Tự do hóa Dân chủ: Tài sản, Công dân và Lời hứa Bị Hạn chế của Cộng đồng Vô gia cư Tự quản

Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE June 2020 Liberalizing Democracy: Property, Citizenship, and the Constrained Promise of Self-Governing Houseless Communities Stephen Przybylinski Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Przybylinski, Stephen, "Liberalizing Democracy: Property, Citizenship, and the Constrained Promise of Self- Governing Houseless Communities" (2020).edu/etd/1258 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact surface@syr. Abstract As cities in the U.

continue to experience increases in unsheltered houselessness, houseless encampments are becoming far more common throughout urban landscapes. Along with the increase of encampments there has been new rights-claims by houseless communities, claims for rights to organize communities on public and private properties. As a result, cities are beginning to sanction organized encampments as a strategy for managing the current crisis of houselessness. Based on a combination of qualitative methods, this dissertation analyzes the ways in which property affects the lives of houseless people residing in self-governing encampments in Portland, Oregon.

It does so by drawing from ethnographic research with self- governing communities to examine the benefits and limitations of encampments. The experiences from Portland’s encampments are assessed by way of liberal-democratic procedures more generally to better understand the realm of justice available within democracy. What the dissertation seeks to show is that houseless encampment residents cannot have their rights of citizenship fully protected due to how property rights and relations are prioritized in the liberal model of propertied-citizenship. For, the dialectical relationship between property and citizenship, which liberal-democracy is premised upon, leave the houseless in a peculiar bind.

And that is, while houseless people hold equal political citizenship to that of the housed, the very means by which property is prioritized through social, economic, legal, and political relations all but assures that houseless people hold only the appearance of citizenship. The dissertation ends by addressing what sense of justice there is for a democracy produced by property as such. Liberalizing Democracy: Property, Citizenship, and the Constrained Promise of Self-Governing Houseless Communities by Stephen Przybylinski B., University of Minnesota, 2011 M., Portland State University, 2015 Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography. Syracuse University June 2020 Copyright © Stephen Przybylinski 2020 All Rights Reserved Acknowledgements In Portland, I have so many wonderful people to thank.

First and foremost there are many individuals in and affiliated with the encampments that really made an impact on me. At Hazelnut, Tequila, Meg, Bob, Josh, Jackie, Marvin, and DW always gave me great conversation from which I learned so much. So too were Toma and Vahid incredibly helpful throughout my research, always responding to my questions about this and that. At Right 2 Dream, I got to know Sarah, Michael, Rodney and Sean well.

I also owe so much to Trillium and Grant who have always answered my endless questions about everything related to R2DT. All the above model what I see as the true benefit of democratic self-organizing. At Dignity, Lisa and Scott were so supportive of my research and exemplified what I see as everything good about self- governance. And at Kenton Women’s Village, Bernadette, Donna, and Karen were so gracious about having me visit.

Finally, many thanks to those at the Village Coalition who shared with me everything related to the encampments that one could ask for. Also in Portland, I have an enormous amount gratitude for Judith Kenny and Tom Hubka (and “the boys”: Ari, Checkers, and Zachie). The two of you have been so supportive of my research and my life plans more generally. The support you gave me when I was in Portland was essential for helping me through my fieldwork and afterward.

In Syracuse there are many who have supported me and have been fantastic friends. My fellow graduates and friends Akemi, Tiago, Jared VR, Brian, Jared W, Maddy, Claudia, Carlo, James, Katie Mac, Sohrob, Pat, Emily, Rachelle, Jewell, Collin, Jesse Swann-Quinn and Jessie Speer have been supportive and generally wonderful people throughout my time at SU. Although he left SU by the time I got there, Kafui Attoh has come to be a cherished resource for me— iv someone holding the perfect balance between being critical of, and insistent about, the value of my research. The Geography staff at SU are essential to the functioning of the department and have been incredible getting to know.

Margie Johnson, Debbie Toole, Sarah Kondrk, and Joe Stoll have all provided needed support throughout the program and great conversation. Many faculty at Syracuse have been supportive and instructive during my time there. Tod Rutherford has been great to work with and for and holds conversation over dinner like no other. To John Western, who saw me as an equal and co-instructor.

Your positivity and enthusiasm for my teaching and research goals was so sincere and gratifying. Matt Huber has been supportive by pushing me to think through my ideas and to find a way to ground them, both through this work and in seminar. Jamie Winders has been a model for me in many ways. As an instructor, I learned so much about what it means to be fair and transparent and to pull the best out of students when teaching.

Her ability to run seminar is equally exemplary, extracting the best out of you. But perhaps most importantly was Jamie’s exacting attention to my work both in seminar and throughout my dissertation research. And finally, to Don Mitchell. His patience with me when coming into SU was like no other.

As an interested-in-everything student, Don pushed me to develop my arguments carefully, to get to and enjoy the real work of writing and the editing process, and above all, to absolutely model how an advisor ought to support a student. He epitomizes how one can engage carefully in critical scholarship. And to my family, whose endless support throughout the process I could not have gone without. To my mom, Victoria; my dad, John; and my brothers David and Shane.

You have always been there for me and I cannot express how much your encouragement has kept me going through the messiness. Much loveskis to each of you. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements. iv List of Figures.

viii List of Acronyms. 1 Portland and the Rise of Self-Organized Encampments. 5 Houselessness and the Model of Propertied-Citizenship. 18 Chapter 1: Property’s Relations: Beyond the Right to Exclude.

20 Property and the Right to Exclude. 22 Bundle of Rights. 25 Property as Relations. 27 Geographies of Property.

33 Geographies of Houselessness and Property. 38 Property’s Production Processes. 40 Chapter 2: Properties of Liberal-Democratic Citizenship. 42 The Dialectical Nature of Property and Citizenship.

45 Property, Liberalism, and Citizenship. 49 People as Property. 56 Homeownership as Proper Citizenship. 58 The Proper Social Order: Property as Propriety or Commodity.

64 Liberal or Democratic Propertied-Citizenship?. 71 From the Political to the Economic. 74 The (Negative) Right to Property Insecurity. 79 Houselessness and the Properties of Citizenship.

82 Chapter 3: Preserving the Values of Propertied-Citizenship. 89 vi Positioning Portland’s Encampments. 93 Delegitimizing Houseless Citizenship. 97 Institutionalizing Property’s Values.

102 Limiting Houseless Citizenship. 106 Balancing Rights of Property. 113 Chapter 4: A Possessory Interest: How Property Rights Shape Citizenship Rights for Portland’s Houseless Encampments. 116 The Benefits of Houseless Encampments.

119 Citizenship Through Self-Governance. 131 Limits to Self-Governing Encampments. 134 Removing, Not Evicting. 135 Delimiting Personal Rights Through Rights of Property.

143 Chapter 5: Before the “End of Politics:” The Injustice of Property in Democracy. 146 Situating Liberal Justice. 151 Rescaling Universal Identities. 159 After Post-Politics: Tracing a Geography of Democratic Injustice.

163 Ontologies of the Political. 169 Resituating Democratic Justice. 172 Why Democracy Needs the Demos. 175 Returning to Hazelnut Grove.

179 Propertied-Citizenship: Democracy For and Against the Demos. 190 Confronting the Limits of Propertied-Citizenship. 228 vii List of Figures Figure 1: Dignity Village facing the municipal composting facility. The site hosts a commons and restrooms (center picture) in additon to its many tiny houses .7 Figure 2: Second location of Right 2 Dream Too, pictured in exact center of photo highlighted with blue tarp .8 Figure 3: Front entrance of Hazelnut Grove, bound by a biking path and perimeter fencing .9 Figure 4: New Kenton Women's Village, with Columbia Boulevard.

at top of picture .10 Figure 5: Four of five sanctioned houseless encampments in Portland (May 2020) .11 Figure 6: Looking South over Hazelnut Grove from the top of the bluff .89 Figure 7: Centered in this picture is the H. commons, with a pantry and a tool shed to its sides, and tiny homes in the background .92 Figure 8: Security desk at front of R2DT. Those on security check in overnight sleepers and monitor the areas around the perimeter of the gate .121 Figure 9: Kenton Women's Village original location, summer 2018 .125 Figure 10: General Assembly at Hazelnut Grove, summer 2018 .210 viii List of Acronyms DV- Dignity Village HG- Hazelnut Grove JOHS- Joint Office of Homeless Services KWV- Kenton Women’s Village OKNA- Overlook Neighborhood Association R2DT- Right 2 Dream Too SOE- State of Emergency for Housing and Homelessness (City of Portland) ix Introduction On Tuesday, August 15, 2017, Portland, Oregon’s Overlook Neighborhood Association (OKNA) convened for their monthly general meeting. At the top of the list for this OKNA meeting was a vote to amend its bylaws.

The proposed amendment to the bylaws delineated who could and could not be members within the association. As one of two bylaw amendment votes scheduled for the meeting, “Revision B” laid out for neighbors what was at stake in the vote. The summary for the proposed amendment read: The second bylaws amendment for consideration on Tuesday clarifies who qualifies for membership in OKNA and therefore may vote and hold office. Under a city Office of Neighborhood Involvement interpretation of neighborhood bylaws, it is possible that anyone who happens to be in the neighborhood on the day of a meeting could be eligible to vote.

This includes houseless individuals camping illegally in Overlook or squatters occupying a vacant building. This revision reflects the view that a greater commitment to the neighborhood should be necessary to vote and serve on the board. To that end, this amendment would require residents to provide a legal home address to qualify for membership. That would exclude houseless campers and squatters in vacant buildings.

However, it would not preclude a houseless village that has [city- sanctioning] from receiving full membership privileges. A city-sanctioned and permitted houseless village would have a legal address, and its residents therefore would qualify for OKNA membership. Alternatively, a houseless village with a nonprofit component could have a designated representative member in OKNA. 1 Businesses and non-profits in the neighborhood would continue to be eligible to have a designated member in OKNA (OKNA 2017).

Cloaked in broad language, the amendment proposed denying membership for most houseless persons wanting to participate in the neighborhood organization.1 But for anyone who had been following OKNA’s politics regarding houselessness during the two years prior to the meeting knew to what this membership-restriction was specifically referring: Portland’s then- newest self-governing houseless encampment, Hazelnut Grove (HG). HG was an encampment that was never officially permitted by the City to operate. While the City’s government never issued an official land use permit to the encampment, HG was officially tolerated by the City. For OKNA members, this was the problem.

HG was there, in the Overlook neighborhood “illegally,” and the City was supporting the encampment.