| In March 1992 there was a group of people in Portland making tentative plans to start a newsletter which never panned out, but this is an article I wrote for that purpose: |
| New Clear Vision has launched two petition campaigns that address certain infringements on the rights of the homeless: one is to repeal the "Drug Free Zone" policy, the other to amend the Anti-Camping Ordinance. It is the latter initiative that I will deal with here, as it has dovetailed with certain events in my own life: My partner and I got busted for sleeping in our own car on the night of March 2, which precipitated a discussion with the director of St. Francis Park on March 11 about the new "crackdown" on the homeless in that area, at the same time New Clear Vision was holding its press conference at City Hall about the petition drive. We had been living in our car since we had moved to Portland from Boston at the beginning of November, and we had been parking it next to St. Francis Park at night off-and-on all those months; it seemed like a safe place to sleep as no one ever bothered us there, cops or anyone else. But we were aware all along that we were taking a risk in doing it, as a car is not recognized as a legal domicile even though it is legally our property and we have no other home right now. We knew the anti-camping law is blindly enforced here without the individual circumstances of the "offenders" being considered. We knew the cops and the privileged people they represent considered us "bums" simply because we are homeless, automatically lumping us in with the alcoholics and drug addicts and other "deadheads" who supposedly choose to live on the street, despite the fact that we were trying to find work and housing so we would no longer have to live in the car. We knew, because we had learned it the hard way, that landlords here won't rent to the unemployed and employers won't hire the homeless--a Catch-22 situation that renders utterly meaningless the myth of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps and shows the utter ignorance of the people who yell WHYDONTYOUGETAJOB at the street person. We felt acutely the selfish and prejudicial attitudes of the neighborhood residents who cast a suspicious eye on our dusty Honda with the Massachusetts license plates, crammed full of our possessions: we knew they only viewed us in terms of how we might adversely affect their lives, and were totally indifferent to how vulnerable and threatened we felt. They were all saying, in effect, "We have the right to live in Portland and you don't!" as if they had the right to make such a decision. And then on March 2 at about 11:00pm the dreaded nightmare came to pass: we were busted for "Prohibited Camping" and ordered to appear in court on St. Paddy's Day. At the time we assumed that one of the staff people at St. Francis had blown the whistle on us to bring this about. This suspicion was further fed by the appearance a few days later of a notice posted in the park, telling the street people not to park their shopping carts full of their possessions there, as the sight of them was intimidating to "others" wishing to use the park, and that this was an extension of their "No-Camping Policy". So it appeared to us that the St. Francis people themselves were on a campaign to make life harder for the homeless people in the area, and because of this and because I was so angry about our being busted, I wrote a heated response to this notice which began, "Why are you only concerned about how 'others' feel and react to the sight of homeless people? What about our feelings and our needs?..." and posted it right underneath. I also took a copy of an article I'd written about our arrest and dropped it on the doorstep of the rectory. My sign actually stayed up for a couple of days, and when we saw it had been torn down I wrote another one, this time making copies and posting them under all four copies of their notice. This one I'll quote in its entirety: "The trouble with your reasoning is that you are thinking of homeless people as second-class citizens with no rights of their own. You make these decisions that affect our lives without even thinking to ask for our input first. We are as much residents of this neighborhood as the people with homes; we have as much right to use the park as they do, and as much right to have our needs considered. It is wrong to expect us always to be the ones to make concessions so that others can feel more comfortable at our expense. You don't solve the problem of homelessness by sweeping homeless people under the rug and pretending we don't exist. The public needs to be educated about our situation, not protected from it."Furthermore, in the anti-homeless attitude you are displaying you are insulting the spirit of ST. FRANCIS HIMSELF, who was supposed to be a friend of the poor! You should not have to be reminded of this! SHAME ON YOU!!!!" It was this note that finally prompted the park director to come over and talk to us while we were parked in our usual place on 11th Ave. He had linked these notes in his mind with the article I'd left at the rectory which mentioned we were from Boston, and the Massachusetts license plates on our car left no doubt in his mind as to who had written all three of these things. He told us first of all that it was not any of the St. Francis people who had called the cops on us, that St. Francis is a very liberal church. He went on to tell us quite a bit about the inner workings of the place, the politics of the dining hall, and the relations between the church, the park, the surrounding businesses and the Buckman Community Association. He was all in favor of opening more dialogue between the residents of the neighborhood and the homeless people who hang out there, and including homeless people in the church board meetings and community association meetings where these decisions that affect their lives are made. Needless to say, it was quite a pleasant surprise to discover this new and unexpected ally! And furthermore this conversation was taking place just a little after New Clear Visions's press conference downtown, in which they were presenting their proposed amendment to the Anti-Camping Ordinance which would allow homeless people to camp in areas which are approved by the local neighborhood associations! So it seems quite clear that the idea of opening more intelligent dialogue between homeless people and local residents is an idea whose time has come. I personally am very excited about the potential for this being accomplished in the Buckman neighborhood, and for this being presented as an example to inspire other neighborhoods to try the same thing. There is a potential here for a lot of healthy communication to take place toward overcoming prejudicial attitudes against the homeless and giving all of us more hope. Meanwhile, taking care of business, we went to court on March 17 and pleaded "Not Guilty". We would appreciate support from all of you who want to help us fight this injustice, who don't wish to see us punished for the "crime" of being homeless. Our trial date is July 6. March 18, 1992 (click here to go to next page) |
| ANOTHER IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME |