PLANNING URBAN INDIGENOUS HISTORY: Cultural Competency and Housing in Portland, OR Genevieve Amelia Middleton University of Oregon College of Design School of Public Planning Policy and Management Master of Community and Regional Planning Professional Terminal Project Spring 2020 Committee Co-Chairs: John Arroyo, Gerardo Sandoval GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary Acknowledgements Acronym List Chapter 1: Framing Urban Indian Housing Chapter 2: Indigenous Cultural Knowledge and Literature Chapter 3: American Indian Alaska Native and U.S. Policy Context Chapter 4: Case: Nesika Ilahee Affordable Housing Project Chapter 5: Research Findings Chapter 6: Analysis & Discussion Chapter 7: Recommendations & Conclusion References Appendix A: Interview Guides GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to the U.S. Census 71% of American Indian and Alaska Natives (AIAN) live in urban areas. Portland, Oregon – one of the largest metropolitan areas in the Pacific Northwest -- comprises the fifth densest AIAN off-reservation population in the U.S (Urban Indian Health Institute, 2020). Indigenous planning and design scholars recognize that Indigenous peoples continue to be one of the most marginalized, subjugated, poor, and overall vulnerable communities. Additional support is necessary to ensure how urban housing can meet their cultural, social, and quality of life needs, outside of sovereign nation territories. In 2020, Nesika Illahee, the nation’s first off-reservation affordable urban AIAN housing project was opened in Portland, Oregon with support from Indian Housing Block Grant funds and rental preferences that establish housing options dedicated to the American Indian Alaska Native population. This research report seeks to understand the processes, policies, and design decisions used to collaborate with a politically sovereign nation and Native American advocacy organizations to ensure a successful and model AIAN-oriented housing project. Conversations and interviews were conducted with the primary policymakers, advocates, and designers of the development project to grasp how culturally appropriate Native approaches were used throughout the timeline of development. The result of this descriptive phenomenological research, combined with content analysis of key documentation, lead to primary findings oriented around policy, processes, and design. Policy findings found that the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians’ sub-recipient relationship of the IHBG created a blanket option of AIAN preferencing on all units, establishing a sovereign political relationship for preferencing and not race based. Process findings illustrated that development protocol that use decolonial communication practices that reflect and plan for Tribal Council timelines and iterations honor the Indigenous sovereignty. Design findings recognized the importance of creating a ‘Native place’ through architecture and placemaking while also offering locational assets and resources for supporting Native families. These findings show the collective considerations of the Nesika Ilahee project’s reach toward an aesthetic, resource assets, and engaged planning process that facilitate Native envisioning. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I recognize that we live on stolen lands of Indigenous people who were forcibly and violently removed from their home territories, decimated by federal and state policy written into congressional acts that were intended to assimilate American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people away from traditional culture into colonial settler idealism. This report is meant to highlight how recounting a groundbreaking format of collaboration between a network of public-private partnerships contributes to the practice of urban Indigenous policy, planning, and design. The specific language of how Indigenous people of the U.S. identify and describe themselves is an important acknowledgement to this research. The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term 'American Indian or Alaska Native' (AIAN) as race identification, whereas scholars may refer to Indians, Native Americans, Natives, Indigenous people, First Nations, and Tribal interchangeably for community identification terminologies. In this research Tribal people will refer to communities and individuals who are federally recognized Tribal citizens. In a later section, the 'Termination Period” will be discussed to understand how federal policies have specifically stripped Indigenous peoples of their recognition of sovereignty and the resulting effects. The right of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians to not participate in this research is highly respected and acknowledged by our research team. I am grateful to all of the participants in this research and especially to Dr. John Arroyo and Dr. Gerardo Sandoval who offered me continuous encouragement in pursuit of serving my greater Native communities through the research of policy, planning, and design. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 4 ACRONYMS AIAN – American Indian / Alaska Native BIA – Bureau of Indian Affairs CDP – Community Development Partners ICDBG – Indian Community Development Block Grant IHBG – Indian Housing Block Grant HUD – Housing and Urban Development LIFT - Local Innovation and Fast Track NAHASDA – Native American Housing and Self Determination Act NARA – Native American Rehabilitation Alliance NAYA – Native American Youth and Family Center OHCS – Oregon Housing and Community Services ONAP – Office of Native American Programs TDHE – Tribally Designated Housing Entity TEK – Traditional Ecological Knowledge GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 5 BIOSKETCH My unique perspective comes as a Tribal citizen, professional designer, and graduate student in community and regional planning at the University of Oregon. My family experience of living displaced and relocated from our traditional territories, comes as a direct result of the congressional Indian Relocation Act of 1956 (see Chapter 3). My family are Diné and citizens of the Navajo Nation who lived in Los Angeles, California immediately following relocation. We eventually migrated to the Pacific Northwest (Eugene) as part of higher educational opportunities. I am a second-generation graduate from the University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts1. After receiving my Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, I moved to Northern California where I worked on and lived adjacent to the Round Valley Indian Reservation for most of a decade. My time there was founded by connection with natural traditions and offering my privileged access to higher education in service of Native families. I was hired by the Round Valley Indian Health Center to be a Diabetes Prevention and Awareness educator within the Round Valley School District offering lessons, and connection with every student from Kindergarten to 8th grade. In the time that I was able to work with predominantly Native students and families, I learned about the brutal living conditions of the reservation, where homes were often over- crowded and without running water. The Round Valley housing authority has been diligently working towards continued applications of the Indian Housing Block Grant to fuel housing development. My interest in writing this professional research report are based on the phenomena of Indian housing policies. As my knowledge of policy history specific to the Indian Housing Block Grant, culturally competent design, and Indigenous Planning becomes greater, I hope to specifically advance research in the field of American Indian Housing Policy, and broadly across Indigenous landscape architecture. 1 Renamed University of Oregon College of Design on July 1, 2017 GENEVIEVE MIDDLETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 6 CHAPTER 1: Framing Urban Indian Housing American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations in the United States face the greatest challenges of housing instability of any ethnic or racial minority group (Pindus, Kingsley, & Biess, 2017). Hundreds of years of U.S. federal acts intended to eliminate and assimilate AIAN peoples is learned by the foundational violence towards indigenous peoples in the history of the U.S.. In modern times, policies attempt to acknowledge the duplicitous wrong doings of former federal administrations and emerge as systems for meeting housing and health inequities experienced from the 20th Century onward (Dunbar Ortiz, 2015). Current methods for supporting the housing crisis of AIAN populations have focused funding, policies, and programs in the localities of designated Tribal lands commonly referred to as reservations and rancherias. However, a discrepancy exists between the locality of tribal lands and the locality of Tribal peoples, especially for urban indigenous populations. According to the U.S. Census approximately 71% of American Indians and Alaska Natives live in urban areas (Urban Indian Health Institute 2020). Prior to now federal resource allocations for AIAN people have been directed at reservation spaces. The emergence of Census data showing where AIAN people reside, is basis for re-evaluating AIAN resource designation. Historically and currently American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people suffer from the highest levels of housing disparities in the nation (AIAN HUD Report, 2017). AIAN housing and history are rooted in racially discriminatory policy that promote erasure of Native American culture and conditions. Historic Treaties and Federal laws between the United States Government and sovereign Tribal Nations are the backbone of explaining the extent of violence, segregation, and displacement forced upon millions of Indigenous people who have inhabited the U.S. territorial lands for time immemorial and after settler colonization. The existing scholarship for this study will focus on AIAN housing and urban policies period beginning in 1934 by the National Housing Act creation of the Federal Housing Administration. Modern history leading up to present-day conditions of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) housing options are developed through federal policies and practices both directly and in-directly aimed at AIAN housing and assistance programs. Across the globe, Indigenous political achievements of the 1970s led to policy and academic advances. The designation and distribution of funds by the U.S. federal government for housing, was non- existent until the second half of the 20th Century. The policies prior to this time set the stage for house inequities and disparate living conditions. Direct federal policies that exist after the Fair Housing Act of 1954 both contribute and complicate funding directives towards Brown and Black people across the nation. Many complexities occur for understanding the planning and policy repercussions regarding AIAN housing crisis and how the current and past systems have developed planning solutions to solve this issue. A primary resource for understanding current conditions to improving housing opportunities, homelessness and displacement of urban Native American peoples is exemplified in the new Nesika Ilahee (pronounced ness – eye- kah ill- uh- GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 7 hee) housing development in Portland. This project is the first urban affordable housing project to use Indian Housing Block Grant funds in the country. The efforts undertaken for this groundbreaking project progress towards the direct improvement of housing stock for AIAN people. PROBLEM and RELEVANCE The state of Oregon has a significant lack of housing stock and increasingly high home ownership and rental prices which is causing housing instability and an increase of homelessness. Portland’s current history of displacement due to gentrification and institutional racism has led to our current “housing emergency” declared in 2015 by the Portland City Council. The council states that the altering of neighborhood cultural populations, increased levels of housing instability and homelessness, and lack in neighborhood infrastructure are attributes Portland’s gentrification (2035 Comprehensive Plan, 2020). The 2019 Legislature directed over $336 million towards a multifaceted coordinated approach to address this spectrum of housing issues (Oregon Housing and Community Services Legislative Highlight 2019) that range from homelessness shelters to stable rental and permanent housing options. Oregon Statewide Housing Plan (OR2019) demonstrates how "housing cost burdens fall disproportionately on people of color" and American Indian/Alaska Native residents significantly have the lowest household incomes and the highest rate of homelessness for any racial group in the state (OHCS 2019). SITE CONTEXT: Portland, Oregon Oregon is home to nine sovereign Native American nations which represent hundreds of bands and tribes which have resided in the territorial area of Oregon for time immemorial. Portland, as the largest metropolitan area in the state, comprises the fifth densest AIAN off- reservation population in the Nation consuming 2.5% of the total population (AIAN HUD Report, 2017). This is not surprising given the city occupies the traditional village sites of the Multnomah, Kathlamet, Clackamas, Chinook, Tualatin Kalapuya, and Molalla territories. The Portland metro area urban Native American community is currently comprised of individuals who are citizens from more than 380 tribes displaced from their traditional territories across the U.S (Native American Youth and Family Center, 2020). During the relocation era, Portland was used as a ‘housing’ city to receive Native people who being intentionally displaced. Due to this era and subsequent decades of AIAN people seeking employment and opportunities in cities across the nation, Portland is comprised of an extremely diverse set of Tribal and sovereign nation affiliations.2 2 NAYA has been serving the AIAN population for over 40 years and acknowledges this diversity in their work and outreach. GENEVIEVE MIDDLETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A flexible mixed methods approach of descriptive phenomenological research combined with analysis of key documentation was chosen for this qualitative, singular case study examining the design and development of urban Tribal housing using the federal Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG). A review of policy history supports the results of open-ended interviews, ethnographic observations, and content analysis of archival materials for the focus of this report on affordable housing project Nesika Ilahee (Flick, 2007: Yin, 2013). Policy review is the backbone to understanding the implicit and explicit state of housing conditions that have led to the modern AIAN housing and homelessness crisis. Content analysis focused on key words including Indian law, Indian housing affordability, urban Indigeneity, self-determination, decolonization, cultural identity and preservation in order to frame the inventory and examination of present-day explicit AIAN policies such as NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) and regional housing policies which render this case study viable. The primary research focused on human subject interviews of the internal and external decision makers who participated in the collaborative process which developed Nesika Ilahee in Portland, Oregon. Primary data for this research body are open-ended interviews with decision makers involved with various facets of the development of Nesika Ilahee. These interviews explore how planning policies and processes influenced the collective organizations, governance, and funding providers to contribute to this first of its kind culturally specific affordable housing project. The Native American Youth Center (NAYA), Native American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest, Inc. (NARA) and the sovereign Nation of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon collaborated with local, regional and federal government agencies to allocate funds, time, and input for the project. I support the findings from these interviews with cross-references to the content of secondary data sources. Secondary data sources used in this research identify the extent of housing needs and opportunities for AIAN peoples. Local and regional sources such as the Multnomah County Homelessness Report 2016 was cross-referenced against the national data source of HUD’s AIAN Housing 2017 Report highlight the resource allocation against location of AIAN people. The State of Oregon Housing Equity Plan was analyzed to understand opportunities and constraints regarding the replicability of Nesika Ilahee as a collaborative affordable housing project. Additional sources found as relevant from interviews are incorporated into the research as needed. The original research design for this project included a residential behavior and motivation user study of Nesika Ilahee. Due to timing COVID-19 in early 2020, human subject research came to a distinct halt. The sensitivity around AIAN populations historic takings from the U.S. government, the architectural influences on the livable environment and understanding of the users view of the successes and potential trepidations regarding the case study, were to be analyzed to understand the importance of the replicability standards. Nesika Ilahee’s grand opening occurred on January 29, 2020. Interviews, selection process, and onboarding of residents GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 9 occurred simultaneously to this research project and COVID-19 induced quarantines and the State of Oregon’s Stay Home Save Lives Emergency Act. The ability to incorporate a residential behavior and motivation user study will not occur in time for the defense of this Terminal Project. While there is no “single formula accepted by all ethnographic researchers”, the strategy used for analyzing the Nesika Ilahee case study, uses first person semi-structured interviews with the approach of aggregation and classification of emergent themes. This process uses a narrative analysis (Angrosino, 2007) that is doubly informed by the literature reviewed in Chapters 2-3 which suggest that trust, relationship building, preservation of cultural identity, institutional support, sovereignty, and policy limitations are emerging themes for understanding the replicability of the project. The research leaves room for other themes to emerge from the interview data during the classification process. Primary participants were identified from public documentation and public meeting documentation for Nesika Ilahee and requested for interview. The agreed interviewees for this research represent the myriad of professionals who developed and oversaw the procedures for funding, organization, legal oversight, and cultural and architectural design. First contact with many of these participants happened in a public setting and was followed up with a formal email of introduction to the research topic. All data for this research is saved on a protected computer or hard drive and is only used by the primary research investigator or the faculty advisors. The informed consent process was conducted by either a written form or verbally before the interview, depending on the participants’ preference and whether the interview occurred in person or on the phone. The written “Consent Form” (see attachment “Consent Form”) included IRB required elements and was presented to participants via email prior to conducting interviews. If the participant chose to, the written form was signed and returned, otherwise consent was read to the interviewee prior to initiation of interview. The Primary Investigator conducted the process of consent and passed IRB conduct training prior to this research (May 20193). All interview participants followed the same consent process. Participants were allowed to see and review their quotes prior to dissemination or deny the use of the quote and/or their attribution. In such a case, the quote was not used. Characteristics of Participants 1. Paul Lumley, Executive Director, Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA). “We are a community-driven organization. We have alternate Native American High School with wraparound services to serve some of the neediest high school students in the region. We also have programming from prenatal to elder care and wraparound services for all those age classes. And we also have economic development opportunities for the native community that we serve as well as an affordable housing platform. We have six affordable housing properties and about 250 units at this time and two more on the way adding another hundred and five by next year.” 3University of Oregon IRB confirmation: 2020-02-20 IR Exempt Determination 02132020.025 GENEVIEVE MIDDLETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 10 2. Eric Paine, CEO of Community Development Partners (CDP). “My role is overseeing all of the corporate activities as well as business development and exploring new potential development opportunities, strategic partnerships, and staying involved in high-level oversight of project design and backend resident programming.” 3. Oscar Arana, Community Development Director, Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA). “I oversee the organization's economic development and housing programs. The department is comprised of nearly 30 employees and the work is divided up in three major areas so community advocacy, leadership development. The other one is economic development so small business development, asset building, place based economic development and the other one is housing, and it's basically anything from helping clients get into housing, stay housed, purchase a home, and even developing affordable housing.” 4. Brian Carleton, AIA, Principle Architect, Carleton Hart Architecture in Portland, Oregon. “Our firm specializes in affordable housing, community development. We do a wide range of projects, but a large portion of our work is in community development, community facilities, and affordable housing.” 5. Tom Carney, Administrator Officer, Native American Programs HUD Northwest Regional Office. 6. Kimberly Ken, Principle at Kimberly Kent Art Brokers. “I'm an art broker in affordable housing, hospitals, senior housing, doctor's offices. I'm brought in during the design phase of construction for new construction and renovation projects. And basically have ownership of the art budget.” 7. Johnpaul Jones, AIA, Principle Architect, Jones and Jones Architecture, Seattle, Washington. “I am an architect that has an office in Seattle that does architecture and landscape architecture. It's one of the first ones to ever practice those two fields together in one place, and personally my work has been [buried] all over the country and the world doing various things, but in the last 25 years it's been mainly dealing with Native American people here in the west, and some in the mid-west and back east.” 8. Wanda Dalla Costa, AIA. “I am an architect and I am the first First Nation woman to be licensed in architecture in Canada. I am also a professor at Arizona State University, and I believe I am the first Native woman to be tenured at a design school in North America.” 9. Amy Thompson, Director of Housing Services, Native American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest. “I work on a variety of supportive housing projects, both site-based and GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 11 scattered-site. I supervise 12 staff, and the services they provide range from street outreach and housing placement for individuals who are experiencing homelessness. And then we also have programs that provide ongoing supportive services for individuals who are in permanent supportive housing.” INTERVIEW CODING The voice recordings were organized into verbatim transcript documents and followed an inductive coding process (Saldana, 2008). The codes identified were arranged into the following categories; policy, financing, planning processes, cultural design elements, challenges and limitations, key takeaways, and key dialogue for quotes. Each category was then analyzed for emerging subcategories and themes such as relationship building, resource gathering, advocacy, cultural representation, and innovative precedents. Given the nature of the research questions, the results of the interviews reveal mostly “Structures and processes (which) can be discerned through Descriptive Coding and Process Coding, and Domain and Taxonomic Coding, while causes and consequences can be discerned through Pattern Coding” (Saldana, 2012, p. 15). The primary researcher used a hands-on approach of coding on paper manuscripts for the manipulation of the data set into codes, categories, subcategories, themes, and findings. As way of comparing the preliminary findings against the greater data set, the primary researcher sent inquiries or “member checking” with the participants for both further supporting detail, and also a litmus that the findings were in line with the professional opinions of the participants. The findings gathered from the coding expeditions of the researcher are most explained in two formats: a narrative presentation with supporting participant approved quotes, as well as diagrammatic visual descriptions. Limitations The author spoke with leadership from the Confederated Tribes of Siletz briefly at the grand opening of Nesika Ilahee. After several follow-up emails the Tribal leadership was not available for interviews. The timing coincided with the outbreak of COVID-19 and corresponding closures. Follow-up correspondence with an administrator of ONAP recognized the difficulty of Tribes being comfortable with this type of research. As citizen of a Tribal nation, the author respects the Tribe’s position to be cautious about the information that they share. This scenario presents two reasons why this research is important: 1)There is a great need to know more about conditions dealing with housing and tribal affairs in the planning framework, and 2) The amount of time needed to develop relationships to conduct planning projects is difficult even when coming from a tribal background. It is acknowledged that the sovereignty of Tribal nations provides structures and formats that have a timeline that follow traditional practices for governance, the outcome may induce response times to be slower than this research project had the capacity to plan for. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 12 RESEARCH QUESTIONS My primary interest in this research project is to explore the processes associated with how the first urban American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) housing development off- reservation (Nesika Illahee) leveraged the Indian Housing Block Grant program The exploration will be conducted by examining the experiences of decision makers who forged new policy, financing and design collaborations for Nesika Ilahee in Portland, Oregon. Guided by empirical and primary source data associated with urban Indigenous experiences and data that defines inequities in funding allocations of Tribal citizens living off reservation, this project asks the following research questions How can lessons from the planning processes, policies, financing, and design decisions of the Nesika Illahee project in Portland, Oregon inform urban indigenous housing? What are the limitations or challenges of this project that need to be addressed in future developments of off-reservation Indian Housing? What does “culturally appropriate” mean, how is it defined through application in urban indigenous housing projects, and what could be replicable for other affordable housing projects? CHAPTER SUMMARIES Chapter Two is comprised of contributing literature for understanding topics related to modern American Indian and Alaska Native housing. This will include analyzing multiple viewpoints on how self-determination, sovereignty and decolonization are being framed in modern literature. I will review the leading theories of Indigenous Planning which are formed from a coalition of worldwide Indigenous cultural leaders and writers. Indigenous planning literature will examine the social experience for decision making in Indigenous territories and I will highlight the gaps of Indigenous planning as applied to urbanism. Finally, cultural competency in planning, policy and urban design will be explored for a foundation of how programs and policies meet the needs of diverse communities affected. Chapter Three consists of a review and analysis of historical and contemporary policies which have sculpted the climate of today’s housing crisis for AIAN people. Federal Policy beginning in the early 20th Century initiates the timeline where AIAN are recognized as citizens and acknowledged by the U.S. federal government. This chapter will look at federal policy transitions into modern congressional acts that allocate specific funding for AIAN populations in the spirit of self-determination. Housing specific federal policies for AIAN populations is considered to identify both the contributions and shortfalls of housing specific needs. State and regional policies that have recently pioneered prioritization and funds directed towards underrepresented communities will be detailed in the final part of this chapter. Chapter Four will define the context of the affordable housing project case study entitled Nesika Ilahee using financing and design as thematic directives. The collaborative context of how the project was financed and developed by the specific partners will be GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 13 illuminated from the federal, state, and private investor aspects. The contextual description will include a physical site analysis, neighborhood history., and current conditions such as influencing area median incomes, school districts, access to transportation and cultural community facilities. The aspects identified in Chapter 2 speak to Indigenous planning as applied to cultural competency, in Chapter 4 the project digests physical design elements of the project from the perspective of neighborhood, cultural, and affordability considerations. Chapter Five will detail the analysis of the interviews of contributing decision makers for Nesika Ilahee organized by the themes of policy, financing, and design. Additional interviews of leading Indigenous Architects are examined to cross-reference practical applications of current methods for designing Native places. Chapter Six will discuss the key findings which will inform the recommendations in Chapter Seven for improving collaborative partnerships in the development of urban AIAN housing. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 14 CHAPTER 2: INDIGENOUS CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND LITERATURE This chapter is comprised of contributing literature for understanding topics related to modern American Indian and Alaska Native housing. This will include analyzing multiple viewpoints on how self-determination, sovereignty and decolonization are being framed in modern literature. I will review the leading theories of Indigenous Planning which are formed from a coalition of worldwide Indigenous cultural leaders and writers. Indigenous planning literature will examine the social experience for decision making in Indigenous territories and I will highlight the gaps of Indigenous planning as applied to urbanism. Finally, Indigenous aesthetics in design will be explored for a foundation of how to meet the needs of AIAN communities. Key terms: Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Decolonization, Indigenous Planning and Indigenous Aesthetics “The existence of an Indian nation is made up of territories, identities and history that are strongly tied to land, culture, and community” - Simon Ortiz 2000 While this research is not a documentation of the genocide of Indigenous peoples by settler colonialism, the “cultural continuity has been interrupted by a number of historical events, namely the reservation system, residential schools and the outlawing of culture traditions, re- operationalizing culture and the resurrection, restoration and revitalization of traditional methodologies is actively underway” (Dalla Costa, 2018). The primary research topic of this report contributes to the urban Indigeneity as resurrection, revitalization, and recognition of the original peoples of this place. Today, American Indian Tribes are recognized in the United States as having precolonial governmental status and entitlements to Indigenous territories. The history of how this recognition has transformed in the past century is described in this chapter through discussion of contributing indigenous literature from planning, ethnic studies, and architecture.4 Attributes of recognizing citizenship or enrollment are self-determined by each nation and can vary from blood quantum to maternal/paternal lineage or by degrees of familial documentation. Native peoples and their governments have inherent sovereign rights which have been recognized since first contact with European settlers and continue today. Recognition of sovereignty informs the right of self-determination or the right to independently govern and make decisions that benefit the health, safety, and welfare of each sovereign nation and its people. Native literature attests that Tribal sovereignty and citizenship supplement more than legal status, but a cultural sovereignty, value, and importance which can impart opportunities for greater societal benefits (Cattelino, 2016), (Fawcett, Walker, Greene, 2015), (Coffey, Tsosie, 4 A Tribal citizen is someone who is recognized or enrolled by one of the 573 federally recognized Tribal Indian Nations (variously called tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, communities, and native villages) (NCAI 2020). GENEVIEVE MIDDLETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 15 2001). This Chapter will attempt to illustrate where opportunities for defining cultural competency within contemporary Indigenous planning and design by understanding how Self- Determination, Sovereignty, Decolonization, Indigenous Urbanism, and Indigenous Planning are defined. Sovereignty Historic treaty negotiations between the U.S. government and Indian tribes established a legal status that acknowledged and enforced federal recognition that Indian tribes were pre- constitutional independent governments. This was grounds to establish modern political sovereignty as comprised from Supreme Court rulings, federal policies, and congressional acts that helped realize Federal Indian Law as the right to enter into political agreement with another government. Mid 1800s U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall’s historic rulings in a “trilogy” of Indian Law cases legally actualized that Indian nations are “domestic, dependent nations” who are tied to “geographic boundaries” where “tribal governmental authority is to some extent circumscribed by federal authority” (Coffey, Tsosie, 2001). The ruling is the precedent for modern day policy that acknowledges the political sovereignty of Tribal Nations (and has nullified congressional acts that have violated those principles, such as the mid 20th Century Indian Relocation and Termination Act). The intersection of the political definition of sovereignty and a cultural definition of sovereignty is a critical issue for contemporary Native Americans and ties historic and current ideologies for developing culturally competent governance decisions. Cultural sovereignty is a concept explored by Native scholars who believe that sovereignty as a legal status encompasses more than the definitions of dominant settler colonial perspectives. Profoundly the historic and contemporary ongoing definitions of sovereignty by Indigenous peoples worldwide, expresses a “resistance to internal colonization” (Lane Hibbard, 2005). The resistance perspective is the basis for decolonization or the effort of “dominant society incorporating and subordinating indigenous societies” through the sovereign nation to federal nation state interaction. The decolonized perspective “encompasses the spiritual, emotional, mental and physical aspects of our lives” and allows us, as Native people to embrace our own concepts of defining sovereignty, rather than allowing for the relegation of dominant culture definitions (Coffey, Tsosie, 2001). The urban Indigenous experience is comprised of a blend of many nations, therefor Native scholars have identified an overarching tie to cultural identity that is experienced through the preservation of traditional languages, spiritual practices, and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)(Begay 2019). The establishment of tribal educational systems and spaces which respond to the efforts of restoration of these traditional values are integrated to curb the “cultural” genocide that is a result of direct federal policies (Coffey, Tsosie, 2001). GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 16 Indigenous Planning Indigenous Planning has been paved by Indigenous academics and practitioners throughout the world and predominantly of New Zealand, Australia, and North America. The setting is topologically oriented around reservations and rural sovereign settlements. Some scholarship speaks to urban Indigeneity and the practice of urban planning that incorporate sovereign nation needs as more specific discourse than other ethnic organizations, noting that “we cannot simply ‘add’ Indigenous people to the list of stakeholders” (Porter, Yiftachel, 2019). Urban Indigeneity as applied to architecture, placemaking, and urban planning have varying models of assessment and also the varieties show distinct overlap in methods analysis. Joseph Kunkel an Architect and executive director of the Santa Fe-based Sustainable Native Communities Collaborative notes in an interview at the 2018 ArtPlace Summit that most notably an “important issue to address is the recognition how past injustices will impact how requests for participation are received.” In one such project Kunkel worked on, his Indigenous-informed approach and techniques using public outreach achieved a remarkable 30% total community participation rate. This is showcase how Indigenous practitioners of community engagement meet the needs of community and development collaborators from speaking the language of policy and design while offering culturally appropriate process facilitation and advocacy. Without cultural liaisons trust building and access to indigenous input are amiss. The discourse on Indigenous positioning towards non-Tribal governance addresses the historic atrocities which have a perpetuated a “‘long shadow’ of colonial processes, violence, and dispossession (which) remains a vivid presence for Indigenous people in urban contexts” (Porter, 2010). Libby Porter delivers a summary on Indigenous literature to find the types of developments that recognize Indigeneity in cities. She concludes that cultural heritage sites are the primary “place” for urban Indigeneity in New Zealand. In the U.S. many of these sites have and remained more rural, rather than urban. Porter’s study finds that developing positive relationships between community groups, developers, and governance authorities is essential (Awatere et al. 250). Margaret Lovach’s 2009 book, Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts provides consideration of how to develop positive relationships in the urban context between sovereign nations and non-tribal governances. She states that “Respecting relational accountability between planners and participants and presenting results from consultative dialogues in a way that balances integrative conclusions with intact contextualized stories in narrative form will permit a better balance between Western analytic process and Indigenous interpretive approaches”. Her approach combined with the perspectives of other Indigenous planning and design practitioners lead to an “Indigenous decision-making process”. This process is inclusive of interdisciplinary professions which lead to the design and construction of urban places. Walker, Jojola, and Natcher promote in Reclaiming Indigenous GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 17 Planning, 2013 that “planning with and by Indigenous communities has been associated with the constructive production of culture, space- and place-making, identity building, healing, and wellbeing.” As cities are intrinsically layered by public agency provisions of everyday life, so too are they layered with essential cultural services that enrich and support communities through non-profit organizational methods. Indigenous Planning scholars promote developing Indigenous urban space to take into recognition the need to address what communicating with Indigenous communities looks like. Indigenous Aesthetic The cultural value of oral tradition is a highly developed trans-national indigenous practice that demands great clarity of speech, memory, and realization of every individual word within language used (Kenison, 1999). Indigenous educator Gregory Cajete recognizes “The codependent relationship between humans and nature is embedded over time in song, story and place-based learning. The result is that Indigenous people are unable to formulate a detached, objective view of land and place” (Dalla Costa, 2018) (Cajete, 2000). This indication that the Indigenous perspective is not aimed at owning or reigning over land, but rather communing and stewarding with the land. Documented narratives, stories and artworks contribute to the exploration of the traditional ecological knowledge. Urban design and planning practitioners have the opportunity to meet the resurgence of traditional through continued work in the use of storytelling or narrative, communication feedback, and social engagement processes. Recent work by Hirini Matunga, A Discourse on The Nature of Indigenous Architecture, upholds that “Architecture must be constructed from a narrative, from knowledge, from a values base and process sourced in Indigeneity or an Indigenous ontology to be Indigenous architecture”. Relational forms of communication form a building block for Indigenous places. Matunga notes that indigenizing city planning require conceptual space within mainstream, the work of integrating dialogue with Indigenous communities is the path for developing such imaginative prospects of how Indigenized urban places manifest. Experienced practitioners of the Indigenizing urban spaces “incorporate both the practical and the spiritual in planning and design to help heighten human sensitivity to cultural and environmental issues” (Jones, personal communications, May 12, 2020). Johnpaul Jones used an inherited traditional method to develop his Indigenous aesthetic while working as the lead design consultant for the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian. Jones notes that “There's four worlds and if you use that, which I used over and over now for fifty- something years, that works to bring many people together to be able to talk about” what vision they want to see within the designs. Jones specified to me in our interview on his experience with Indigenous urban design that “I've been passing on to young native planners and designers and say, ‘Use this. It'll help you’" (Jones, personal communications, May 12, 2020). Connection with traditional knowledge through models such as the four directions and the medicine wheel, and GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 18 Jones’ Four Worlds model support a wholistic approach to design methods. Figure 1: Jonepaul Jones Native Design Framework, courtesy of Johnpaul Jones Attributes for understanding Indigenous architecture and urban design is met by an analysis of Indigenous history as contextualized by architecture and planning. Emerge the post- modern Indigenous architectural perspective as “rather a reinterpretation of all that has gone before and ‘new ways’ of reconstituting tradition, and rethinking Indigenous archetypes to comprehend new context…the critical point is their ability to meet an agreed Indigenous social, cultural, aesthetic objective, mediated through the relevant Indigenous community.” While we don’t have that post-modern documentation of the physical form, Matunga argues that it should be “an outcome or endpoint where Indigenous cultural and social values and principles ultimately materialize in spatial, structural form” (Matunga 2018). As evident from this review, culturally competent governance relations within dominant society will work to support the resurgence of traditions and cultural values when conducting community development, housing, and health projects affecting AIAN people. Preservation and celebration of “Native languages constitute an important repository of knowledge about tribal concepts of spirituality, values, and philosophy” (Chief, 2000), (Coffey Tsosie, 2007). Spirituality is cornerstone of the function of Indigenous Tribal communities to survival through generations of diaspora. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 19 CHAPTER 3: POLICY HISTORY This chapter will look at federal policy and congressional acts that allocate specific funding for AIAN populations. Housing specific federal policies for AIAN populations is considered in order to identify both the contributions and shortfalls of housing specific needs. The federal government viewpoint of Tribal sovereignty has undergone a transformation in the past two centuries, as recounted by the language and approach of such federal policies that have supported and denied the health, safety, and welfare for AIAN people. AIAN Housing Policy History In 1921 The Snyder Act authorized under the U.S. Department of the Interior a new Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) “for relief of distress and conservation of health” (Indian Health Services, 2019). The breadth of that act and resulting agency, covered anywhere from health to transportation to building improvements. The vast jurisdictional coverage given to the BIA and the lack of funding for such coverage, perpetuated the neglect of housing assistance services from 1921 until the United States Housing Act of 1961. Within that 40-year period, a number of non-AIAN specific federal housing policies imparted negative repercussions on minority communities and specifically urban and rural American Indians and Alaska Natives. The National Housing Act of 1934 created the Federal Housing Administration as the federal agency that established the national mortgage association to "provide a market for home mortgages to be bought and sold by banks and investors, thus creating the availability of money and potential for lender profit" (Keeler, 2016, p. 77). The FHA also developed a process to identify the physical locations within cities which were deemed on a scale of least to most risky for mortgage lenders. The process used physical characteristics, location, and race/ethnicity to create 'redlining'. The Housing Act of 1937 was an attempt to assist lower income families through funds to local authorities for low-rent housing projects. Many of these projects occurred in neighborhoods determined as 'blighted' and often resulted in the demolition of historically African American neighborhoods. Scholarship views on this time period of federal housing identify many of the policies as racially discriminatory which promoted segregation and resulted in generations of equity and asset loss for non-White families (Vale, Freemark, 2012). Although not a direct AIAN housing policy, the effects of “redlining” and urban racial segregation set the stage for “white flight” or the abandonment of urban spaces in post WWII. During this time America saw 4.3 million homes built using the GI Bills home loan guarantee, which scholars suggest bolstered the already occurring white flight from urban spaces to the suburban fringe (Keeler, 2016). The GI Bill in conjunction with the NHA had federal restrictions that denied AIAN veterans to benefits form those housing policies. Simultaneously U.S. congress pushed through a new AIAN bill that scholars believe functioned as racially discriminatory housing policies for AIAN veterans to assimilate into American culture with substantially less than their white veteran counterparts. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 20 Termination and Relocation Period WWII had an enormous effect on American Indians, 1/3 of all Tribal citizens participated toward the war effort as either enlisted soldiers or working in war industries, a resulting 1/2 of existing American Indian men and 1/5 of women relocated to urban areas in this era (Keeler, 2016, pg. 81). American Indians were the largest ethnic minority group to participate in the war, concurrently the American Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programming became the target of federal cutbacks. Post war saw the US Congress pass House Concurrent Resolution 108 in 1953 as the official start to AIAN termination and relocation. This policy was "touted as a way to (re)integrate Indian people into mainstream society, particularly veterans who were deemed more "prepared" for "full integration" (Keeler, 2016, p 83). The policy removed federal recognition of hundreds of tribes. Termination was intended to end all federal responsibility for specified Tribes, which transferred all previously sovereign nation land trusts and its resources to be newly taxable by the U.S. Government. However, the presumed millions of acres of land loss for the Tribes due to tax forfeiture proceedings (Daly 2009; Keeler 2016). Termination removed thousands of AIAN people from the support of their sovereignty in psychological, emotional, and economic ways. Pressures of assimilation to "Americanism" coupled with disenfranchised Indigenous First Nations people, have contributed to the extreme conditions of poverty experienced by AIAN people. The phenomena of Indigenous assimilation have been replicated amongst governments world-wide, including in an Australian case study identified by Sandercock (2000) that demonstrates the racialized and xenophobic processes imparted in an Aboriginal urban housing project determined as blighted. Planning scholar Leonie Sandercock argues that the 'threat' felt by the colonizing government of white-settlers develops into a "two-fold solution" of "rational" spatialized policies producing racial segregation of "exclusion" and perpetuates "more reform" that tries to obtain certain cultural assimilations by Indigenous communities (Sandercock, 2000). The traditional "rational" planning model and subsequent governing agencies have been complicit in the “colonial project” aim to clear the way for the settler state, it’s citizens and it’s economy by providing intellectual, technical and conceptual skills to facilitate clearance and relocation of indigenous peoples (Bates et al, 2018). The Relocation program selected participants to receive a one-way ticket to designated urban locations, a short-term stipend, and temporary housing which were often located in redlined neighborhoods and spaces that had been abandoned in 'white flight' and the development of suburban American. This program is acknowledged by its creators (The U.S. House of Representatives proponents like Senator Watkins) as providing “freedom” through assimilation, particularly for veterans who were more prepared for living in the greater U.S. settled territories. White veterans received the support of governmental policy to build assets and equity via the FHA and GI Bill while Native American veterans were expected to “benefit” from GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 21 the relocation program through the experience of cultural and locational displacement/assimilation (Keeler, 2016; Wilkins, 2011). Contemporary AIAN Policy The Office of the General Counsel of the Public Housing Administration bureaucratically denied American Indian Tribal governments as "eligible municipalities” until the early 1960s. At this point the Bureau of Indian Affairs could receive specific federal funding assistance for housing, although the allotment of funding was low and was unable to affect the housing crisis of displaced Tribal citizens. In 1976 the first Indian housing regulations were published separate from those for public housing. The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of the Indian Housing Authority (IHA) Low-Rent and Mutual Help Programs. In 1988 the Federal Government passed the Indian Housing Act which established a statutory commitment to the provision of Indian housing assistance. By 1992 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created a consolidated regulation system for Indian Housing called the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) which gave more authority for decision making regarding federal fund allocations for Tribal areas and Tribal peoples in non-tribal areas. Congress designated a National Commission on American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Housing to investigate the situation. ONAP presented its findings in a 1992 report (National Commission, 1992), which gave measurement and inventory to the terrible housing conditions for tribal members of tribal areas. HUD then moved aggressively to try to address the issues through development of the Federal policy entitled Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act (NAHASDA). The two major components that came out of the NAHASDA are the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) and the Native American Home-Owners Loan assistance program. IHBG funds are eligible for planning and development planning. NAHASDA represents the changing acknowledgement to the spirit of self-determination and sovereignty of Tribes. The program is administered regionally through six HUD Area ONAP offices, and “reorganized and simplified HUD’s system of housing assistance to Native Americans by eliminating several separate HUD programs and replacing them with a single block grant program (IHBG) made directly to tribes” (Kenison, 2008). This consolidation for funding allocation has improved the way housing assistance is delivered in tribal areas. HUD’s establishment of ONAP’s autonomy is evidence of the “unique trust responsibility of the United States to protect and support Indian people.” (Pindus et. al., 2017). NAHASDA aims to assist and promote affordable housing activities to develop, maintain and operate affordable housing in safe and healthy environments on Indian reservations and in other Indian areas for occupancy by low-income Indian families. Some government organizations have argued that there is no defined way to accurately track the total numbers of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population, or how many AIAN people suffer from disparate housing conditions and distinguished as eligible for federal housing funding. The United States Census Bureau population total is recorded by the GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 22 respondents that mark American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) as race, however that does not indicate whether those are enrolled tribal citizens. Tracking the citizenship of 562 sovereign nations has proven to be an unmet task due to the autonomy of Tribal sovereign nations. Today as many as 72% of Tribal citizens live off of reservation lands (Pindus et. al., 2017). It is estimated that 60% or more of all Tribal citizens live in urban areas by HUD and as many as 71% as indicated by the Urban Indian Health Institute (Pindus et. al., 2017). Figure 2 illustrates a condensed timeline of key AIAN housing policies of the 20th Century. Since 1996 the emergence and use of NAHASDA has become the dominant policy to effect and fund AIAN specific housing. Figure 2: American Indian/Alaska Native Housing Policy Timeline: created by Genevieve Middleton Transition from Public Housing to Affordable mixed-finance housing The history of public housing in the United States has transformed in the 20th and 21st Centuries from a federally funded conventional public housing (i.e., housing financed, owned, and operated by the public sector) program to a combination of public tax credits that incentivize private home-loan corporations and housing authorities to support affordable housing opportunities (public private partnerships). Figure 3 illustrates a broad timeline that develops public housing focus areas. A modern timeline of federal funding shown the evolution from developing a working-class housing stock to the welfare housing projects and reactive dismantling of unsafe and over-crowded conditions. The dismantling left millions of Brown and GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 23 Black people in diaspora, along with newly conditioned dominant cultured media perspective that public housing projects always lead to ghettos (Vale, Freemark, 2012). The change of positioning on the public housing perspective promoted a rethinking of housing to become a mixed-finance/public-private option. This was supported by federal funds that went directly to individuals via Section 8 housing or as the introduction of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). As illustrated by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University on affordable housing, LIHTC has become the premier funding aspect for affordable housing and has set the contemporary standards for approach of housing support. LIHTC promotes the use of PPPs that rely on housing rents as annual income that safeguard lenders to receive their moneys back. LIHTC may use either 50% or 60% of the local Area Median Income to determine rents, which in itself supports the mid-low range income families to be eligible for “affordable housing” opportunities. According the US Census 1 in 4 AIAN individuals who reside in the Portland, OR metropolitan area are living in poverty (Urban Indian Health Institute, 2020). Affordable housing that is developed through LIHTC doesn’t serve the lowest income individuals and particularly doesn’t serve urban AIAN populations (Vale, Freemark, 2012, pg 382). Figure 3: American Public Housing Timeline: created by Genevieve Middleton GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 24 Figure 4: Rise of LIHTC State of Oregon Housing and Community Services In 2017 the Oregon State Legislature committed $80 million of funding to the Local Innovation and Fast Track (LIFT) Housing Program, in order to build new affordable housing for low income households, especially families. In 2019 the Oregon Legislature committed another $150 million to fund the LIFT program in 2020 and 2021, the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) oversees the program and two primary goals: 1. To offer new affordable family-sized housing units 2. To serve historically underserved communities, including communities of color. The second goal of the program is met through project demonstration efforts to serve communities of color such as; “intentional and meaningful engagement, relevant marketing and outreach plan, sponsorship through a culturally responsive organization, designed and located to address displacement, and agreements with area service providers to engage in culturally appropriate services (Housing Stability Council, 2019). The Oregon Housing and Community Services policies coordinate state funds to drive affordable and culturally specific housing opportunities throughout Oregon. The LIFT project encourages sponsorships with culturally specific organizations to promote housing for Black and Brown people. Consequently, the LIFT program is under the constraint of the Fair Housing Act which restricts race-based housing opportunities. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 25 City of Portland Anti-Gentrification Policies The City of Portland has been slowly addressing the issues regarding the abundant gentrification that has occurred citywide. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability reports on Gentrification Typology and Displacement have influenced the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and subsequent Policies 5.1 - 5.54 which address Housing diversity, supply, access, location, affordability, health, safety, and well-being. The emphasis of the housing section for “policies to address discriminatory barriers to fair and equitable access to housing and the impact of gentrification and displacement, particularly for under-served and under- represented populations (City of Portland: 2035 Comprehensive Plan, 2020). The City acknowledges that the process of meeting City policies will take coordinated private-public partnerships, that encourage Portland Housing Bureau and Home Forward, community development corporations, and other non-profit community organizations to join forces. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 26 CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY CONTEXT Chapter 4 will define the context of the affordable housing project case study entitled Nesika Ilahee using financing and design as thematic directives. The collaborative context of how the project was financed and developed by the specific partners will be illuminated from the federal, state, and private investor aspects. The contextual description will include a physical site analysis, neighborhood history and current conditions such as influencing area median incomes, school districts, access to transportation and cultural community facilities. Image 1: N esika Ilahee, source: Carleton Hart Architects In January 2017, the Multnomah County and Portland Joint Office of Homelessness Services, reported 10 percent of homeless persons were Native American, compared to the 2.5 percent of the County’s total Native American population. “By 2017, we saw a staggering increase in the number of Native community members living outside” (Pindus et al., 2017). In response to national and local need, an unprecedented Tribal housing project Nesika Illahee (pronounced ness – eye- kah ill- uh-hee) translated from Chinook means “Our place or Our Land”, opened in January 2020 providing 59 units of family housing, with 20 of those units designated to Tribally affiliated individuals. The Confederated Tribes of Siletz (located 130 miles SE of the project site) is providing support for the project through use of HUDs Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) to build a project in partnership with the Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), and the Native American Rehabilitation Association (NARA) and Community Development Partners (CDP) (Native American Youth and Family Center 2020). Through existing relationships, CDP brought in Architecture Firm CarletonHart as well as Kimberly Kent Art Brokerage who helped develop the aesthetics of the exterior placemaking. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 27 Cully Neighborhood – Neerchokikoo Project Site Figure 5: City of Portland Gentrification Typology Map The Cully Neighborhood site was once known as Neerchokikoo, a village of the Multnomah Chinook people until part way into the 20th century. The village contained more than 126 dwellings and a year-round encampment adjacent to the slough allowed for transportation access. As the nation and the state dismantled AIAN territorial settlements, the former village became a rural and majority-white place. Today, Cully is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods in Portland. Gentrification is however a great threat to this area seeing the median house price rise 13 percent between 2015 and 2016 as compared to a 12 percent increase in the Portland metro area (Moore, 2018) Eavan Moore 2018 the Landscape: Cully Neighborhood. The neighborhood is undergoing an increase of urban amenities while also being identified by the City of Portland’s 2018 Gentrification Typology as “Early: Type 1: These neighborhoods have higher shares of vulnerable populations but have not yet experienced demographic changes. Their housing market is still low or moderate but has experienced high appreciation since 2008 (or 2012 for rents).” Portland has set up a system of policies adopted in to the 2035 Comprehensive Plan which work against gentrification and in the direction of equitable housing and community structures particularly for vulnerable communities. Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA) Founded by parent and Elder volunteers in 1974 and incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non- profit organization in 1994. NAYA is located in the Cully neighborhood as one of the cultural non-profits who have been investing in neighborhood projects since 2010 “that build GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 28 environmental wealth while delivering jobs, educational opportunities, affordable housing, and other benefits to community members” (Bañuelos et al., 2013). “We are a community-driven organization. We have alternate Native American High School with wraparound services to serve some of the neediest High School students in the region. We also have programming from prenatal to elder care and wraparound services for all those age classes. And we also have economic development opportunities for the Native community that we serve as well as an affordable housing platform. We have six affordable housing properties and about 250 units at this time and two more on the way adding another hundred and five by next year.” – Paul Lumley, Executive Director at NAYA. This is the first time that an IHBG will be applied to a housing complex sponsored by a sovereign Tribe that is in an urban space and not on Tribal reservation land. Residents at Nesika Illahee have a three-tiered preferencing scheme which require 20 of the units be set aside for Tribal citizens, giving first priority to Siletz Nation citizens, and the other 39 units having preference to Tribal citizens and then following with typical Fair Housing Act allowances. In addition to the housing project, the site will provide basic health, dental, and mental wellness services for resident members, provided by NARA and in conjunction with State of Oregon funding resources. The project has embedded throughout its development the concept of storytelling which signifies acknowledgement of cultural heritage in both form and function of the space. The structure is built around a commons area and plaza greenspace in the interior, as well as use of a wood structure and detailing to create a warm, welcoming, and contextualized feeling that reflects the pacific northwest plank house architectural tradition. In addition to the outdoor gathering space, the project has an interior community room for residential use to provide the sense of “coming home”. This case study highlights the project goals and parameters for meeting needs of Portland's urban Native community. Key actors in the development of Nesika Ilahee reflect a typified public-private partnership for affordable housing using a mixed finance and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) structure (see Figure 4). Prior to the sub recipient relationship between NAYA and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians issuance of the Indian Housing Block Grant, Community Development Partners was a driving force establishing the LIFT funds and guidelines for the project. NAYA was a key actor throughout the life of the project, but internal organizational changes within NAYA created barriers to their ability to have a strong influence early on. The involvement of NARA provided additional wrap around support for residents of Nesika Ilahee, as well as an additional spectrum of health service funds. The involvement of the Siletz nation in the development offered allowances and details that made the project more accessible to AIAN populations. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 29 Key Actors in Development of Nesika Ilahee Reach Public Private Non-Profit Mission Administors NAYA - Native American Youth & Family Center To enhance the diverse strengths of AIAN youth and families in partnership with the Advocacy, fundraising, community thorugh identity and education. Provides culutrally specific programs and relationship builder, services that guide AIAN people in the directon of personal success and balance Local X thorugh culutrla empowerment. CDP - Community Development Partners To repair and strengthen the fabri cof cities and towns by meeting thehousing needs Finances, Management, of local citizens through the thoughtful palnning and creative development of Design coordination sustainable, affordable communities. CDP is a ceritfied B-Corporation, a reflection of Regional X its dedication to its mission and priority of impacts over profits. NARA - Native American Rehabilitation To provide education, physical and mental health services and substance abuse Culturally appropriate Association treatment that is culturally appropriate to American Indians, Alaska Natives and Health Services Local X anyone in need. ONAP - Office of Native American Programming To increase the supply of safe, decent, and affordable housing available to Native Indian Housing Block Grant, (HUD) American families. To strengthen communities by improving living conditions and Financial support + waiver creating economic opportunities for tribes and Indian housing residents; and To of Fair housing Act Federal X ensure fiscal integrity in the operation of the programs it administers. restrictions Joint Office of Homeless Established in 2016 to oversee the delivery of services to people experiencing Rental Subsisidies homelessness in Multnomah County. The office represents a shared commitment between Multnomah County and the City of Portland to making services easier to County/ City X access for those in need. Confederated Tribes of Siletz A group of many tribes and bands, each with its own language, territory, and Recipient of the Indian customs became the Confederated Tribes of Siletx Indians in the mid-1800s. Offers Housing Block Grant, many programs and services to tirbal memebers, including housing, education, Cultural oversight health, and social and employment services. Culture and language classes also are Sovereign avaialable in all areas in whihc the tribe has offices, including Siletz, Portland, Nation X Salem and Eugene. Home Forward To assure that the people of the community are sheltered. Home Forward has a Rental Subsisidies special responsibility to those who encounter barriers to housing because of income, Local X disability or special need. City of Porltand, Mayor's Office We believe in the power of government to work for all Portlanders. We work every "Buy-in approval" single day to build a community that enjoys economic prosperity, a healthy City X environment, affordable homes, and a safe place to live and thrive. Oregon Housing and Community Services We provide stable and affordable housing and engage leaders, to develop integrated LIFT Fund, Mental Health statewide policy that addresses poverty and provides opportunity for Oregonians. Fund, Gap Fund State X Meyer Memorial Trust National X Committed to investing in change at the systemic level to ease inequities and disparitiGersa.nt funds Citi Community Capital Provides a suite of financial products to help affordable housing developers Permanent Loan construct, rehabilitate, refinance, and acquire affordable multifamily housing across International X the country. Aegon Real Assets Works with a range of clients to help them achieve their long-term investment "work around" on assuring International X goals, working to act for each as a trusted partner. IHBG urban use Carleton Hart Architecture A collaborative design practice dedicated to creating innovative solutions to Building Design National X community-centered design challenges. Kimberly Kent Art Brokerage Focus on local, original art to support working artists and give residents a feeling of Art / Placemaking Regional X home and community. Wells Fargo Focuses on national and local proposals that help address three complex societal Grant funds National X issues: Housing affordability, Financial health, and Small business growth. Figure 6: Key Actors in Nesika Ilahee Development Image 2: Groundbreaking of Nesika Ilahee GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 30 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS Chapter Five will detail the analysis of the interviews of contributing decision makers for Nesika Ilahee organized by the themes of policy, financing, and design. Additional interviews of leading Indigenous Architects are examined to cross-reference practical applications of current methods for designing Native places. The data gathered and compiled from this research has sought to answer the question of what lessons were learned from the planning processes, policies, and design decisions involved in the development of urban housing project Nesika Illahee in Portland, Oregon. The findings are categorized in three sections which further investigate the limitations and challenges of this project that need to be addressed in future developments of off-reservation Indian Housing. All of the findings lead to the understanding of how a contemporary affordable housing project demonstrates culturally appropriate decision making. My review of all the data gathered through interviews, ethnographic fieldwork, and archival analysis allows me to answer the key aforementioned research questions: How can lessons from the planning processes, policies, financing, and design decisions of the Nesika Illahee project in Portland, Oregon inform urban indigenous housing? What are the limitations or challenges of this project that need to be addressed in future developments of off-reservation Indian Housing? What does “culturally appropriate” mean, how is it defined through application in urban indigenous housing projects, and what could be replicable for other affordable housing projects? GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 31 Process Findings The following summarizes the key findings of interview responses that were coded and contribute to the category of planning processes which are influential in the development of Nesika Ilahee. The uniqueness of this housing project is highlighted by the key findings that are reinforced through frequency of code appearances and emphasis from decision makers. Summary of Key Findings: 1. Introduction of NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant in an off-reservation setting, is facilitated on the part of a Sovereign Nation, through their relationship with the federal government, and under the guidance and approval of their Tribal council. 2. Working with sovereign AIAN nations require partnerships with trusted organizations that are willing to advocate for AIAN populations. 3. Decolonial communication practices have a pace, format and procedure that challenge against dominant cultured institutional processes. This is characterized by iterative, cyclical, elder and council informed decision-making. 4. Nesika Ilahee and upcoming Portland Indian housing developments are strongly informed by the need to address Native homelessness, which is a critical issue for the region. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 32 Policy Findings The following summarizes the key Policy findings which are deeply intertwined with financial applications of those policies that affect housing opportunities for urban Indigenous peoples. Each policy contributes restrictions as well as prospects for lessening the gap of AIAN peoples housing disparities set against the greater population. The most prominent policy undertaken in this study is the Indian Housing Block Grant that emerges from the Native American Housing and Self Determination Act (Pindus et al., 2017) which is contrasted against the 1986 introduction of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit which quietly became the nation’s largest project-based housing subsidy program (Vale, Freemark, 2012) as the rise of the public-private partnerships became the dominant model for affordable housing in the United States. The model used to initiate Nesika Ilahee was the LIHTC process but became blended with the IHBG process once it was solidified into the development. Summary of Key Findings: 1. The IHBG establishes a political preference for AIAN peoples which waives the regulations of the Fair Housing Act and regulates the rental allowances of those AIAN residents to provide housing opportunity that serves the lowest of low-income families. 2. The contrast between the IHBG and LIHTC policies creates a distinguished “gap” in financial planning for the project requiring rental subsidies from varying resources. 3. State and regional policy programs currently focus funding on affordable housing and health services for disproportionately underrepresented communities of color which is contradicted by the Fair Housing Act disallowance for race-based preferencing. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 33 Design Findings The following findings are derived from primary research conversations with decision makers involved in Nesika Ilahee as well as input from two of North America’s leading indigenous Architects. The physical realization of the building that supports this groundbreaking project, portrays a form that is embedded with the story of process and place. Critical components of designing for Nesika Ilahee portray successes, gaps and opportunities for advancing this field of knowledge. The intention of this section is to build off of the input from practicing Indigenous Architects and Planners and explore narratives presented for comparison and contrast. Summary of Key Findings: 1. Incorporating Indigenous decision-making processes into project design decisions further understanding of place-based needs and increases Indigenous community buy-in. 2. Realization of an Indigenous aesthetic is under-researched in the architectural realm but was distinctly sought after for Nesika Ilahee. The design used regionally responsive materiality and innovative construction technology for adaptability of family size. 3. Architectural aspects of Nesika Ilahee that don’t incorporate cultural relevance are compensated by artwork selection in order to distinguish a feeling of pride and community awareness that the development is a Native place. 4. Nesika Ilahee site selection aims to support critical assets for the success of AIAN residents. Assets include ease of access to public transportation, parks, and cultural support services. Such services offer integration of culturally relevant connections that build trust of the place and community success. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 34 CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION The Findings from Chapter Five are analyzed in Chapter Six using a narrative analysis approach. The practitioners involved in the creation of Nesika Ilahee show awareness of the importance that this project carries in venturing policy, planning, and design to meet urban Native needs. How respondents discuss the open-ended interview questions portrays their individual specialties, observations, and impressions of how the project was conducted. PROCESS Planning Process Finding #1: Introduction of NAHASDA’s Indian Housing Block Grant in an off-reservation setting, is facilitated on the part of a Sovereign Nation, through their relationship with the federal government, and under the guidance and approval of their Tribal council. Analysis: Nesika Ilahee underwent an unprecedented format for developing IHBG housing in an off-reservation area. Paul Lumley, NAYA Executive Director, believes that they have developed a good model which is necessitated by a “Tribal population that a Tribe would want to serve in an urban community” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). Currently it is estimated that over 300 Tribal nations have members living in the Portland metropolitan area, and The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians are the contributing nation in support of Nesika Ilahee. The IHBG is “based on the sovereignty of the Siletz tribe and their relationship with the federal government” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). Federal recognition of Tribal sovereignty informs the procedural conduct to occur in the spirit of self-determination according to that nation. This conduct supports the right of each Tribe to envision and supply housing when and where they choose. It was Siletz’s determination that they have a population to support in Portland, however other Tribes have the capability to also support IHBG housing in Portland as well. Accordingly, every housing project using IHBG funds up until this point has been conducted on reservations or Tribally sovereign lands. A Tribe can either proceed with IHBG under their own Tribal Housing Authorities or with TDHEs or Tribally designated Housing Entity’s. For this project NAYA was “established as a sub-recipient agreement with the Siletz tribe. And in that agreement, it describes the amount of funding that would be applied to the property. It was signed by (Paul Lumley) and also by the Siletz tribe. Both the tribe and NAYA had to get resolutions passed by (their) leadership” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). The subrecipient relationship was created under tremendous good faith that NAYA would appropriately meet the needs of Siletz. The need to receive both council’s approval demonstrates the breadth of input and communication needed GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 35 to begin the process of applying the IHBG to this project. The dual council approval process required lengthier and more complicated timing than the dominant development project. Planning Process Finding #2: Working with sovereign AIAN nations require partnerships with trusted organizations that are willing to advocate for AIAN populations. Analysis: Oscar Arana, Community Development Director of NAYA acknowledges that “one of the things that really helped secure the IHBG resources was the fact that (Paul Lumley) had an existing working relationship with the Executive Director of the Siletz Tribal Housing Department” (Arana, personal communication, February 21, 2020). That initial relationship allowed for the rest of the project to fall in motion, but the importance of building trust with all the organizations involved proved to be vital. Each of the interviewees emphasized that relationship building was a key process for this unique project. Eric Paine of CDP notes that “NAYA had really led the charge with respect to the relationships with the Tribe” (Paine, personal communication, March 1, 2020) which contributes to the key components of how Nesika Ilahee and the upcoming urban Indian housing developments in Portland can work towards the focused housing for AIAN peoples. One of the elements of support that NAYA contributed in building the trusting relationship with Siletz were “monthly meetings with everybody, all the project partners from beginning to construction completion, (consisting of) very detailed conversations with the Siletz Tribal government leaders” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). “There were also other meetings that happened in between…there was trust building amongst everybody…and we all came to the table trying to figure out solutions, as opposed to just staying focused on ‘this is really hard’” (Arana, personal communication, February 21, 2020). Trust is built on face to face meetings and relationships that are continuous before and for the duration of a project. The team became allied in the quest to support AIAN housing opportunity. Siletz and NAYA worked together specifically to advocate for individual AIAN families’ rights to access the benefits of the Nesika Ilahee project. This refers pointedly to the “preferencing” aspect of the IHBG, which will be discussed further in the Key Findings: Policy Section. Planning Process Finding #3: Decolonial communication practices have a pace, format and procedure that challenge against dominant cultured institutional processes. This is characterized by iterative, cyclical, elder and council informed decision-making. Analysis: Communication is a highlighted point amongst all the respondents for key processes. Timing on Nesika Ilahee project was challenged by the newness of the scope to incorporate IHBG funding and its connected allowances and restrictions. The IHBG process is appointed by GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 36 the Confederated Tribes of Siletz, whose sovereignty sanctions action in accordance with self- governed procedures of traditional leadership practices. The timeline of Tribal council meetings informed the project schedule in approving and applying the IHBG to the project. Once the IHBG was approved (by Siletz and NAYA’s respective council’s) and in the hands of the Siletz Housing Department and NAYA Community Development Department, the communication for decision-making used an iterative and cyclical. Brian Carleton noted that all too often projects like these are “driven by western standards, European standards, of timelines and decision-making… the world that funds these projects doesn’t adapt well”. His reference to this idea was compared to his experience of working on similar affordable project scopes. The specific cultural aspects of working political preferencing into the project delivered variances on decision-making, the Architect noted that in the most recent past project collaboration between CDP, Carleton Hart, and NAYA was the Generations housing development (not IHBG). During this project attention to variances on pace and procedure was an “extensive process of engaging with NAYA and learning culture…cultural competency and trying to integrate it…(the project team) spent a lot of time up-front with staff, with elders, really being educated on cultural aspects of the living environment and the idea of home and community. And it was a very extensive process of visioning, goal setting, and understanding values.” The past collaborative project not only informed this project but has set in motion two more AIAN housing projects in the Cully neighborhood using the current partnerships (one of which is likely to use the IHBG). Other development partners note that the communication process used “very detailed conversations” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). and the learning curve of introducing a the IHBG, a new funding source required extra learning and communication. The entire development team “learned quite a bit about the Indian Housing Block Grant from the leadership at Siletz” (Arana, personal communication, February 21, 2020). The Siletz Housing Department proved by an invaluable asset and not only for this project but in teaching the development team about the general application and restrictions of the grant. Planning Process Finding #4: Nesika Ilahee and upcoming Portland Indian housing developments are strongly informed by the need to address Native homelessness, which is a critical issue for the region. Analysis: An intricate history has led to the devastating state of housing affairs for Native people nationwide while Portland, Oregon has had a recent history of gentrification that is ongoing and difficult to control. The documented circumstances of AIAN peoples create the context for how Nesika Ilahee housing development is critically needed. The inferences between respected data and the planning processes create a “platform” for support. This support comes in the issuance of local, regional, state, and federal grants as well as enticing developers. Oscar Arana states that the need for housing like Nesika Ilahee is informed by the fact that the “Native American GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 37 community faces some of the largest housing disparities out of any group, and so there are “opportunities” for public institutions and foundations and other contributors who want to invest in closing that huge disparity”. This is a circumstance of “using” disparate data points to persuade “opportunities” from governance and non-governmental organizations to collaborate. The outcome focus is to improve lives and living standards of communities that have been on the receiving end of hundreds of years of institutional racism. Paul Lumley acknowledged that “we've got a lot of homeless Natives out there and we have a lot of really low-income families that are struggling”. This reiterates that a larger percentage of AIAN families are unhoused compared to other communities of color, across the United States and specifically in Portland (Urban Indian Health Institute, 2020) (Oregon Housing and Community Services, 2019). This data points to the planning processes of Nesika Ilahee which aim “to deliver a housing product that is going to address some of the worst problems in this region, the Native homelessness”. The “aim” that he speaks of is the decision to integrate the IHBG and adhere the restrictive rental allowances that are aimed at meeting the lowest of low- income populations. Eric Paine links the foundational knowledge that “the most critical need in the Native community is for the very low, extremely low-income families” and that Community Development Partners “is focused on creating innovative housing solutions… working with chronically homeless populations to the other end of the spectrum (such as) working families”. This narrative informs the developer’s choice for expanding beyond the dominant LIHTC financing structure and using the IHBG to work for the AIAN populations of Portland. POLICY Policy Finding #1: The IHBG establishes a political preference for AIAN peoples which waives the regulations of the Fair Housing Act and regulates the rental allowances of those AIAN residents to provide housing opportunities that serves the lowest of low-income families. Analysis: The Fair Housing Act is a federal policy that is superseded by NAHASDA (and its subsequent AIAN housing grants and loans) with U.S. federal support of sovereign nation’s ability to apply self-determination in the development of housing for Tribal citizens. NAHASDA is not confined to the boundaries of reservations and likewise other populations that supersede the Fair Housing Act have been farmworkers and elderly who can receive preferencing in housing projects across the nation beginning in the mid 1950s (Yale, Freemark, 2012). The work on Nesika Ilahee was approached with attention to the Fair Housing Act and the idea that preferencing for a “racial group” is not allowable legally but also disinterested by investors, however it is certain and clear that in fact the project does not do that. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 38 Paul Lumley asserts that the introduction of the IHBG is “based on the sovereignty of the Siletz tribe and the relationship with the federal government. It’s not race-based, it’s a political relationship that the Siletz tribal government has with the United States”. This concept of preferencing is further illustrated by Eric Paine (CDP) wherein “it allowed us to create a preference for Native families to ensure that they could move into the project and would be served.” The aspects of preferencing are crucial for the actualizing rental options for AIAN people. Figure 7: Nesika Ilahee Preferencing, image by Genevieve Middleton, 2020 GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 39 Decision regarding the percentage of housing units that were held to the strict policy of the IHBG is illustrated in Figure 7. Oscar Arana noted that “because this is the first one (urban IHBG project), we were being fairly cautious” so that people wouldn’t “throw up a red flag and say, ‘this is a violation of the Fair Housing Act” bringing unneeded scrutiny to the project”. “However, one thing is for certain and that is that having the IHBG contributed towards the funding scheme of the project, through Siletz’ extended waiver of the Fair Housing Act... and that has never been done before” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). Preferencing is established by NAHASDA through the federal government, however Eric Paine notes that every housing project’s “tenant-selection plan that had to be filed with the state, allowed (the project) to establish a preference on all of the units for Native Americans…so you have 20 units that are a firm set aside for Native families.. and 39 units where you have a preference for Natives… so if they apply, then they are put to the front of the line”. He goes on to detail that “the Siletz Tribal members have the first priority, and then the families with other tribal affiliations have the next priority, and then it goes to non-Native families.” Prioritization is broken down into two sections; the first being the IHBG 20 units, and the second are the remaining LIHTC 39 units. And those two sections have multiple prioritizations or “tiers” as referred to in Figure 7. However, it must be noted the rental structures of LIHTC units will remain in accordance pre-determined 60% AMI rental costs per unit regardless of AIAN occupancy. Policy Finding #2: The contrast between the IHBG and LIHTC policies creates a distinguished “gap” in financial planning for the project requiring rental subsidies from varying resources. Analysis: LIHTC is a subsidy program meant to incentivize the private sector to invest in low income multifamily affordable housing units nationwide. The program limits the rents charged to low-income tenants to earn no more than 60% of the area median income (AMI) or in some cases 50%AMI. The rents for LIHTC affordable housing are based off of a 60% income, Paul Lumley notes that in this neighborhood “a studio for example would be $850/month, and that is not affordable”. The neighborhood gentrification study of 2018 conducted by the City of Portland indicates that the Cully neighborhood is at Level 1 risk of gentrification with upwardly mobile working-class families increasing the current AMI (see Figure 8). Paul Lumley indicates concern about the LIHTC rental allowance “which is not really affordable if you think about it, most of the (the local AIAN population) can’t even pay the 60% area median income.” Eric Paine reaffirms Paul Lumley’s sentiment that “the most critical need in the Native community is for the very low, extremely low-income families…we realized we were going to need rental subsidy in order to really pull off serving the lowest income families, and having these funds work with one another.” For the Nesika Ilahee project to be financially viable at both the 15-year LIHTC compliance period and the 25-year IHBG compliance period, GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 40 rental subsidies were determined as required to make up for the unpredictable rental incomes of the IHBG units. Figure 8: LIHTC vs. IHBG rental allowances, image by Genevieve Middleton, 2020 The IHBG structure does not allow for more than 30% of the family income to be charged for monthly rent and as turnover occurs in the IHBG housing units, the amount of rent available to pay back the funding sources can have enormous variances. In Figure 8 these aspects are illustrated. Paul Lumley discusses that situation prior to the team’s solution when “banks won't loan to you the amount you need if you can't prove you can pay the loan back. So, if we couldn't find a solution to that, then the project could fail because you wouldn't have enough bank financing to cover. You'd have to fill that gap and we didn't have money to fill that gap, so we had to go out and fundraise desperately to provide long-term rental supports for those 20 units. And we actually had a fair amount of success in doing so.” The financial “need” of rent reserves proven through the unpredictability of IHBG rental allowances actually gives the foundation to request and fundraise for the additional supports, while also having a broader spectrum of services (ie on-site health facilities). NAYA’s Director of Community Development, Oscar Arana was put to the task to fill the gap, in the end he says that “a lot of resources had to be secured to develop the building” and $2M of IHBG funds “was pulled aside to do rent reserves” (Arana, personal communication, February 21, 2020). Additional contributions for rental reserves included, Wells Fargo Grant, a short-term grant from the Joint Office of Homelessness, and Homeforward funding. Eric Paine describes that the “IHBG funds allowed us to increase services and then also to establish the rental subsidy”. Given the newness of this style of urban affordable development, Paul Lumley notes that “securing (the units) for Native preference for the 25 years, well it’s something that the affordable housing world doesn’t really do that often.” GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 41 Figure 9: Portland Gentrification Study Map Policy Finding #3: State and regional policy programs currently focus funding on affordable housing and health services for disproportionately underrepresented communities of color which is contradicted by the Fair Housing Act disallowance for race-based preferencing. Analysis: “The Oregon Housing Community Services had a program that they created that was called Local Innovation and Fast Track or LIFT. And the LIFT funds were the main gap source of funds that we tapped into for the project in order to get it to work” (Paine, personal communication, March 1, 2020). In 2019 the Oregon Legislature committed $150 million to fund the LIFT program in 2020 and 2021, the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) oversees the program and two primary goals: 1. New affordable family-sized housing units 2. Serve historically underserved communities, including communities of color. The second goal of the program is met through project demonstration efforts to serve communities of color such as; “intentional and meaningful engagement, relevant marketing and outreach plan, sponsorship through a culturally responsive organization, designed and located to address displacement, and GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 42 agreements with area service providers to engage in culturally appropriate services (Housing Stability Council 2019). Nesika Ilahee demonstrates the goals and criteria for the LIFT program while also meeting the goals of City of Portland’s sustainability efforts to curb gentrification in the metro area. Paul Lumley notes that “there's also the North-Northeast preference policy that was established because of the gentrification policies of the city… you can’t do race based… but if you could prove you lived there, then you would have a preference.” Interestingly both the state and city programs aimed at improving housing opportunities for communities of color, fall to the restrictions of the Fair Housing Act’s equal opportunity affirmative housing approach. What the Fair Housing Act does allow notes Eric Paine is “affirmative marketing, but it’s difficult and time consuming”. The marketing approach is suggested by the LIFT programs project factors which aim housing units toward communities of color without being “able” to establish a preference. Nesika Ilahee highlights the success of population preferencing at the federal level and its feasibility to be applied towards the state and regional policy programs. DESIGN Design Finding #1: Incorporating Indigenous decision-making processes into project design decisions further understanding of place-based needs and increases Indigenous community buy- in. Analysis: Interviews show that the decision making of Nesika Ilahee began before NAYA and the confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians were on board. NAYA respondents spoke to this as due to internal organization struggles occurring simultaneously with the initiation of the project. The lapse in integrating Native feedback during the schematic phase is noted by principle architect Brian Carleton, “we felt like we knew NAYA was there, but they weren't really at the table as we started in the schematic design. And so they got to the table a little bit later in the design process. We felt like we were trying to lay groundwork for them, coming in and being more active. And we were somewhat successful at that, but their voice was joined into the conversation later in the process than we would normally like.” Although this wasn’t the first project Carleton Hart and NAYA had collaborated on, this was the first project to incorporate the collaboration with a Sovereign nation. Lumley speaks to the nature of the collaboration that when “we started working directly with the architect and they brought on staff in the project that I thought were pretty good. Very responsive” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). The cultural responsiveness of the architects is noted visibly by the design of the building to incorporate place-based qualities, this concept is further discussed in Design Finding #2 and Figure:10. As Wanda Dalla Costa points out from her experience designing for and working with many AIAN affordable housing projects, “You can't learn this in a book. You need to go and GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 43 work with people, and you need to go to their place and understand what's important about their place. And so it's very much place-based.” The experienced gained by the Architects and developers working on Nesika Ilahee project have offered them insights for the next round of AIAN collaborative housing that they are working on. Currently there are two projects planned by the development team in adjacent neighborhoods, the first being “Mamook Tokatee, the building, is a focus on artists and Native artists. It's Chinook Wawa language, just like Nesika Illahee which means, "making beautiful," or "to make beautiful” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). The second building is a “project that's funded by Portland Housing Bureau within Prescott, that one there's no Tribal investor there, and we probably aren't going to pursue one. The (Siletz) tribe just wants to do these two and let things settle for a while” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). Knowing that another affordable housing development collaborative is occurring simultaneously with this research, informs us that the first project was deemed successful (enough) to instill a round two. The design process journey is just as important as the outcome for building community trust, Brian Carleton recalls, “the process working with Native culture is very different. It's circular. It's contemplative. It's conversational. It's a lot of processing, people going away thinking about things. That's the piece that was very much missing from Nesika in the early parts.” It is unfortunate that Nesika Ilahee had a missing piece of design process time with the AIAN community, but it shows awareness that the lead designers acknowledged and felt that the design process could have been more complete. The private developer lead, Eric Paine felt the significance of “really relying on NAYA's expertise with the population, as an organization that's been serving Native families, and so they informed the design”. The help of NAYA in communicating with Siletz and the local AIAN population led to what Brian Carleton believes was design input “early enough that it had a profound effect on the design.” That was a really extensive process of engaging with NAYA and learning culture. Looking forward Brian Carleton notes that “Whereas, moving on to Going and Prescot and now looking at yet another project with NAYA, those conversations and contemplations are happening from the beginning. You still have your deadlines. You still have your work plan, but we understand better the pace of the conversation and the pace of the processing.” Design Finding #2: Realization of an Indigenous aesthetic is under-researched in the architectural realm but was distinctly sought after for Nesika Ilahee. The design used regionally responsive materiality and innovative construction technology for adaptability of family size. Analysis: Indigenous architecture has yet to be explored through extensive research regarding how to meet the aesthetic agenda of making a “Native” looking place (Dalla Costa, personal communications, May 12, 2020). For the expression of a “Native” place the designers focused on “the form of the building itself… understanding the importance of cedar to the Northwest GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 44 culture…we knew from the outset that the materials we were choosing for the building itself needed to be reflected of that Northwest materiality. And certainly, the Plank House was the primary inspiration for that” commented Brian Carleton. Feedback on how the Native community feels about the building from the exterior is explained in that “people want to be there because it's a Native building. It looks Native. It feels Native. And there's a lot of Native people who want to be there” (Lumley, personal communication, Mar 13, 2020). Creating a place that the Native community is attracted to and excited about was a design goal for all of the collaborative team. NAYA’s Executive Director, Paul Lumley expresses that “Carleton Hart, went the extra mile and listened to us about how when we walk by, or drive by, or go into the building, it's got to feel Native right from the very beginning.” Brian Carleton discusses some of the design goals and as having “cultural significance and the cultural design intent began to evolve” once NAYA was onboard and having direct feedback on the design of Nesika Ilahee. Another response to developing housing specific to Indigenous families was through innovative design for a meeting the needs of varying family size. The design team used construction technology to create adaptability between units. The building has the capability to transform units from single family units to extended family units through the construction of physical wall sections that are “clear of services, and you can come in and knock a hole in the wall and have a larger unit.” They designed “pre-framed” doors that are enclosed with the wall spaces between units that could be transformed. This form of innovation is attuned to the knowledge that cultures outside of the colonial settler standards have family size variances which are trying to be accommodated within the design of Nesika Ilahee. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 45 Figure 10: Place-based inspiration for Nesika Ilahee, Nature, History, the People Design Finding #3: Architectural aspects of Nesika Ilahee that don’t incorporate cultural relevance are compensated by artwork selection in order to distinguish a feeling of pride and community awareness that the development is a Native place. Analysis: The missed opportunities in the early phases of design meant that input had to occur after much of the design decisions had been made. At which point Brian Carleton acknowledges that early on “I don't think we can say we designed for the logistics of cultural competency… the cultural design response came later in the game, and it was a bit of a catch up, other than the basic forms of the building that knowing that NAYA was out there as a potential partner, the form of the building was trying to be more organic and laying the back drop, if you will, of specific cultural responsiveness and iconography”. Carleton spoke to me about the iconography as being related to the colors and materiality of the exterior, interior and abundant use of wood. Carleton said they had the notion of incorporating a mural and sculptures on the exterior of Nesika from early on (See Figure 10). The developers hired art broker Kimberly Kent who spoke about the approach to picking art and artists. Her approach was to “try and find pieces from many different tribes as possible” because the project will be supporting all AIAN people. They were also guided by the fact that they wanted “to honor Siletz in their contribution” of the IHBG GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 46 and housing preferencing. The art team ended up doing “separate calls for the exterior mural, the exterior sculpture area, and we also had a call for interior art. And those went pretty much anywhere we could think to send them up and down the Oregon and Washington coast to galleries. Siletz has a newsletter that they put it out in”. While the project did request artists through advertising in the Siletz newsletter, they were unable to get “any Siletz members directly” as art contributors for the project. As a support to the goal of wanting the overall building to feel like a Native place, the art selection took in to account the Confederated Tribes of Siletz preference for art that was “more Native-looking and more traditional” see Image 4 (Kent, personal communication, April 30, 2020). The developers had allotted a larger than usual budget notes Kent, “as an affordable housing project goes of this size, it was a pretty generous budget and in that they knew that they were asking for some high -dollar items on the exterior.” These items materialized in an honoring mural that portrays the late “Grandma Agnes” of the Siletz tribe who was the oldest living member of the Tribe, as well streetscape set of stone sculptures. Ultimately the approach was to make sure that the diversity within AIAN people to live in Nesika Ilahee over the next 25 years will feel pride in their home. Image 3: Original Native Artwork for Nesika Ilahee Design Finding #4: Nesika Ilahee site selection aims to support critical assets for the success of AIAN residents. Assets include ease of access to public transportation, parks, and cultural support services. Such services offer integration of culturally relevant connections that build trust of the place and community success. Analysis: The location of Nesika Ilahee is “very close to the Native American Family Center (NAYA), so they're able to get a whole bunch of culturally specific services, whether it's having their kids access our educational programming - tutoring, summer camps, or spring break camps” (Arana, personal communication, February 21, 2020). Arana goes on to highlight that the site is “right next to a park and also close to public transportation… allowing them to have opportunities for employment that are a lot easier for them to get to, faster to get to, and offer GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 47 more opportunities for employment or a living wage.” The considerations for building Nesika Ilahee exceed just the physical structure and are decidedly connected to how families living in AIAN urban housing can access services and opportunities. Early on in the findings, it is mentioned that NAYA took on the role of advocating for residences, this is evident in the amount of integrated support that is being provided. The design incorporated the total assets of site location and place-based living to improve cultural responsiveness. Figure 11: Site Location Assets of Nesika Ilahee GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 48 CHAPTER 7: Recommendations and Conclusion This research paper provides a case study on the first urban American Indian and Alaska Native affordable housing development project in Portland, OR. With a history of federally imposed policies that disregarded and restricted AIAN populations to access to housing, Indigenous people in the United States are faced with a housing crisis that extends from rural reservations into urban centers. Indigenous urbanism is primed to address housing disparities and its respective planning, policy, and design decisions. Sovereignty of AIAN citizens is the impetus for political preferencing in relation to the Indian Housing Block Grant but paves the way for innovative AIAN preferencing policies in other affordable housing units across urban spaces. Organizations that advocate for Indigenous rights and services were found to be key in making sure that developments don’t exploit AIAN data for profit. Decolonial communication practices and timelines generate a cultural responsiveness to learn about place-based needs for AIAN populations and divulging aspects of meeting cultural responsiveness. It has become abundantly clear that it took two culturally competent AIAN non-profit organizations in partnership with the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon in order to advocate for the needs of the project residents. Both NAYA and NARA have the “hands on” learnt experience to facilitate the nuances of supporting culturally appropriate community goals. The collaboration of such organizations with private developers like CDP initiate a sophisticated system that offers relationship building opportunities at every level. Financers, banks, and lawyers are supported by the private developers and the nonprofit Community Development directors, while community buy-in takes the logistical expertise of engagement that builds trust and value from established cultural organizations. Relationship building is proven to be difficult and requires intention of relational preservation from all participants in the partnership. What is missing most from the work on Nesika Ilahee and similar upcoming projects is an Indigenous facilitator who can speak both the language of design and policy and advocate on behalf of the inter-tribal AIAN community. Recommendation #1: The development process should factor and schedule for Indigenous decision-making. Practitioners engaged in developing urban Indigenous spaces should employ Indigenous community engagement professionals who speak the language of planning and design while incorporating their cultural ability to connect with AIAN communities. Research findings indicate that decolonial communication practice focus on articulated listening and advocating for the inherent AIAN sovereign rights and community requests. The anticipative result is satisfaction from the users of the AIAN focused facilities and improved community success. In order to understand if the perception that “being able to have these great assets are really critical for the community that's going to be living there” (Arana, personal communication, GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 49 February 21, 2020) a user feedback study should be engaged by the collaborators. Such a feedback study was unable to be provided as part of this research (due to COVID-19), but it is highly recommended that the Nesika Ilahee development team, enact a feedback outreach and engagement project as soon as such activities can be performed safely. The desires and observations of residents at Nesika Ilahee will provide undoubtably useful information for the upcoming AIAN urban housing collaborations. The work of communicating between specific tribal needs or visions of appropriate art combined with the preferences of urban users is a fine line to walk. Arts-related placemaking should be integrated into the development process by a cultural AIAN designer. Placemaking can contribute deeply to the success of an affordable housing space, “creative strategies are crucial to ensure that housing developments accrue benefits to our emotional as well as physical wellbeing, especially for vulnerable residents who may have experienced trauma in a variety of forms” (Sherman, 2017). Strategies look like including art that sits outside the dominant culture perceptions of acceptable artforms. Using decolonial strategies for art and placemaking will lend to potential Native art collaborations that truly celebrate AIAN artforms. Beadwork, basketry and regalia inspired design are missing forms of placemaking art that speak to the importance of community connections through traditional practices. It is a decision-making process to include culturally competent art and placemaking practitioners in the positions of outfitting culturally responsive affordable housing. Wanda Dalla Costa states her knowledge of this process and the importance “to understand the decision-making process.” She continues to assert that it's a cultural competency issue that someone isn't aware and hasn't left enough time and/or money in the budget and/or in the schedule to be able to go through those very vital, consensus-building feedback loops that happen in our communities because we don't make decisions alone as Indigenous people. We bring it back to our communities. We might bring it back to the elders and so forth. And that needs to be included in the overall logistics of every project. And if you're working with people who don't understand that, they're not going to honor those practices as if someone who understood that it's important.” Practitioners like Dalla Cost offer valuable frameworks on considering Indigenous aesthetics into design work. Recommendation #2: Designing an urban Native place requires the foundation of a place-based natural worldview. Nesika Ilahee Housing Development will be a Native place for at least the next 25 years, it is a requirement of the IHBG. The place of Nesika Ilahee is going to serve a critical asset for the AIAN community in relationship with NAYA, NARA, and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz. The 40 years of experience by NAYA and the other contributing developers who advocate for the resources of the AIAN community have reached beyond just another “affordable housing project” (Carleton, personal communication, Mar 6, 2020) and have leapt into the realm of wrap- GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 50 around services and assets that promote a thriving population through place-based design. The design team worked to incorporate Indigenous worldviews into the physical space gathered from inspiration of natural world materials, forms, and gathering spaces one respondent reminisces on resident input that said “I really like the scheme better because the community room is more square, and even though I don’t like squares, we can fit a circle into it. Whereas the long skinny versions, we can’t fit our circle into” (Carleton, personal communication, Mar 6, 2020). Such lessons incorporate the spiritual realm of cultural necessities into the architecture. Johnpaul Jones’ framework offered in Chapter 2 (Figure 1) identifies a multi-decade tested framework for meeting specific Tribal entity needs of architecture, landscape architecture and design. His work specifically responds to the idea of a Native ideological world that is broken into, Spirit, Animal, Natural, and Human Worlds. The research a designer conducts in identifying the answers to the four-fold framework uses an Indigenous iterative process of question and listening and produces the elements of a Native place-based design aesthetic. This research recognizes the work of Mr. Jones as a substantial resource to be applied in helping continue develop Indigenous aesthetics that are not culturally appropriating or cliché. Future Directions Design should consider how to serve inter-Tribal Native communities in addition to honoring the traditional stewards of the territories that projects are being built or remediated on. Further research and projects that engage urban Indigenous communities’ preferences for aesthetics and site location assets is needed. This could look like continued research that approaches upcoming urban Indigenous housing projects that are occurring throughout the Pacific Northwest. How does place based design vary from geographic region as a response to climate change. Recommendation #3: Recognizing each Tribal citizens political sovereignty is the basis for housing preference policy. The results of the financing and policy developed for Nesika Ilahee is a groundbreaking precedent which sets an example for future urban housing projects that seek preferencing for AIAN populations in off-reservation settings. This model of affordable housing highlights that AIAN people have political preference and not racial preference therefor indicating that State housing and policy could enact preference policies for AIAN communities without needing the Indian Housing Block Grant to waive the Fair Housing Act. This would further the specific access of housing available for Indigenous communities who are severely underserved. It is recognized that this concept has many other considerations which would need to address the political rights of individual sovereignty. A strong consideration for making a “Native place” such as Nesika Ilahee, is the advocacy from AIAN organizations and Tribal nations. The best approach for developing AIAN spaces is recommended to practice decolonial communication GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 51 through cyclical Indigenous decision-making timelines that use a natural world place-based design approach. Conclusion “Indigenous peoples continue to be among the most marginalized, oppressed, discriminated against, poverty-stricken, dispossessed, and exploited communities in the world today… urgency to the task of rebuilding and strengthening Indigenous communities across all indices of human development” is needed. - Walker, Jojola, Natcher (2013) Practitioners who wish to address the housing disparities of urban Indigenous populations have a two-fold task of meeting the legal responsibility of addressing AIAN political sovereignty and to act responsively to engage with the rigors of culturally appropriate decision-making processes. Urban Indian housing projects like Nesika Illahee provide the opportunity to integrate Indigenous community engagement practitioners into the collaborative development process, supporting designers, developers and the action items of policy funding programs that assist communities of color. Nesika Ilahee took extensive workarounds to understand the legalities regarding the use of the IHBG in an off-reservation public-private partnership which is the basis to administering more housing opportunities that focus preference for AIAN communities. Planners, policymakers, and designers need to do better to support Urban Indian quality of life issues, especially housing, as it represents one of the most important aspects of adaptation to life off the reservation. Increased placement of appropriate AIAN specific housing in urban areas will help to dismantle erasure and promote the resurgence of Indigenous representation in the United States. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 52 REFERENCES Angrosino, Michael. (2007). Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research. The Sage Qualitative Research Kit. SAGE Publications. Bañuelos, R., Jordan, B., Kennedy, R., Norby, D., Olson, E., & Watters, C. (2013). Not in Cully: Anti-Displacement Strategies for the Cully Neighborhood. Portland, OR. Bates, Lisa K., Towne, Sharita A., Jordan, Christopher Paul, Kitso Lynn Lelliott, , Sharita A. Towne, Christopher Paul Jordan, Kitso Lynn Lelliott, Monique S. Johnson, Bev Wilson, Tanja Winkler, Anna Livia Brand, C. N. E. Corbin, Matthew Jordan Miller, Annette Koh, Konia Freitas, Andrea R. Roberts. Race and Spatial Imaginary: Planning Otherwise/Introduction: What Shakes Loose When We Imagine Otherwise/She Made the Vision True: A Journey Toward Recognition and Belonging/Isha Black or Isha White? Racial Identity and Spatial Development in Warren County, NC/Colonial City Design Lives Here: Questioning Planning Education’s Dominant Imaginaries/Say Its Name – Planning Is the White Spatial Imaginary, or Reading McKittrick and Woods as Planning Text/Wakanda! Take the Wheel! Visions of a Black Green City/If I Built the World, Imagine That: Reflecting on World Building Practices in Black Los Angeles/Is Honolulu a Hawaiian Place? Decolonizing Cities and the Redefinition of Spatial Legitimacy/Interpretations & Imaginaries: Toward an Instrumental Black Planning History. Planning Theory & Practice 19:2, pages 254-288. 2018. Boler, M. (2003). Discomforting Truths: The emotional Terrain of Understanding Difference. In M. Zemblyas (Ed.), Pedagogies of difference: Rethinking education for social change (pp. 116-139). New York; London: Routledge Falmer. Cattelino, J. (n.d.). Florida Seminole Housing and the Social Meanings of Sovereignty. Society for Comparative Study of Society and History, 699-723. City of Portland: Comprehensive Plan 2035 (Rep.). (2020). Portland, OR: City of Portland. Coffey, W., & Tsosie, R. (2001). Rethinking the Tribal Sovereignty Doctrine: Cultural Sovereignty and the Collective Future of Indian Nations. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 12(2), 191-221. Corntassel, J. (2012). Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 86- 101. Community Development Partners. Nesika Ilahee: Portland, Oregon. 2019. Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2015). An Indigenous Peoples History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 53 Echohawk, J. E. (2013). Understanding Tribal Sovereignty: The Native American Rights Fund. Expedition, 55(3), winter, 18-23. Essential Understandings of Native Americans in Oregon (pp. 1-18, Working paper). (20191). Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education. Fawcett, R. B., Walker, R., & Greene, J. (2015). Indigenizing City Planning Processes in Saskatoon, Canada. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 24(2), 158-175. Federal Register/Vol.77 No.232/Monday, December 3, 2012/Rules and Regulations. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Reauthorization Act of 2008: Amendments to Program Regulations. Freire, P. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder and Herder. 1970. Friedmann, J. (1971). The Future of Comprehensive Urban Planning: A Critique. Public Administration Review, 31(3), 315-326. Harwood, S. A. (2005). Struggling to embrace difference in land-use decision making in multicultural Communities. Planning, Practice & Research, 20(4), November, 355-371. Housing Stability Council LIFT 3.0 Program Design Framework. (2019). Portland, OR: City of Portland. Retrieved 2020. Jojola, T. (2000). Indigenous Planning and Community Development. Seventh IASTE Conference: The End of Tradition, 1-15. Keeler, K. (2016). Putting People Where They Belong: American Indian Housing Policy in the Mid-Twentieth Century. NAIS, 3(2), 7096. Kenison, R. S. (1999). Implementing NAHASDA: Brave New Word? (3rd ed., Vol. 8). Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law. Lane, M. B., & Hibbard, M. (2005). Doing It for Themselves: Transformative Planning by Indigenous People. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 172-184. Lucero, N. M. (2010). Making Meaning of Urban American Indian Identity: A Multistage Integrative Process. Social Work, 55(4), October, 327-336. Matunga, H. (2018). Chapter 12: A Discourse on The Nature of Indigenous Architecture. In The Handbook of Contemporary Indigenous Architecture (pp. 303-330). Singapore: Springer. Middleton, B. R., & Kusel, J. (2007). Northwest Economic Adjustment Initiative Assessment: Lessons Learned for American Indian Community and Economic Development. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(2), may, 165-178. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 54 Native American Creative Placemaking (Rep.). (2018). Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. doi: ruralhome.org Native American Youth and Family Center, Retrieved June 08, 2020, from https://nayapdx.org/ Pierson, B. L. (2010). Developing affordable housing in Indian country. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 19(3-4), spring-summer. Pindus, N., Kingsley, G. T., Bless, J., Levy, D., Simington, J., & Hayes, C. (2017). Housing Needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in Tribal Areas: A Report From the Assessment of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian Housing Needs (United States, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Policy Development and Research). Washington, DC: HUD. Porter, L., & Yiftachel, O. (2019). Urbanizing settler-colonial studies, introduction to the special issue. Settler Colonial Studies, 9(2), 177-186. Rothstein, Richard. (2017). The Color of Law: Racial Zoning. (pp. 39-57). Livewright. Ramalay, J. A. (2017). Working Together Differently: Addressing the Housing Crisis in Oregon. Metropolitan Universities, 28(2), spring, 22-36. Ross, C. L., & Leigh, N. G. (2000). Planning, Urban Revitalization, and the Inner City: An exploration of Structural Racism. Journal of Planning Literature, 14(3), February, 367- 380. Salazar, M. (2019). Breaking New Ground: Oregon's Statewide Housing Plan 2019-2023 (United States, State of Oregon, Oregon Housing and Community Services). Salem: State of Oregon. Sandercock, L. (2000). When Strangers Become Neighbours: Managing Cities of Difference. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(1), 13-30. Sherman, Danya (2017). A Creative Placemaking Field Scan: Exploring the Ways Arts and Culture Intersect with Housing. Artplace America. April 2-36. United States, State of Oregon, Oregon Housing and Community Services. (2019). 2019 Legislative Highlights. Salem, OR: Public Affairs. Urban Indian Health Institute: Data Dashboard. (2014). Retrieved 2020, from https://www.uihi.org/urban-indian-health/data-dashboard/ Vale, L. J., & Freemark, Y. (2012). From Public Housing to Public-Private Housing. Journal of American Planning Association, 78(4), autumn, 379-402. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 55 Wensing, E., Porter, L. (2016) Unsettling planning's paradigms: towards a just accommodation of Indigenous rights and interests in Australian urban planning?. Australian Planner 53:2, pages 91-102. Wilkins, D. E. (2011). A History of Federal Indian Policy. In H. K. Stark (Ed.), American Indian Politics and the American Political System (pp. 121-134). Rowman & Littlefield. Zapata, M. A., & Bates, L. K. (2015). Equity Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(3), 245-248. GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 56 APPENDIX A: *ALL INTERVIEWS USED THE SAME GUIDE AS AN OUTLINE, WITH ADJUSTMENTS AS PER THE DISTINCTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS ROLE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. INTERVIEW GUIDE – Brian Carleton, Principle Architect March 6, 2020 – 830 SW 10th Ave #200, 97205 3:30 – 4:30pm Professional Background 1. What is your professional role? 2. What types of projects do you work on in this role? Cultural Environment 3. How has your work approached working with Indigenous Sovereign Nations, especially intertribal projects? a. How do you design for the logistics of cultural competency? b. What was the design process? (Was there a collaborative design process?) 4. What do you think are the priority needs for Tribal citizens in the Portland area? a. How is Nesika Ilahee addressing those needs? b. What have you learned from this design that will change in the upcoming NAYA affordable housing projects? 5. Are you involved with onboarding or, If so how was the onboarding of the opening and acclimation of the space by the residents? 6. Do you have a monitoring program set up for this project? Can you explain to me hwo it works? Processes and Policies 7. In your work on Native American spaces, how would you describe the key processes undertaken by your agency to make this unprecedented affordable housing project a reality? 8. Have any of your projects been part of IHBG or ICDBG processes? Which really leans into, how have restrictions of working with Tribes affected the process or outcome of projects? Opportunities and Constraints 9. What were the limitations or challenges of culturally defined projects in terms of planning policies and processes, finances? a. What were the major governance collaborations? b. How do you suppose they could to be addressed in future developments of urban Tribal housing? 10. What aspects of this project are replicable and what aspects are distinctly unique to this project? 11. INTERVIEW GUIDE – Paul Lumley, NAYA ED March 13, 2020 9:30 am – 10:15 am Professional Background GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 57 12. What is your name, professional title, and what role do you play? 13. What types of projects do you work on in this role? Processes and Policies 14. In your work on Nesika Ilahee, how would you describe the key processes undertaken by your agency to make this unprecedented affordable housing project a reality? 15. What role did your agency partake in the IHBG funding process? a. Or other funding processes. 16. What are the most comparable projects like Nesika that ONAP has worked on in the past or upcoming? Cultural Environment 17. Enrollment Q 18. How has your agency approached the collaborative processes of working with an Indigenous Sovereign Nation (The Confederated Tribes of Siletz)? a. What were the conversations regarding the design of culturally competent architecture? b. What was the design process? (Was there a collaborative design process?) c. Who are the other partners in the design? 19. What do you think are the priority needs for Indigenous peoples/Tribal citizens in the Portland area? a. How is Nesika Ilahee addressing those needs? b. Are there parts of this project that need to change for upcoming IHBG urban housing? 20. Are you involved with onboarding? If yes, how was the onboarding of the opening and acclimation of the space by the residents? 21. Do you have a monitoring program set up for this project? Can you explain to me how it works? Opportunities and Constraints 22. What were the limitations or challenges of this project in terms of planning policies and processes, finances? a. How do you suppose they could to be addressed in future developments of urban Tribal housing? b. Were there any major governance collaborations? 23. What aspects of this project are replicable and what aspects are distinctly unique to this project? INTERVIEW GUIDE – Oscar Arana February 21, 2020 12noon-1pm Professional Background 24. What is your professional role? 25. What types of projects do you work on in this role? Processes and Policies GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 58 26. In your work on Nesika Ilahee, how would you describe the key processes undertaken by your agency to make this unprecedented affordable housing project a reality? 27. What role did your agency partake in the IHBG funding process? a. FHA /20 units? b. Do NAHASDA and FHA contradict each other? Cultural Environment 28. How has your work approached the collaborative processes of working with a Sovereign Nation (The Confederated Tribes of Siletz)? a. How did you solve this logistically? b. How long was the meeting process and often did you meet? c. Who are the other partners? 29. What do you think are the priority needs for Tribal citizens in the Portland area? a. How is Nesika Ilahee addressing those needs? b. Is this housing supporting local existing Native populations or encouraging relocation from reservations to live here? c. How does the Native population from the urban area fair versus the native population who have relocated to live at Nesika Ilahee? 30. Are you involved with onboarding, If so how was the onboarding of the opening and acclimation of the space by the residents? 31. What are the limitations or challenges of this project in terms of cultural support? Opportunities and Constraints 32. What were the limitations or challenges of this project in terms of planning policies and processes, finances? a. What were the City / County collaborations? b. How do you suppose they could to be addressed in future developments of urban Tribal housing? 33. What aspects of this project are replicable and what aspects are distinctly unique to this project? a. w/out non-profit GENEVIEVE MIDD LETON | UNIVERSITY OF OREGON 2020 59