February 26, 2004

(Updated) City Council Designates Dignity Village Site As A Campground

Resolution Uses State Law To Protect Homeless Community

Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.

With a last-minute change to the language, to specify that only the one acre occupied by Dignity Village was covered by the resolution, the City Council this afternoon -- as predicted -- designated a portion of Sunderland Yard as a campground under Oregon law.

First, a bit of the basics from KGW's early report:

Portland City Council members voted to designate the village as a permanent campground, thereby allowing the groups� tents and other forms of shelter to remain in Sunderland Yard, a city-owned leaf-composting facility close to the airport and downtown.

...

For village residents, the city's designation of the area as a permanent housing camp will allow it to remain in place for at least the next 10 years.

Technically, as we understand it, what this resolution actually does is clear the way for what likely will be difficult and possibly contentious negotiations for a new and longer lease for Dignity Village to occupy the Sunderland Yard site.

A nearly three-hour hearing which included only three real voices of opposition (about which more in a moment), the City Council passed the resolution on a 4-1 vote. Commissioner Jim Francesconi was the sole vote against the measure.

Rather than trying to comprehensively document the entire three-hour session, we'll cull through our notes for some remarks worth highlighting here. Even without being comprehensive, it's nonetheless likely to be somewhat extensive.

In opening the hearing, Commissioner Erik Sten (who along with Commissioner Randy Leonard sponsored the resolution) said that the day's testimony, indeed Dignity Village itself, was an "interesting, emotional, controversial, and important story."

Saying that we would continue to have a homeless problem until we address "so many other issues," Sten argued that we had to make "room for unique, private initiatives" such as Dignity Village.

Commissioner Leonard echoed that argument. "The causes of homelessness are many," he said. "Therefore it would seem to me to be that the solutions need to be many."

Explaining that his position on the homeless community evolved after visiting Sunderland Yard, he added, "I've come to believe that Dignity Village works."

Following these introductions, testimony began with four invited panels. First, the current leadership of Dignity Village presented some history and background of the community. Second, supporters of the community testified in its defense -- including a representative of The City Repair Project, addressing some of the possible future plans for Dignity Village. Third, alumni of Dignity Village testified about their experience of the community.

The fourth invited testimony was from Jeanne Nyquist of the Bureau of Maintenance, who presenting the findings of a ">report on the impact of Dignity Village (pdf) upon the City's operations at Sunderland Yard.

Amongst her testimony, Nyquist asserted that the Bureau of Maintenance had not received a payment from Dignity Village -- per their agreement to pay $2000/month -- since July 2003.

This apparent attempt to undercut Dignity Village's credibility before the Council itself was later undercut by the Village's treasurer stating that the Village had paid up through October 1, 2003 -- the end of the term of their lease. Commissioner Sten then explained that "Dignity Village has made all payments" and that he had not requested any further payments after the October lease expiration -- in essence providing a sort of grace period while the City Council determined the next steps regarding the Sunderland Yard site.

For what it's worth, this "report" from the Bureau of Management caught Commissioner Leonard at least off-guard. He did, however, later indicate to us that nothing about it sounded convincing to him.

It should be noted, perhaps, that the Bureau of Management has not particularly been fond of Dignity Village during its time at Sunderland Yard. It should also be noted, perhaps, that the Bureau of part of the Department of Transportation -- part of the portfolio of Commissioner Francesconi, who would go on to be the single vote against the resolution.

(As long as we're throwing out "perhaps" we hope that we perhaps will be forgiven for feeling as if the sudden appearance of this "report" -- at least some of whose assertions were later refuted -- seemed an awful lot like an attempted hatchet job. Fortunately, it seems to have been an entirely ineffective one.)

Following Nyquist's testimony, a lone libertarian testified against the resolution, arguing somewhat perplexingly -- given the independent nature of Dignity Village -- that people should not be turning to the government to support them. We don't know for certain that he is a libertarian, but we make that assessment based upon the fact that his arguments possessed the same lack of concern for (or recognition of) reality that typifies most libertarian rhetoric.

It would be difficult to adequately report on the long march of Dignity Village supporters who testified on behalf of the campground resolution. Other such reports will likely crop up, and we will post links to them as updates to this post.

Which means we've come to the closing statements and Council vote. Alphabetically speaking, Commissioner Francesconi went first. Before we get into this, readers might want to check in with this post to the satyrical 1221 SW 4th weblog, wherein "Jim" is seen to say:

Well, I better get dressed and shaved for the meeting. While I'm at it, I probably ought to practice my "hard vote" look in front of the mirror. You know, the one where I squint and scowl and look really pained? It's my DeNiro. Works every time.

Now that the expected tone is set, let's continue. Francesconi opened his remarks using a common tactic when one is voting against something: Listing the things upon which he and supporters of the resolution agree. First: "There's much good in what's going on." Second: "There is an enormous challenge facing the homeless." Third: "There has to be more money in the system aimed at the very poor."

"I do not have the answers to homelessness," Francesconi said, "nor do I portray myself as the expert."

(This struck us as mildly amusing and at least slightly cynical, since the "we don't know everything" argument previously had been used -- and would be used again shortly -- by supporters of the resolution as a way to explain why supporting a creative grassroots approach made sense to them.)

Continuing the strange rationale: "Lowering the standards for housing for the poor is not the right direction."

(Sigh. Given what others had said about the lack of enough shelters and the absence of enough affordable housing, one would think that the rational response would be to embrace innovative interim solutions that protect the health and wellbeing of homeless people. Apparently, rationalism was not on the Commissioner's agenda for the day. Someone will smack us for being semi-blunt about that, but it seems to be to be an inescapable conclusion. Then again, I once bizarrely accused another commissioner of being illiterate, and we both got over that one.)

Scan back up to the piece of satire which we quoted above, so you'll be ready for Francesconi's concluding comment: "I reluctantly and sadly vote no."

Commissioner Leonard responded to Francesconi's arguments far more respectfully and diplomatically than we have. "I respect his viewpoints," he said of his colleague. "I take pause and listen."

Leonard explained that when it came to Dignity Village, he began where Francesconi is, but ended up where Commissioner Sten is now.

Referencing the conservative movement which repeatedly had limited the state's tax authority and the current ongoing recession, Leonard said that "people at the bottom of the ladder are being shoved off the ladder."

Dignity Village, he said, offers a possible model "at a time when we're trying to figure out how to provide basic services to people."

"I don't get what all the concern is about paying for the water and sewer," Leonard said, in part comparing the Village to the resources required to fund more traditional solutions such as shelters. "Seems like quite a deal to me." Leonard, of course, voted in favor of the resolution.

Commissioner Dan Saltzman -- whose intended vote was something of a mystery to us -- began by saying, "I support the transitional zoning we're going to allow here for Dignity Village." He also argued that it is very important for Dignity Village to be self-sustaining, saying that any City money spent on Dignity Village is money that can't be spent on other solutions.

"We don't consider this to be a permanent part of the solution," Saltzman said. He added: "I don't support funding from the City."

He also expressed concern that "any forgiveness of water payments results in higher payments for everyone else."

(We should note that somewhere in all of this, we wondered why it was okay for some Commissioners to find breaks, incentives, abatements, or whatever for major development deals such as South Waterfront, but unthinkable to consider breaks on utilities for something like Dignity Village. But then we remembered how hard housing advocates have had to fight during planning processes for projects such as South Waterfront to even get semi-affordable housing anywhere close to the near-term development agenda for those projects. We can bend over backwards for massive development deals, but heaven forbid we talk about giving Dignity Village a break on their water or sewer bills?)

Regardless of his concerns over what should or should not be included in the next steps between the City and Dignity Village, Saltzman voted to adopt this particular resolution.

"You can see why I didn't bring the lease today," Commissioner Sten said as he started his closing remarks. He then praised the hearing as "one of the best discussions I've ever heard in this chamber."

"We're not going to be harmed," Sten said, "by a small band of rebels trying something that God forbid might actually work for some of them." And addressing the concerns over government funding, he added: "Dignity Village is one of the least subsidized things I've ever seen."

"Shelters are full ... we're years away from an affordable housing solution," Sten said, explaining why the City needs to support creative solutions such as Dignity Village. "There's going to be people left behind."

"It's not going to be easy to get to the next stage," he added. "But I didn't think we'd get to this stage."

Commissioner Sten, of course, voted in favor of the resolution.

"If you're not interested in repealing the anti-camping ordinance, and you don't have enough shelter beds," said Mayor Vera Katz explaining how members of the Council had ever come to Dignity Village's aid in the first place, "then you'd better come up with something to deal with the rascals who are moving around and sitting up tents." She explained that "rascals" was meant to be an endearing term -- or perhaps she said affectionate (our notes didn't capture it).

Praising the goals and mission of Dignity Village, as well as its way of life and values, Katz came aroudn to a perspective that had come up more than once already.

"We're not wise, we don't have all the answers," she said. "Let's give it a try."

As sometimes happens at hearings on issues with rather profound social import, Katz then made a personal observation:

Of all the people on the Council, I know what homelessness means. When I came to this country -- when I got off the boat -- there was no home. There a home only if there was a kind person who opened the door.

"For those of you who support each other, thank you," she concluded. "This is what this country is all about." Mayor Katz, as you can guess, voted for the resolution.

So. In favor of the resolution to designate one acre of Sunderland Yard as a campground and begin to negotiate with Dignity Village over future plans: Leonard, Saltzman, Sten, and Katz. Against the resolution: Francesconi.

It is expected that the matter of a new lease for Dignity Village -- and all of the likely-contentious issues those next steps will raise -- will come before City Council by sometime this Spring.

Posted at 07:27 PM | PermalinkComments (5) | TrackBacks (1)
More In Design & Development, Livability, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »