Re: homeless campground: NIMBY in Eugene, OR (Project Recover) FWD
Virginia Sellner (wych@tcd.net)
Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:42:22 -0800
Good article. Virginia
At 08:34 PM 1/25/98 -0800, Tom Boland wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________
Speak only words of truth.
Speak only of the good qualities of others.
Be a confidant and carry no tales.
Dhyani Ywahoo,"Voices of our Ancestors, Cherokee teachings from the Wisdom
Fire".