With all due respect to Commissioner Saltzman's priorities, at most this relocation is going to cost the city pocket change and it will be a one-time expense, for things like power washing the lot, which is currently crusty with pigeon droppings. R2DToo will continue to pay its own water and electric bills just as it does now. R2DToo will continue to pay all its own expenses, including liability insurance, maintenance and upkeep, laundry, etc., with money it fundraises and at present there is no plan to get any kind of regular financial support from the city, nor has the R2DToo board even discussed asking the city for money.

It is frustrating to hear city officials say things like "we don't want spend money on camps" or "we need to stay focused on getting people into housing" when the subject of R2DToo comes up. Commissioners Saltzman and Fish, at least, have used these fall-back soundbites to avoid dealing directly with the problem at hand: Portland, like hundreds of other cities, has thousands of people sleeping on its streets year-round, a number that has only been increasing, and all levels of government have failed to address this problem. R2DToo is a response to that failure. The goal has always been to show that the unhoused are capable of self-organizing and building a sustainable level of community support for keeping people safe, helping them manage their health, keeping them out of parks and doorways, and providing a measure of stability they need to address their situations. It is not a substitute for housing that isn't available anyway, it isn't a substitute for traditional indoor shelter space that is in short supply anyway, it is a supplement -- a stop-gap measure to deal with a crisis of the government's making. If Saltzman or any other government officials wants places like R2DToo to go away, then the solution is simple: create and maintain housing policies that actually work for people by insuring an adequate supply of affordable housing instead of policies that work only for Wall Street banks and wealthy property developers.

There is always going to be homelessness, no matter how many places you open up for them and regardless of the economy.

I live a block from the new site. I still think this is a bad idea, but if they're good neighbors (no noise, trash, camping in local parks, etc.), I will be too.

Maybe they'll help on local problems like the 9th Ave. convenience store that sells drug paraphernalia and weapons.

The site is zoned EXd. Look it up. Any camping is a prohibited use within the zone. Even if it were an allowed use, the site is still subject to the City's design review process. The very same issues that came up at 4th and Burnside are present at the Lovejoy Ramp. If the City is interested in due process, as they seemed to be at the other site, they will go through the correct process at this site, file a land use application, and then deny it since there is no grounds under the City's own code to ALLOW this use at this site.

What legal authority does Fritz have to move a camp onto city owned land that is zoned EX. Like pdxMB, I too have read the Portland development code and a campground is definitely not listed as a permitted or conditional use for this zoning. If any private citizen who owned a property zoned EX wanted to put a campground on their property they would have to go through a comprehensive plan map amendment and zone change process which would require notice being given to surrounding property owners, a waiting period for comments by the affected property owners, a public hearing, and then a vote by city council. Why does Fritz think it is OK for her to ignore the city's zoning code. She seems to think she's a queen not an elected official who is supposed to uphold the law. On Thursday she had a private meeting with residents of Station Place, an elderly housing building next to the site, but she wouldn't allow any reporters to attend the meeting and wouldn't take their questions after the meeting. Why didn't she invite the residents of the 8-9 other residential buildings that are within two blocks of the site? My suspicion is that she thought she could control or intimidate a small group of 55+residents but knew that a younger crowd would not put up with her B.S.

Not really legal and the city caved, but good for them. They seem to care and want to improve their lot.

In turn, can the city get harsh on the travelers without a Theriault jihad?

I'd like to see some reporting about whether it is in fact legal to allow camping in a lot zoned EX. Denis specifically points out that it's illegal to have food carts on the current R2D2 lot, but no mention of the seemingly illegality of moving the camp (I don't know how a permanent camp qualifies as a "rest area," but whatever) to a lot zoned EX.

Guys. Check out page 7 of this document.

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/index.cf…

Mass shelters, short-term housing, households, group homes, and outdoor commercial recreational sites are all allowed in EX-zoned parcels, either outright or on a limited/conditional basis.

The site would be treated as a transitional housing campground, under state law, which allows each city to have up to two. This one would join Dignity Village at Sunderland Yard.

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/446.265

The design review piece is still a question that needs discussion. Could be why Fritz has said the council needs to do some work approving this deal beyond just blessing the settlement.

And those zoning codes define each Use Category and in turn, the definitions of each Use Category use words that are also defined elsewhere in the zoning code (or have their ordinary dictionary meaning). For instance, Group Living is characterized by the residential occupancy of a structure. Structure, in turn, is defined as any object constructed in or on the ground (with a list of examples). Constructed isn't defined specifically, so it gets a standard dictionary definition.

Its a huge stretch to say that tents fall within the definition of structure.

Thanks Denis. Does that mean the new "rest area" is going to be an actual structure? As R2D2 currently exists, I don't know how it would qualify as "mass shelters, short-term housing, households, group homes, and outdoor commercial recreational sites". Only "outdoor commercial recreational sites" comes close to what R2D2 really is, and even that is a real stretch.

Denis, ask the Commissioner for letters from land use attorneys who have contacted her office, rather than pretending you know something about this. R2DToo is not a "Mass shelter, short-term housing, household, group home, or outdoor commercial recreational site." Each of these uses comes with specific definitions in code, all of which pertain to permanent structures.

I'm not opposed to a conversation about a camp in this location, but the City using the code in one hand to move it off a site in downtown and then ignoring the same code for the alternate site is sloppy and disingenuous. Coming from the office of a former Planning Commissioner who was a stickler for making sure that the rules apply to everyone equally, I find this flippancy really irritating.

Funny you should mention letters sent from land use attorneys, pdxMB. It's a good point. Shut up and report. So, while I was making my rounds today, I came across one and linked it in today's post on the settlement.

http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/Blogto…