Re: homeless campground: NIMBY in Eugene, OR (Project Recover)

Wandering Bear (wandering_bear@hotmail.com)
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:12:13 PST 

 The coperate world is moving in on Eugene.Corperations The Corperations 
that are moving into the Area are putting a lot of money into replaceing 
the once very open minded city counsil whith their own counsil members 
who share the agenda of the corperations.That is to make Eugene livable 
for the wealthy.
 Now that those corperations are there dont expect to ever see the issue 
of a campground for the homeless to even be considerd by the city 
counsil.
 All the bastions of the 60ies in Eugene are being systematiclly 
targeted and destroyed.Soon Eugene will be just another capitolist city 
in control of the corperation.
 I would sugjest moving efforts for a homeless camp to Alpine Oregon.
Thats still an open mineded community.
Wandering Bear



>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com