homeless campground: NIMBY in Eugene, OR (Project Recover) FWD
Tom Boland (wgcp@earthlink.net)
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:34:07 -0800 (PST)
FWD http://www.efn.org/~pro_eco/archives/issue005.html#cmpgnd
article from 'oIkos #5 Winter 97/98 [Project Recover publication]
CAMPGROUND: WHAT'S THE PROBLEM
by Charles Gray
A couple of years ago, the Eugene City Council approved a site for a car
camp at 19th and Pearl. The site was owned by School District 4J. Our brave
School Board succumbed to Not in My Backyard [NIMBY] pressure and rejected
the plan. The City
could have applied some pressure, even ultimately using its powers of
eminent domain -the power any government has to take land for an essential
public use -, but it lacked the courage to do so. True, in that case, the
City would have had to raise some money to compensate the school board, but
I believe lack of courage was the primary problem. The land now sits empty
and we have no campground and haven't had one for over two years.
With no free land anymore, with no legally accessible public land, without
a campground, without affordable housing and without adequate shelter
programs, the unsheltered homeless who must, of necessity, sleep, have no
choice but to violate the law. Though committing no crime one becomes a
criminal. For the innocent act of sleeping one becomes a criminal, becomes
subject to complaints from neighbors; to danger of robbery, beating, rape;
to harassment or arrest by police.
It appears to me that the idea of a campground has dropped off of the
agenda of the City. No planning seems to be going on. Not only are no funds
being set aside, but the concept doesn't even seem to be on the wish list
if new funds become available.
The half-hearted plans of the City two years ago were defeated in part by
NIMBY pressure on the 4J School Board.
Yet campgrounds remain essential as one of the ingredients of a fair
housing system for a diverse society. The right to shelter oneself is a
fundamental human right and a campground allows for the exercise of that
right. To deny a campground denies that right. That is intolerable in a
society that claims an interest in human rights. That is intolerable in a
society that proclaims itself a society of freedom and liberty.
There is nothing in the state or federal constitutions that declares that
all citizens must live in strictly coded and therefore expensive housing
that only the middle class can afford or that the taxpayers must subsidize.
Some citizens cannot live in such housing. Others will not live in such
housing. That is their right. Other shelter options, including camping,
must be available to them as a matter of right.
Programs that call for maintenance of these middle class building codes are
obsolete from the point of view of environmental sustainability. I would
contend that the luxury class and even the so called affordable housing
being built today is putting an unsustainable burden on the ecosystem.
Radically more simple and earth-friendly shelter options must be opened up.
This will require breaking open the codes to environmental assessment, to
an estimate of the full environmental costs of shelter systems, and finally
to a set of sustainable codes to fight for. Without codes that encourage
radically more simple and earth-friendly shelter, and a culture that
rejects resource-wasteful luxury housing our children won't have sufficient
resources left to adequately shelter themselves.
The building of more motor homes for shelter is unlikely to pass an
earth-friendly test. However, liberating and legalizing space for the use
of re-use-recycle paradigm. This would reduce demand for more housing and
thus reduce stress on the environment.
Hundreds of thousands of people in this country live in motor homes, fifth
wheelers, trailers, campers, trucks, vans and cars. There should be places
to legally park them. Others have only a tent, a tarp or other cover of
some sort. They too need a legal and safe place to shelter themselves.
A campground is a very low cost, earth-friendly shelter option. Many whose
homes sit on wheels can afford to pay the fees that would be necessary to
cover the maintenance costs of a campground. Those who cannot afford the
fees should be able to camp free or in exchange for a couple of hours of
camp maintenance work. Such a campground could be a general public
campground for all comers. Some communities in this country and many in
Europe have such community owned
campgrounds. This could be a low cost facility for many persons coming to
the Eugene/Springfield area for conferences, special events, or to take in
the area's tourist attractions. Some motel owners might oppose such
competition, but certainly they alone should not determine public policy.
Another option would be to have a campground just for homeless persons.
Here again, many could afford to cover or help cover the maintenance costs.
In an informal survey I did of 15 of the campers at the last Centennial Car
Camp, most said they could afford from $3 to $5 a day for their site.
Considering that the last car camp sheltered about fifty families, the
$100,000 costs seem pretty modest compared to the costs of subsidized
housing. Part of those costs were covered by fees. Also those costs could
have been considerably less if the City hadn't been wedded to the concept
of 24 hour staffing.
When we recognize that the criminalization of homelessness constitutes a
human rights emergency, then solutions seem both more feasible as well as
essential. The question of land availability is not insoluble. The city
already owns lots of land and there is a great deal of land in large enough
plots that is currently held by real estate and development speculators. If
human rights are
being violated, then some of this land needs to be liberated. Basic human
rights take precedence over the rights of speculators.
A sufficient amount of land needs to be liberated for various types of
campgrounds or sections of campgrounds: one type could be for persons who
have disabilities requiring professional care. Another might be for persons
needing an alcohol and drug free environment. Another could be a short stay
facility. Another could have large enough campsites so that people could
exercise
their basic right to shelter themselves with a reasonable space between
themselves and their neighbors. Many homeless persons have the skills
necessary to build simple shelters out of combinations of new and used
building materials. Building ones own shelter is creative and can enhance
ones self-esteem and utilizes reservoirs of self reliance. Such a system
also allows freedom
from the grip of the mortgage banker, the finance pattern whose interest
payments triple the cost of our housing.
Building ones own simple shelter can get one out of the rain and cold and
allow some privacy and security. Such shelter, coupled with nearby shared
restrooms and washing facilities could be a viable shelter system. Legal
title to such shelters would also be a possibility. Land could be in a
community land trust, or it could be eventually deeded. Present code
defenders might argue that such shelter would be less safe. However, it
would be hard to argue that, in terms of public health, such shelter is
less safe than sleeping in a car or under a piece of plastic and using the
bushes for your toilet. That is the present reality for
many homeless.
Campground proposals of various types have been made by the homeless and
advocates for the homeless for many years. The establishment has, except
for the three years when we had temporary homeless campgrounds, been
resistant to these ideas. That human rights are being abused is denied. The
court cases challenging the constitutionality of the Prohibited Camping
Ordinance drag on and may take years to resolve. We may also lose these
legal battles.
Whether the courts consider that the U.S. Constitution protects the right
to have a legal place to sleep, or not, we have proclaimed such a right. It
is absolutely basic to human life and dignity. We should not only proclaim
this right, but act on it.
A copy of the letter the Homeless Action Coalition delivered to local
government officials initating the Campaign for Legal Places to Sleep
(CLPS) is reprinted on page 8. Thus far, only the city of Eugene has made a
significant response by passing a new "Legal-Sleep-For-Some" Ordinance
which is reprinted on page 9. Lane County has been wholly absent from the
discussions.
END FORWARD