Hygiene/sanitation: Here is where the private sector steps up.  The money wars in city/county structure won't be able to spit out enough cash to support these necessities.  Perhaps the CARES money or the 26/210 money could be freed up - perhaps.  And, with the Joint Office being thrown under the bus this week who is going to bet on speedy city/county funding from any source?
  7. Food:  Here is the 'attractive piece'.  Why move with my current neighbors into another spot?  To have a toilet, shower, garbage service, no sweeps, rules you helped write and 3 meals a day.  Here is where the private sector and community writ large steps up.  Feel free to charge a few bucks a meal with vouchers given to those who do work (hmm, where have a heard of this?).
  8. Bottle return:  this seems like a necessity for people struggling for cash who have established a proven ability to collect and cash in cans.
  9. Social Services: provide space for willing agencies to apply their hard won city/county funding to these clients.
  10. Day to day management:  There are many agencies capable of doing this once the money is solved.
  11. Transportation:  very tough question given that open land and such services are not always coincident.  
  12. Money:  solve this and get out of the way as there is energy, passion and expertise aplenty to make this happen.
Everyone reading this will recognize that nothing here is new or even very remarkable.  We need a team to find the land and a team to crack open the piggy bank.  ONWARD

John Elizalde
503 740 9810