Buckman Community Association

Buckman Neigh./ St. Francis Parish Meeting Notes; Nov. 2002

Norse Hall, November 6th 2002, 7-9:30 pm

Meeting Summary Notes

Ground Rules
· Be respectful – no name calling
· Respect time limits
· Be constructive
· No side conversations (use notes)
· No interruptions
· Follow Facilitators

Background

Chronology of Events leading to this meeting:

· 1995-96: St. Francis and neighbors/BCA hold community meetings and create Good Neighbor Agreement. Monthly meetings start, attended by St. Francis, BCA and Police
· 1998: St. Francis enters into Compliance Agreement with Police Dept.
· St. Francis and ONI Crime Prevention decide to convene this meeting to create better communication between St. Francis and its neighbors
· September 30, 2002: Police issue Nuisance Letter to St. Francis
· October 10, 2002: BCA general meeting re: concerns about St. Francis and related crime, safety, and livability issues
· October, 2002: St. Francis and Police Department correspond re: proposed plans by St. Francis to abate the nuisance activities

Report
· David Woboril, City Attorney, reported on the city’s Chronic Nuisance procedure, and the current status of the Nuisance Letter to St. Francis


Defining and Clarifying Needs & Expectations

Report
· A brief summary of the concerns expressed at the Buckman Community Association general meeting, 10/10/02 was given by Andy Eisman
· Others present talked about how they are personally affected by these issues


The following Issues, Needs, and Expectations were described:

Issues
· Security of neighborhood - Saturation of neighborhood with crime
· Chronic impacts on business and residential neighbors
· Syringes/needles in neighboring business grass strip
· Stolen goods (taken from porches) found at St. Francis
· Sanitation (public toileting)
· Public drunkenness
· Vandalism
· Drug dealing
· Fires
· Assaults
· Car prowls
· Home break-ins (attempted)
· Broken windows
· Thefts from porches
· General trespass
· “Full meal deal”: vomit, excrement, needles in doorways
· Theft from store (wheelbarrow)
· Intimidation of customers and panhandling
· Fears for safety of customers
· Not everyone is experiencing the same impacts
· Local businesses closing because of impacts
· Responsiveness of Church to neighbors re: crime & violence
· Communication
· Sustainable solutions
· How to support homeless while addressing crime
· Lack of resources for homeless people
· Prevent shutdown of program
· Survival of park as community park and neighborhood park
· Need to keep International School - they believe the children are safe
· Scope of problems, city-wide
· City role in solution

Needs
· Response from St. Francis
· Crime issues addressed
· Solve problems of needles, etc.
· Community-wide response
· Support for homelessness problems
· Preserve park
· Remember International School

Expectations
· St. Francis be responsible for what their 300 guests do after they leave, just as we would be in our homes and businesses. It’s unfair to say it’s the neighborhood’s problem when St. Francis invited the people perceived to be causing the problems.
· St. Francis respond when we call about problems before there’s a crisis, and without neighbors having to cause a crisis.
· St. Francis respond and be a good neighbor.
· Homeless people organize and become part of the process.
· Find solutions as a community, for example, needle patrols, more public bathrooms. This should be supported and funded (including city funds).


Options

St. Francis Response:

The St. Francis team of staff and volunteers presented information about the steps they have taken and are planning to take in response to concerns. They acknowledged that there are local problems, and that they feel badly about the times they were not addressed by St. Francis. They are working with the police, and meeting regularly, to stay informed about problems.

Steps taken/planned:

1. St. Francis has closed the park, as of November 1, 2002, for 180 days. This decision is to be reviewed in 60 days. The Park closure will be posted. St. Francis has requested (of Commander Grubbs) that they be allowed access to the park for cleanup, and for recess for the school children.
2. St. Francis has increased security from 10 to 46 hours per week. Security will be on-site Monday – Friday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Saturday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (program hours). In addition, the regular security patrols at night, after hours, will continue. A private security firm, Pacific NW Security, provides this.
3. JOIN has agreed to delay their opening time from 9 to 10 a.m., to match St. Francis security hours.
4. A Homeless Council is forming. They have created a cleanup crew (with bright orange t-shirts that have “St. Francis” printed on them) which has been out twice so far. They also want to offer services to those in the neighborhood who need them, for example, raking leaves.
5. The policies and procedures, including exclusion policy have been re-issued and people reminded about behavior standards.
6. A better system of communication with neighbors is needed. St. Francis wants to work with the neighborhood and the city to alleviate problems.
7. Longer term: there is a possibility of mixed housing being built on the campus.


Contact Numbers for St. Francis: After hours: 232-5880 (Mark your phone call as “urgent”) Dining Hall: 234-2028 (during day; open on holidays, too).


Other Options and Ideas
· Crew to clean up doorways of neighbors each morning (needles, feces, etc.)
· St. Francis and guests cooperate in identifying and addressing “troublemakers” – criminal element; be part of the solution
· Exclude repeat offenders who trespass in the Park and/or are uncooperative with Park closure.
· Thoughtful evaluation of all ideas.
· Everyone raise awareness of Park needs.
· St. Francis role in Eastside Renewal District opportunity (for example, developing the closed Washington high school as a community center).
· Stricter enforcement
· Sustainable solutions
· Communication: St. Francis representatives come to neighborhood association and business group meetings
· Valerie go to the Park at night
· Neighborhood Watch
· Organizers of an information handout “St. Francis and the Buckman Neighborhood”, the Buckman Alternative Neighborhood Group, was asked to put contact information on any future material. They can be contacted at: 236-4587

Next Steps

· Another meeting will be organized, for those who want to make a commitment to be part of a serious working group for working through the issues raised tonight, and exploring creative options, such as:
· What has worked, when, how, who, etc. How can we build on that in a sustainable fashion? What are the obstacles and how can we deal with them?
· Discuss: what would a “cooperative relationship” between neighbors, homeless people, and St. Francis look like? How can we create that?
· A signup sheet for those interested in attending another meeting was passed around.


Evaluation & Close

Written comments


Evaluations

1. Did the meeting meet your expectations?
· People were more civil than I expected. I expected the kind of blood bath Creston-Kenilworth served up to Dignity Village.
· Yes, but my expectations were not high. It seems moot about talking about communication between St. Francis and the neighborhood. The initiation of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance is a process that will unfold – will St. Francis work with the police or not?
· For the most part, yes.
· Yes! (3 times)
· Yes but I had a very realistic expectation that I would be satisfied with ANY progress of concrete steps.
· Yes, good.
· Yes, though I had hoped to hear more about the larger picture. I understand why we had to focus!
· Yes, sort of. Huge issue – with not enough time – good second step (after BCA meeting in October).
· Not exactly. But I think we might have been heard for the first time.
· I wanted more solution focused but this meeting exceeded my expectations on drawing out and summarizing issues and maintaining respectful communication. I’m glad I came.
· Sort of. These problems are not solvable without the homeless population present. Inclusion is the first rule of community change and development.
· Yes/No. It’s always good to hear from both sides.
· No – too much time listening to people rehash the same things over and over, instead of actual dialogue and problem solving. Too much rhetoric and pontification (and bitching and defending of their lefty credentials) instead of concrete, creative problem solving.
· No, not really. The solutions proposed by the St. Francis Parish were minor, unrealistic proposals. Limited security patrols won’t work. They have failed in the past. Closure or relocation should be on the table as real solutions.
· No. Time not fairly shared. Give speakers equal time (i.e., 3 minutes each). No unlimited speeches in the beginning and then cutting people off at the end!
· No, no answers to basic problem. If you feed they will come. If you throw them out at night they filter out to our homes to sleep, shit and steal.
· No, I had hoped to hear from more of the neighbors and businesses of their problems, also what do the neighbors and businesses do to solve this themselves. I do feel St. Francis needs to be proactive rather than wait for a crisis to respond.
· Mostly, yes – should have been clearer next steps at the end. Get audience commitment to meetings, forming a joint committee, etc.
· Yes. More than expectations. Neighbors, helping St. Francis – St Francis re. At neighborhood meetings.
· Heard lots about the neighborhood problems at St Francis, but not much about the problems St Francis has & how it can be supported.
· I wasn’t sure what to expect
What worked well, was helpful?
· Finally hearing two things from St. Francis: a) acknowledgement of a real problem and some responsibility; b) 3 concrete actions since Nov 1, 2002; 5 days are a start. Seeing the team from St. Francis.
· Facilitators didn’t let people rant or get too off topic.
· Judith, you did a wonderful job. I was at the meeting of long ago when you were the facilitator. This was the best ever. I thought you fairly captured the concerns on each side.
· Identifying complaints and asking for solutions!!!
· 1. Consolidated common ground. 2. Sustain changes.
· Moderator/mediator was excellent. Process was constructive, very helpful.
· Management of dialogue.
· Facilitators did a great job.
· Helping in staying on task.
· Good framing/re-framing of issues. Nice recap of major points by Judith. Good de-escalation of tension when necessary.
· Letting people speak and having Judith facilitate.
· Update. Chance for all to speak. Summarizing.
· Charts. Three calm facilitators.
· Setting out the things we can all acknowledge as a basis for moving forward with the process (but then you let people move the process backward by letting them say “just one more thing.”)
· The facilitators did a good job keeping things quiet. They seemed more even-handed than I expected.
· Facilitators were great but needed to limit speakers to 1 or 2 times only and limit time.
· St. Francis crew to help clean up.
· Only time will tell. This is a social problem not a neighborhood problem. I work in Northwest Portland – condoms, syringes, feces, vomit also are on and in the doorways and sidewalks.
· Excellent summarizing/reflecting comments and feelings – Great job keeping a huge, contentious meeting on track.
· St Francis is responding well. Problems of neighborhood well defined.
· Keeping the conversation going back & forth – Trying to look forward to future solutions

Suggestions for Improvement
· Some people got to speak too much, complain too much. There was no discussion of solutions (actual plans for actions we can all take).
· The Archdiocese needs to take responsibility for the management of St. Francis Parish. Where were they (not Father Leinert – the Archbishop)?
· I heard a lot of talk about what St. Francis needs to do to solve the problems of crime and violence. What is it that the neighborhood will take responsibility for in (assisting) solving the problems of crime and violence? Is this a neighborhood problem?
· Please get people to speak up and enunciate!
· Keep on track/time better.
· Start on time.
· More facts that prove or disprove that St. Francis is not doing everything possible.
· The woman Judy who facilitated seemed to be siding with Buckman group and gave preference to time/speakers.
· Be consistent on the implementation of staying on task.
· Please make sure you are strong about ensuring respect and equal time given between the two sides, and enough time to respond to the accusations that may come up. When you say we are going to move on, DO THAT. Don’t let people make another comment because then the comment needs to be responded to.
· Need more focused solutions.
· Closing statement indicates City has a short memory and all of the money and time spent has been for naught! Crime prevention needs to go back to the community.
· Facilitators not calling the ground rules out when folks breaking them.
· The same 3 people repeated themselves often and were not stopped – so therefore the meeting was too long.
· Don’t budget 15 minutes for something and then let individuals take the mike for 5 minutes at a time. This was supposed to be a constructive dialogue and process, not an open forum.
· Impose a special tax assessment on surrounding homeowners and businesses, just like the one used by downtown businesses, to pay for the things we all want: security, clean up crews, more public toilets, etc. As a homeowner, I would be happy to help pay for the things that we as residents are demanding.
· This is a neighborhood issue. Keep the participants limited to Buckman residents.
· Move out of residential area. Don’t close park if you’re taking care of people. Stop feeding and services altogether. Bulletin Board for Community about problems and lists.
· Better sound system
· A discussion of how the homeless and decline of social services has changed the neighborhood.
· Hope that the neighbors would participate in the cleanup. What I hear from neighbors is that they have expectations from St. Francis. I want to know what the neighbors are willing to do – actively participate in and organize to reduce crime. Closing the park only deals with one block. Most of the issues/incidents happen away from the park; how will closing the park help?
· Enforce ground rules (lapsing into personal back-and-forth) more. Cut people off when talking too long
· Common good of well-off neighbors and homeless
· St Francis has some serious issues with police enforcement – if they call for police support, they also get nicked or penalized for calling them – not a good situation for getting rid of the criminal environment
· I noticed that Valerie Chapman was extremely respectful & open to concerns of the neighbors. By contrast the neighbors were patronizing, condescending, & even antagonistic & disrespectful – the facilitators could have steered them to be more constructive in their communication style – as Valerie was to them. Also, a speaker’s use of “Damn” more than once was offensive & violated the ground rules – She should have been called on it by the facilitators.


Comments (on Index Cards)

· I am a homeowner of the area for 20 years. My home has a wall. The homeless would sit on my wall all day, and drink. I installed a fence so they could not sit there. Now they come into my yard. They sit on my steps and drink, they camp in my yard, and they use my yard as a toilet and garbage can. My next option is to lock my gate and deny everyone access, or to build a higher fence they can’t see through. I’m tired of having to call the police to remove the people in my yard. I cannot use my front walk after dark for fear of encountering campers. The church invites them into the neighborhood – they need to do a better job of regulating them.
· This is the second meeting I have attended regarding this issue. Considering the magnitude of the problems, both crime and livability issues, I find the response by St. Francis to be not only inadequate but patronizing as well. How does closing the park during the winter rainy months give anyone an adequate basis for evaluating. It is the summer when the problems from there arise. How does a daytime security solve the nighttime rowdiness, fights, etc. that occur in the surrounding area? A clean up crew from there is a good idea but does that address the morning mess that must be dealt with by the business owner. Buckman has more than its share of social service agencies so we are not heartless but my family and I live here as well and pay taxes. The police have been very responsive to my calls regarding drug dealing.
· Would the Parish management consider relocating the soup kitchen out of the neighborhood? This would let them manage the large number of patrons who use the soup kitchen.
· I don’t believe I heard the neighbors way how they intend to help with the crime problem:
· Neighborhood cleanup including business owners and neighbors and St. Francis cleanup crew
· Neighborhood Watch
· Overturn the Anti-camping Ordinance so that neighbors might be able to sponsor homeless persons who could, perhaps, pitch tents in backyards in exchange for work, etc. The homeless know that they are not wanted and have no place to call their own, hence no sense of belonging, no sense of ownership. Perhaps some of the lack of respect of the neighborhood stems from these issues.
· As a business owner in the neighborhood, I want to applaud the steps I heard tonight from St. Francis to address the problem. I hope that these steps yield noticeable results. I want to emphasize that the problem extends well beyond the St. Francis property, so security and cleanup needs to extend at least to an 8 – 10 block radius. I would also like to hear about steps to solve the car camping problem. The police I have contacted indicate that their hands are tied by city policy – why?
· I live near 39th and Hawthorne. There are many homeless people in this area. There are also the same problems with theft, littering of needles, etc. However there is not focal point to blame or complain to, like St. Francis. There are problems related to homelessness and poverty that belong to our city. I think it is a mistake to blame one of the agencies that is trying to address these problems for the problems. I have walked through St. Francis Park at night and during the day for several years and have never felt unsafe.
· The problems of homelessness etc. are only symptoms of a larger community problem. What does the community plan to do to end the problems that cause homelessness? For next steps, ask the question: what am I responsible for doing if Portland is to solve the problems of homelessness?
· We own a house on 14th, 2 blocks from St Francis. We are currently looking for another house because of the crime and homelessness problems. We have lived in this house for 2 years and have experienced some of the following problems:
- items stolen off our deck
- our recycling (paper) has been gone through a number of times. Once, a blank check (the kind credit card companies send) was taken & a $7500 charge appeared on our account. It was caught in time as fraud.
- littering, including needles, beer cans, cigarettes, etc.
- weeds at the school (Washington) next door have been set on fire
- trespass on our property, including by drunk, drugged, homelesss person who had to be subdued by the police
- 3 cars broken into & cash/etc stolen
- constant array of cars, trucks, vans with homeless people living on our street for 3-4 weeks at a time.
- Large groups of homeless people staying on the Washington school property, around Alder & Stark. Extremely noisy, they light fires, fight, drink and otherwise cause disturbance
- People with open containers of beer, sitting on our property
- On average, we call the police 4-8 times a month to assist us with these problems
- One of our cars was hit & run – we saw this. The co-driver was knifing the driver. This was right outside my house
WE DO NOT FEEL SAFE ANYMORE! Please help.
· I am the former County Mental Health Triage person who was working out of St. Francis Dining Hall. I feel the Social Services at St Francis are part of the solution. We help connect people to needed services, including mental health and Drug & alcohol services outside St Francis Campus. We also helped de-escalate people who were in crisis so they would not harm themselves or others. It is very important that these services be maintained. I also want to say that I met with several people a day in a small room & never felt threatened. This is not to say Crime is transpiring, but I believe physical threat is minimal. I have also lived in the Buckman Neighborhood twice & both times had positive experiences in my interactions with the homeless population. I have had more problems in my current neighborhood, South Tabor. So I would argue that the problems the neighborhood has brought up are not unique to Buckman.