FIVE MONTHS after Portland City Council sanctioned an “overnight sleeping” program that lets small numbers of Portlanders living in cars or campers find nighttime refuge in the parking lots of sympathetic churches and nonprofits, the city has found its first so-called “host,” the Mercury has learned.
Moreland Presbyterian Church is looking to open its small lot at SE 18th and Bybee to a lone vehicle occupied by a single woman, either with or without a family, city and church officials confirm.
But while officials and advocates had hoped for a quiet launch at Moreland, that plan has gone awry. According to emails and other documents first obtained by the Mercury through a public records request, a handful of neighbors who feel blindsided are actively trying to pressure the church into overhauling, or even canceling, the project.
“This has already divided this very cohesive several block area,” Phyllis Boyer wrote to the Portland Housing Bureau. “I’m very angry about that, as I have lived here since 1988. I wonder if this is what the city had in mind when it passed this resolution so quickly.”
With other churches considering stepping up as “hosts,” Moreland’s become something of a guinea pig. The resulting outcry threatens to overshadow the good, if limited, step the program represents—while also highlighting precisely why it’s needed. People who don’t often come downtown or follow homelessness issues don’t always realize one of the more peculiar elements of life on the streets: Sometimes people who don’t have a house don’t look like they don’t have a house.
Some of the most unsettling complaints, at first blush, seem to reflect that point. One neighbor wrote in detail about the threat of rape, car prowling, mental illness, drug abuse, and other ills stereotypically associated with homeless camps.
“My neighbors already feel obligated to bring their children indoors when transients frequent our neighborhood on Tuesdays, which is recycling day,” Brandt Boisseranc wrote to Commissioner Nick Fish this month. “And now they have more reason to be concerned about their children’s safety. This does not even mention the possibility that their children will be exposed to sights and sounds that they have no business seeing at their age—in their own front yard.”
But that also misses the realities of what Moreland is proposing. While the city program allows churches and nonprofits to host up to four vehicles, Moreland will host only one—a far cry from a “homeless camp.” Guests at Moreland will be clients of respected housing-services provider JOIN. Equally important: The church is providing a portable toilet, in compliance with city rules that also say campers must be quiet, out of parking lots during business hours, and refrain from idling their car engines.
To soothe concerns and address the telephone game being played around the neighborhood, Moreland is planning a meeting at 7 pm on Monday, June 4.
Pastor Tom McKnight said he was troubled when he saw a flier being passed around with the words “homeless camp” on it. He’s hoping the meeting will “clear the air” and share the real story about what the church is proposing to do.
“We’re talking about one car that would be occupied by a single woman or a woman and children, and whoever would be here would have worked with JOIN,” McKnight says, taking pains not to be judgmental about the program’s more vocal critics. “We’ve tried—publicly—to say this. It’s fair to say there’s more opposition than we would have anticipated.”
Boisseranc, in an interview with the Mercury, acknowledged he was angry when he wrote to Fish. But he still feels like the church has done a lousy job communicating and thinks the city or the church might someday loosen standards—without first telling neighbors. He also says he worries that a single woman would be vulnerable in the church’s parking lot, as opposed to inside the church.
“There isn’t a single person in my neighborhood who doesn’t feel strongly about helping the homeless,” says Boisseranc, a nurse who volunteers at the Free Clinic. “If I took a tone, it was because I was insulted by the approach—not because I don’t care about the homeless…. The only reason we’re having the June 4 meeting is because we’re forcing them. They’re starting to give us information. But it may be too late.”
Marc Jolin of JOIN says the main idea is that any arrangement would be temporary and not entrenched.
“We don’t envision that people would be living in their vehicles for extended periods of time,” he says. “The idea here is we have folks who are sleeping in their vehicles, but they’re not in safe locations. This gives them a place to be safe overnight and focuses their attention and energies on the work of getting into a permanent place to live.”
“My neighbors already feel obligated to bring their children indoors when transients frequent our neighborhood on Tuesdays, which is recycling day,” Brandt Boisseranc wrote to Commissioner Nick Fish this month. “And now they have more reason to be concerned about their children’s safety. This does not even mention the possibility that their children will be exposed to sights and sounds that they have no business seeing at their age—in their own front yard.”
Wow, what a GOOD CHRISTIAN this guy must be! ONE church is offering to put up ONE woman in their parking lot, and this miserable elitist fuck is whining about “transients” terrorizing the children. Someone needs to shove a garden hose up his tight ass!
So DamosA, I’m guessing you’re in your mid-twenties and still idealistic. Good for you. When you have a little time, why don’t you research the success of the Eugene project that this is modeled after. And while you’re at it, take time to understand the hazards of the homeless population before spewing your expletives. The homeless are stressed due to their circumstances. Many are desperate and have significant emotional problems. They have been marginalized by society and have self esteem issues.
So taking “ONE” homeless woman/family and tossing them into a small parking lot with a trash can and a port-a-potty in a neighborhood that was not included in the project planning (and is, by default, responsible for their oversight), leaving them feeling resentful, isn’t a recipe for success. It is placing the homeless person in resourceless situation. Now think about a homeless woman in her car alone, in an advertised homeless “overnight sleeping” area with her car windows down, due to the heat. Oh, and with the only available bathroom in the area right next to her. Does it sound safe to you?
Moreland Presbyterian Church just spent a million bucks remodeling their sanctuary so it’s comfy for the congregants (a really Christian thing to do). So they aren’t really receptive to the idea of opening their church doors to these “guests”. Instead, they plan to lock up and go home to Lake Oswego. Forget the fact that the church is equipped with showers, running water, a kitchen, and laundry facilities. But they are reaching out to the homeless (though they state in their flyer to the neighbors not to contact the church with questions or problems, but to call 911). Did you consider where the homeless guest will turn if they have a medical emergency in the middle of the night? They probably don’t have a cool smart phone like you do. Yeah, you’re right. The neighbors are bad people.
Let’s not think about experiences of intoxicated transients urinating in bushes (kinda like you did when you worked for OSPIRG) in front of young kids. It’s OK, they have to learn about these things some day.
Don’t worry about your rude and uneducated comments toward a heavily leaning liberal democratic neighborhood that is known for its altruism. Just spew. Some day you’ll grow up.
At first I was bothered by the homeless people hanging out in my neighborhood in Sunnyside, but the fact is, they act as a sort of de-facto neighborhood watch. They keep prowlers away, pick up litter, are mostly friendly, and NEVER ask for change. Other than the occasional drunken verbal fight amongst each other, I have no problems.
So-called “LiberalNeighbor”, i don’t think you took in the full context of my comment. Allow me to set you straight.
Brandt Boisseranc was clearly enforcing vile stereotypes and elitist myths about homeless people being a “danger”. The fact that he uses kids as a phony scare tactic in order to gain sympathy votes was especially low of him. That’s kid of what i was refering to, see. But hey, maybe and ELITIST FUCKWIT such as Brandt doesn’t actually represent the whole neighborhood he lives in. Maybe you’re actually telling the truth when you claim that yours is a “heavily leaning liberal democratic” ‘hood.
So i might be wrong there.
And btw – i never actually had to piss behind a bush when i worked for OSPIRG, and never said i did. But hey, i appriciate you taking my words from another post, misrepresenting them, and attemping to use them to bolster your “arguement”. That’s very “liberal” of you, i suppose.
Yeah, I really don’t see how this arrangement is “safe” for a woman alone or woman with kids. Safe from being hassled by the police, maybe. But having the location and details of the place publicized would make me (if I were that woman) feel WAY more unsafe than if I were parked anonymously and discreetly somewhere.
DamosA,
It is clear that you took offense to being poked at because of a reference to one of your previous posts. But did you understand anything else I said?
Do you get that the church is not willing to let the homeless woman/family into the sanctuary where they will be safe and have MUCH more adequate services? Do you get that the church just used a million dollars to upgrade their sanctuary but chose not to use any of that money to fund existing homeless outreach run by professionals? Do you get that the female guests will actually be at risk in the parking lot this summer because it has been advertised in the media that they are there and their car windows will be open due to the heat? Did you get that the city is pushing this project without voter approval because it has been proven in Eugene to save nearly 70 percent on the cost of managing the homeless?
All I am saying is that folks should look closely at the proposed project before rubber stamping it because it has a “feel good” element. I think you would be surprised if you knew the statistics regarding the Eugene project after which this project is loosely modeled.
Relax and take time to really look at how the homeless can be effectively helped. A parking lot without running water or any services beyond a garbage can and a port-a-potty is probably not the BEST approach.
And while you’re at it, go down to Chinatown and volunteer to help the homeless that you espouse. Many of my neighbors do. I encourage ALL PORTLANDERS to reach out to the poor and homeless in ANY WAY THEY CAN. They can use clothes, food, medical treatment, emotional support, access to education for their children. And those of us who are not on the brink of bankruptcy or foreclosure can surely afford to donate a buck or two to the organizations that are trained to provide and care for them.
LiberalNeighbor, chill out alright. You write way too much. I’m not going to read every one of your long-winded diatribes. Done with you.
And annimal, to the argument that you and others have been making: if a person staying in her car in a church parking lot in a residential area is NOT safe, then perhaps there are OTHER ISSUES concerning that particular neighborhood that ought to be addressed.
@ LiberalNeighbor ~ Your points are not only compassionate, but aware of many of the dangers of being homeless. What i see in this, is a dehumanizing of ” the homeless”. People without a roof over their head, many with mental health or addiction struggles, have become the lowest caste that is barely worthy of acknowledgement.
i have been homeless, with my son. Living in a car. And we have been harassed by cops. i was threatened with arrest, for sleeping with my son in a car. A church parking lot is not the highest goal. But it is a place where folks can rest without threat from the law. You & other commenters seem to think that other homeless people, or random thugs, are the problem. In my experience, the biggest threat & the worst abuse, came from cops. So, unless you have been there, please don’t discount how wonderful it is to have a place to sleep that is legal. And do try to remember that not having a paid for roof over one’s head is, illegal.
This may not be a perfect solution, but it is a step towards acknowledging the problem. And yes, that million $ could have been spent in a more truly Christ like way, but that isn’t really the point is it?
Oh yeah ~ Anyone who needs to hide their children because dudes come around collecting bottles, needs to relocate to the suburbs. But be aware, they infiltrate the ‘burbs, too. Ok, try a gated community/prison. Oh, shit, black people? Well, shoot them & try to go even further away with more weapons. Please, shoot one another in your battle of purity & exclusion. You will not be missed.
I would like to say that nobody should shoot anyone. That is all.
No exceptions?
It has attracted too much attention at this point. My question is why doesn’t the congregation open it up for members to volunteer to donate ( through direct deposit) 10.00 a month to sponsor a family? The church could work alongside an agency to ‘ sponsor’ a family for a set period of time. This way if church members who may at some point no longer support the program could stop their individual membership. It seems like the most reasonable, sustainable approach as well as respectful and supportive of the family on need. I mean really, I understand women and children sleep in cars all over the place, but once they are at your door step will you feel better because you gave them a parking spot ( with all sorts of people, including reporters, having no reservations about bothering them) ?