In the face of rising homelessness across Portland, the city has proposed creating a number of sanctioned campsites for unhoused people across the city.
The sites, dubbed “Safe Rest Villages,” are expected to serve as alternatives to the city and county’s indoor shelters and offer similar amenities, like showers, storage, security, and access to social services. The plan, currently under the direction of City Commissioner Dan Ryan’s office, is to use vacant city property to create six Safe Rest Villages in Portland by the end of the year. Those sites will be operated by yet-to-be-determined homeless service providers, similar to the role Do Good Multnomah plays at St. Johns Village, a property leased by City of Portland and Multnomah County’s Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS).
Portland City Council is still figuring out where, exactly, those six villages will be located. But now, thanks to new data shared with council, commissioners are getting a little closer to narrowing down the options. All city bureaus were given a June 30 deadline to send City Council a list of surplus properties overseen by their bureau that could be used to house a Safe Rest Village. They came up with a total of 71 sites.
A spreadsheet published Friday by Ryan’s office breaks down each potential village property by location, size, utility hookups, access to public transit, parking access, and potential soil contaminants, among other descriptors. It appears the majority of available city properties are located in North and East Portland, with some dense clusters in the city’s inner core.
To visualize the current available options, the Mercury marked each location on a map. Take a look for yourself:
Despite owning dozens of properties, Prosper Portland intentionally gave Ryan a tiny, bad-faith list of properties that they know aren’t suitable. He should hold them accountable but he won’t.
Can we please stop calling these “houseless villages” or “homeless villages”.
First, it’s a misnomer. You can’t house people in villages without houses.
Second, it implies that it’s a revolving door situation that won’t solve the problem of homelessness.
My suggestion: Rehoming communities. That’s the truth; we’re getting people who lost their home back into stable, affordable housing without attaching a negative label.
Why should efforts to address the homeless crisis always come with a multi-million dollar price tag? This time $20 million. Why do many formal encampments seem like institutionalized settings? Why choose shadeless gravel parking lots surrounded with chain link fencing wrapped with tarps to obscure camp inhabitants from public sight? Are they meant to look and feel like internment camps? Are they designed to alienate those who will avoid such dismal camps and indoctrinate those so desperate for help they can be used for a PR sales pitch?