The rationale for placing Right 2 Dream Too on a spot of industrial land on the Central Eastside always seemed a bit too convenient.
In a “zoning confirmation letter” from the city’s Bureau of Development Services, officials offered up baroque arguments that a homeless rest area like R2DToo amounted to a “community service”—a land use type that might be allowed on industrial property in some instances. But the bureau said that R2DToo was definitively not a “mass shelter” or “short-term housing,” two community service types which are prohibited on industrial land. (Here’s the same basic argument, made about another piece of land R2DToo wanted to move to.)
Business owners swore the reasoning was illegal. Now the argument appears to have been put to rest.
The state’s Land Use Board of Appeals has agreed with the Central Eastside Industrial Council, which as long argued that the city’s reasoning was awful. In a 69-page opinion [PDF] issued today, the board says Portland City Council overstepped when it ruled the rest area could move to the plot at SE 3rd and Harrison.
“A mass shelter and the proposed tent camp appear to provide the same basic function: overnight shelter and related services for houseless persons who otherwise have no place to sleep,” the board wrote in the opinion. After a good deal of technical analysis about the nature of tent camps versus other types of shelter, the board found: “The city’s interpretations are inconsistent with the express language of the relevant [Portland City Code] provisions and for that reason alone cannot be affirmed.”
The reversal throws R2DToo’s ongoing plans to move from its long-term home at West Burnside and 4th into confusion, as an October 31 deadline looms for the well-respected organization to leave that plot.
Reached by phone this afternoon, R2DToo co-founder Ibrahim Mubarak hadn’t yet heard which way the opinion went. His group was headed to a weekly meeting with Commissioner Amanda Fritz and Mayor Charlie Hales’ offices at 3:30 pm.
“[The city] already started putting pipes and stuff down in there, so it’s going to be interesting,” Mubarak said, informed of the LUBA opinion. “It’s going to be very interesting.”
Update, 6:45 pm: R2DToo wound up canceling its meeting with the city, Mubarak says, and is having its attorney deal with the Portland Development Commission, which has inked a deal to purchase the land the encampment currently sits on.
Asked if his organization would push to remain on that land, Mubarak said: “You better believe it.”
Original story:
A message left with Fritz’s office wasn’t immediately returned.
Meanwhile, Brian Worley, a spokesman for Hales, said: “City Attorneys are reviewing the decision now, and will advise Council on next steps.” It’s possible the city could challenge the decision in the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The Oregonian first reported on LUBA’s decision.
Today’s ruling jibes with confidence that city officials had evinced about the zoning decision when it was made back in February. At the time, only Commissioner Nick Fish voted against the move, voicing a litany of concerns that included the zoning rationale.
Hales took exception to Fish’s remarks at the time, saying: “Commissioner Fish’s comments were erroneous. We didn’t override our code. I believe that this is a legal use.”
Asked today about the decision, Fish said it is “certainly no cause for celebration.”
“This means that R2DToo can’t move to a better site,” he said. “Some would argue this was preventable if we would have listened more attentively.”
How far-reaching the LUBA opinion is remains to be seen. It most immediately affects R2DToo, of course, but it’s possible it could have sway if city officials look to site future organized camps, and Fish believes it creates difficulties for a massive homeless campus that’s been proposed at the city’s Terminal 1 site, which is also zoned for industrial use.
One point of potential interest: the land-use board suggests that tents might be considered “structures” under Portland’s zoning code. Hales’ administration has been a fan of using tents as a way to potentially skirt zoning requirements, going so far as to call tiny houses built for homeless Portlanders “hard tents.”
Tents are not the solution. Would this city do something, ANYTHING, to address permanent, affordable housing for the most vulnerable population????
What’s your proposed solution, ktm?
This is not a simple issue with simple answers.
There are things the city could do to increase the supply of affordable housing, like zoning for additional density, funding city-owned affordable housing and property trusts, increasing the use of ADUs, etc.
But most all of these things either cost a lot of money, which most taxpayers balk at paying given Portland’s historical mismanagement of government funds, or things that established groups (neighborhood associations, i.e., NIMBYs, and business groups) vehemently oppose.
@ktm — I don’t think tents are “the” solution, but given budget and building/zoning constraints I think they’re a sensible part of a solution. Having structured, regulated campgrounds are kind of like a hospital’s ER — not where anybody should remain, but a temporary place to stay before they can move onto the best care (a shelter, temporary housing, health care facilities (addiction treatment and/or ailment treatment), etc.). Tent space is a cheap alternative to actual buildings.
There needs to be an emphasis on temporary, though, and budget and land constraints keep tripping up things like moving folks into treatment, job placement, etc. There also needs to be oversight and structure: see the disasters that are (were?) the Springwater Trail and Laurelhurst Park. There also needs to be an emphasis on (at a minimum) a state-wide solution. We *have* to acknowledge that people do come to Portland to be homeless and the city can’t take on that entire burden. The Oregon government needs to step up.
Ultimately “the” solution is to get folks housing and a stable income to afford said housing (never perfectly achievable but still the ideal target) but we can’t keep dismissing “tent cities” and “warehousing” as steps toward the solution, otherwise nothing’s gonna change. And, putting my NIMBY hat on, I’d rather have organized, local encampments rather than people sacked out in the alley behind my house or on the sidewalks. I’m much happier with sweeps if there’s an actual place for folks to go.
(Guido: Yes, bunkhouses could fill a gap in here. I think the trick is figuring out how to make them affordable yet give developers an acceptable return on investment.)