City Threatens to Cease Recognizing Neighborhood Association Considering Homeless Discrimination Bylaw

Comments

1
I imagine people are having second thoughts about electing Eudaly now, if they haven't already.
2
I like how the Mercury keeps saying "houseless" all the while stating "...a collection of tiny home" underneath the photo caption.

Oh, how I remember the Think Out Loud episode last year where the host interviewed 5 people of Hazelnut Grove, FOUR of which stated that they were choosing to live on the streets.

As a Liberal, I was offended at this, because there were FOUR people out there who are homeless through no fault of their own, and yet these folks at Hazlenut Grove were taking up their spots. There's a cap there, as far as "residents" and those who are choosing homelessness as a lifestyle should be kicked out, and those who are ACTUALLY homeless should be allowed to move in.

And by the way, who's going to check resident status at these meetings? There was but one sentence mentioning squatters... will they be allowed to attend? Who is going to stop them? What owners of nuisance RV'S? I mean, is there going to be someone at the door checking the status of all these people? Nope. So, the answer is yes: Squatters and owners of nuisance RV's will be allowed to attend. Glad that's settled.

I drive by Hazlenut Grove about 5 times a week, and over the time it's been there, it's become more cluttered and in disarray. This is just an awesome arrangement.
3
This is insane. Would Eudaly be ok with people who aren't Portland residents showing up and voting against her during her next election? Why not, if a legal Portland address isn't a requirement for a voting stake in an even more local system?
4
Serious question: if this becomes the new rule, what will prevent somebody, homeless or not, from going to any neighborhood association in the city and voting? The only way this actually is implemented is to exclude residency or address from any assessment of whether or not someone is eligible to vote. That will ultimately end the concept of neighborhood associations. Maybe that's the goal.
5
Maybe the homeless could join if they can provide they were once bonafide residences of the neighborhood, renting or owning a place prior to becoming "houseless". Otherwise any random dude could pitch a tent in the bushes and claim residency according to what the city proposes.
6
When did The Mercury start attracting so many rightwing nutjob commenters?
7
Yo, Euphonius, wanting basic local residency requirements for holding a position of local power is not "rightwing nutjob" territory, it's basic, sane democracy territory. The entire concept of neighborhood associations is premised on giving a voice to those with a stake in the neighborhood, which by definition does not apply to transients.

If I pitch a tent on your lawn, now all of a sudden I also get a say in what color you paint your bedroom, or what food you buy to stock your fridge? I don't think so.
8
For guys who project their own tioughness, you rightwingers sure get triggered easily.

No, it's definitely rightwing nutjob territory. You're right there in the bigot zone yourself.
9
I'm not sure what's "tough" about making a basic argument in favor of minimal mechanisms of the democratic process. And I think you have confused "right wing nutjob" with "people who disagree with me." Not a good look on you, Euphonius, and makes it hard to take anything you say seriously going forward.
10
Euphonius = ad hominem argument. FlavioSuave = logical argument.
11
We've had the same issues in our neighborhood. And, because we know the individuals so well, we know who is actually residing in the area, and who has just carpetbagged in for the purpose of "advocating" at meetings.

We don't require residency for membership in our Neighborhood association, but membership is defined as residents, business owners or representatives of businesses and organizations within the boundaries of our neighborhood. For cases like Hazelnut Grove, this would mean that HG as an organization could designate a single representative for their organization.

For houseless residents, we go by their identification card address. If the last address they used was inside the neighborhood, they're good. If they got an ID that uses an organization address for mail pick up or a general intersection/street location (which they are able to do) they're good. Finally, if they don't have an ID that fulfills this, they can sign a self-declaration document and list the intersection they live on/near on that document.

So, it's not just as easy as showing up but we've made accommodations. If there's someone that's so unfamiliar with the neighborhood that they don't even know the street names they can get weeded out pretty quickly.
12
I am posting this so others can see the hypocrisy of the Overlook Neighborhood Association's board chair:
This is from ONKA's summer newsletter by Chris Trejbal, OKNA Board Chair
"Overlook, like most of North Portland, has a complex history when it comes to discrimination and race. We have not always been exemplars of inclusivity nor accepting of diversity. We cannot ignore that past, and we must be better today and in the future. We will stand together against the hate. The Overlook Neighborhood Association welcomes refugees, immigrants, people of any color or ethnicity, people of any religious belief, and people of any sexual orientation or gender identity. In short, we are a welcoming place for all. We will not tolerate hateful rhetoric that scapegoats these communities or that threatens our neighbors. We will not remain idle when any member of our community is targeted by bigotry. We are stronger together as a neighborhood and city." http://www.overlookneighborhood.org/news…

Apparently, Chris Trejbal's (and many on the ONKA board) compassion is extended only to home owners and people who hold a lease. The ONKA meetings are full of people claiming to have compassion, yet they offer no examples of their compassion - just their vitriol for the entire homeless population.
13
rene503 - if I show up and stand on your tent, I suppose that means I get a say in what you do with your tent. Oh, I don't? Why not? Because it's your tent that you own and I don't own it? Why do you have such a lack of compassion for me? I'm just trying to have a say in the tent I'm standing on, while you insist on being an exclusionary bigot and telling me it's "your" tent!