February 24, 2004
(Updated) City Council Likely To Designate Part of Sunderland Yard As A Campground?
Sten, Leonard Seek To Protect Dignity Village Using State Law
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
Our intention to cover this goes back to Randy Gragg's "Sight Lines" column in this weekend's Sunday Oregonian, but we've been off assembling some material we wanted to have on hand before we got into it.
This Thusday afternoon, the City Council will consider a resolution, sponsored by Commissioner Erik Sten and Commissioner Randy Leonard, which would "[d]esignate a portion of the property known as Sunderland Yard at 9325 NE Sunderland Road as a campground under the terms of ORS 446.265."
Sunderland Yard, of course, has served as home to Dignity Village since September 2001.
Let's first turn to Gragg for some background on the current situation:
In November, talk radio crusader Lars Larson reached past the city government, which has been mostly sympathetic to Dignity Village, and filed a camp-busting complaint with the Oregon Building Code Division. It was a direct hit on the village's Achilles' heel: Its structures don't meet state codes.
In response, the ever-plucky villagers and their supporters have hatched a plan. Working with lawyers from the Oregon Law Center and the premier Portland land-use firm, Ball Janik, Dignity is asking the City Council to officially designate its current site as a "campground."
That gives them loads of wiggle room around any possible code violation. What's more, the village wants the city to give it an official lease, a hook-up to water and sewer and free utilities -- all to allow the villagers to take a step toward their dream of an ecologically advanced transitional housing community.
(Before we continue, a brief remark or two about the above-mentioned move by Lars Larson. In their letter of complaint, Adam P Schwend of KXL wrote, "Mr. Larson and I are filing this official complaint because of our concern for public safety and fairness." Anyone who does not let loose with a derisive snort at that rationalization is blessed with never having had any exposure to Lars Larson's opinions on, well, anything. It should also be noted that supporters of Dignity Village both inside and outside City Hall find themselves in the ironic position of thanking Larson for making such a fuss, as it has prompted the current attempt to legitimize Dignity Village. Not quite what Larson had in mind, we don't think.)
For further explanation of this Thursday's move, let's go back to a January article from the Portland Tribune:
An obscure state statute that hasn't been invoked before allows for cities to create such zones within urban growth boundaries. Marshall Runkel, an aide to city Commissioner Erik Sten, said he's working on the resolution to that effect and expects to bring it to City Council by mid-February.
The statute allows for people who lack permanent shelter and cannot be placed in other low income housing to live in yurts, defined in the statute as a "round, domed tent of canvas or other weather resistant material, having a rigid framework, wooden floor, one or more windows or skylights and that may have plumbing, electrical service or heat."
For still more perspective on the current goings-on, there is an article in the current edition of street roots, which while not available via their website, is available in a two-part scanned-in form via Dignity Village's website here and then here.
You can also read Chapter 446 of the Oregon Revised Statutes if you want to see for yourself what ORS 446.265 entails. It begins:
(1) A municipality may approve the establishment of a campground inside an urban growth boundary to be used for providing transitional housing accommodations. The accommodations may consist of separate facilities, in the form of yurts, for use as living units by one or more individuals or by families. The person establishing the accommodations may provide access to water, toilet, shower, laundry, cooking, telephone or other services either through separate or shared facilities. The accommodations shall provide parking facilities and walkways.
See the above pull-quote from the Tribune for how the law defines yurts. Whether or not what's in store for Dignity Village qualifies as a yurt is something that likely will come up at some point. It's not hard to imagine that Lars Larson might challenge the designation on those grounds.
Just what is in store for Dignity Village, presuming this resolution passes, and further presuming that the City comes to adequate terms of some sort regarding its continued existence? The possibilities are detailed in a proposal prepared by the Dignity Village Council in conjunction with supporters, including The City Repair Project.
So will the resolution pass? Certainly, Commissioners Leonard and Sten, as sponsors, will vote to adopt it. As of the previously-linked Tribune article from the end of January, it was expected that Commissioner Jim Francesconi will not support it, while Commissioner Saltzman and Mayor Vera Katz were waiting to see what it said.
However, in her weekly OregonLive webcast today, Mayor Katz said, "That will pass tomorrow, I'm sure."
While we'll leave aside the fact that it's on Thursday's agenda, not tomorrow's, we should point out that the above does not necessarily indicate that the Mayor will vote to approve the resolution. But if she's confident that it will pass, that would mean either she or Saltzman will be joining Leonard and Sten, thereby making it at least a 3-2 vote in favor.
But even with the presumed designation of Dignity Village's portion of Sunderland Yard as a campground, the more difficult steps remain ahead.
"The other pieces that need to have some more discussion [on]," said Katz in her weekly webcast, "are how long are we going to allow Dignity Village there, how are we going to deal with the zone change, and are we going to provide some limited resources to them to help them hook up to their sewer and water needs and whatever?"
"Those are the ones," she concluded, "that are a little bit more contentious."