A group of Pearl District neighbors and developers working to put off homeless rest area Right 2 Dream Too’s planned move to a city lot beneath the Lovejoy ramp of the Broadway Bridge issued a statement today confirming recent reports on the painstaking progress of their talks and touting Mayor Charlie Hales’ “leadership” of the process.
“We have met with the City and Right to Dream multiple times in these last 12 days. Based on those meetings we have gained a clearer and better understanding of the program needs of Right to Dream,” it says. “Working together, we have identified several sites that may be able to accommodate the camp and its proposed operation over the next year. We have looked at several housing solutions. These options involve roofs, not just tents.”
The statement, by spokesman John Mangan, comes the same day the Portland City Council had been scheduled to vote on a zoning letter okaying R2DToo’s move. That vote, however, was formally pulled back yesterday by its frustrated sponsor, Commissioner Amanda Fritz, after Hales asked her to let the talks with developers keep playing out.
That delay was the second since Fritz announced she had a plan to move Right 2 Dream Too. During an initial hearing October 3 on Fritz’s proposal, developer Homer Williams beseeched Hales for more time to work up alternatives.
Williams and his partner, Dike Dame, have said the Bureau of Development Services misinterpreted city zoning code and taking shortcuts in approving the Lovejoy site. They also said the lot in question is covered by a parking agreement signed as part of a development deal with their company. Other opponents said the idea of tent camping is an inhumane solution to homelessness—never mind that waiting for a more substantial solution would take years and millions of dollars that would do little for helping the 1,700 people sleeping outside every night right now.
As I reported in Hall Monitor this week, Fritz has had some pretty harsh things to stay about the talks, whereas Hales’ office was bullish. A spokeswoman for Hales said the talks had begun to allow for the possibility of some tent component.
The full statement is after the cut.
They say they have several sites with roofs, but they can’t say where or what? How are they going to be able to get input from the squatters if they refuse to inform them of potential options? By the time they finally getting around to saying what they have in mind, it’s going to be a shitty deal, anyway. This is just sugar coating on one, big, continuing, stall tactic.
Putting LEADERSHIP in quotes was a cheap shot Denis.
Maybe it was actually a quote, not a paraphrase?
Exactly what you’ve done here is rather really great. Cheers
And it wasn’t a cheap shot, either. I highlighted it to call attention to a rhetorical shift. The statement casts the mayor as the official guiding the talks, instead of Commissioner Fritz.
Read the first word of the title of this post, and thought it was going to be about the new Pearl Jam album. Guess not…
Denis can you provide coverage of the question of what this “zoning letter” would mean for every other property in this zone? Can you ask the city if it would allow outdoor camping outright with no need for permit?
Blabby: The letter, which we’ve linked, is pretty clear on that: It says a service like R2DToo (and that’s an important distinction) is an allowed use in C and E zones, absent other restrictions, like a historic design review.
I am not sure if its been covered elsewhere, but is there a long term plan for these folks? Is there a time frame on using this site? Are they expected to pay something for the use of this space at some point?
Was there much discussion of that aspect of this at the Council? I simply can’t imagine that they would intentionally allow these camps far and wide across the city.
Blabby, Denis needs to ask Amanda about whether it is in fact her intention to accommodate more people on sites like the Lovejoy Ramp. She has stated that the site can and should accommodate up to 1,000 campers.
Denis, you should also ask why Central City Parking Review, which was done for a nearly identical change in use of parking only last year on this site, is not being required of this new use. The City’s answer is inconsistent with the action they took on this only last year for the same parking lot.