Why, this sounds like an ideal cause for the lefty tenants' rights lawyers over at the Oregon Justice Resource Center. A class action, perhaps?
Seriously, though, here's a back-of-the-napkin list of the obstacles to achieving Mr. Thrasher's laudable and desperately needed four-point action plan:
Ground-truth assessment of why these remedies encounter resistance in Multnomah County
Screening applicants and requiring wrap-around services
Primary obstacles
A. Federal fair-housing risk aversion (over-interpreted, not absolute)
Agencies such as Home Forward operate under significant concern about violating the Fair Housing Act, disability discrimination rules, and potential DOJ or HUD enforcement actions. Although service-linked housing is legally permissible, county lawyers and compliance staff may treat screening tied to mental health or substance use as presenting elevated litigation risk. The result can be a form of defensive non-management.
In Multnomah County, the safest bureaucratic position may be perceived as avoiding questions, minimizing documentation, and refraining from conditioning tenancy on participation in services.
B. Ideological hostility to tenant-conduct requirements
Among some advocates and nonprofit partners, requirements may be framed as coercive, punitive, or incompatible with dignity. This is not a legal barrier but a normative one. Programs that attempt screening may face political opposition even when they appear legally defensible.
C. Capacity mismatch
Even if screening were implemented, the county may lack sufficient behavioral health providers, waitlists may be long, and enforcement of service participation may be weak or nonexistent. Agencies may avoid screening in part because they cannot reliably guarantee follow-through, which could expose them to complaints or grievances.
Intake center and personal improvement plan before housing
Primary obstacles
A. Housing First as institutional doctrine, not evaluative policy
In Multnomah County, Housing First may function in practice as an institutional doctrine rather than a policy continuously evaluated against outcomes. Questioning it may be perceived as moral failure, political heresy, or coded hostility toward unhoused people. As a result, alternatives such as staged housing with services first may be dismissed before implementation details are fully considered.
B. Fragmented governance
An intake center would require coordination among county behavioral health services, city public safety agencies, nonprofit service providers, and housing operators. Multnomah County may lack effective command authority across these systems. Responsibility is distributed across multiple actors, while accountability for outcomes may be diffuse.
C. Liability anxiety
Personal improvement plans imply assessment, documentation, benchmarks, and consequences for non-participation. County counsel may view these elements as increasing legal exposure, grievance filings, or disability-rights complaints. The system may therefore default to non-conditional placement even when that approach produces poor outcomes.
Rapid action on maintenance, security, controlled access, and on-site managers
Primary obstacles
A. Contract structure with property managers
Home Forward relies on third-party management firms whose contracts often emphasize cost containment, limit staffing ratios, and make eviction or exclusion procedurally slow. Security upgrades, staffing increases, and access controls generally require funding and approvals that may move slowly through public procurement processes.
B. Political reluctance to enforce rules
Enforcement against non-residents, drug dealing, or repeat disruptive behavior may trigger backlash, including claims of criminalization, protests, or media pressure. As a result, management may be encouraged, explicitly or implicitly, to tolerate dysfunction rather than confront it directly.
C. Labor and hiring constraints
On-site managers require trained staff, hazard pay, and burnout mitigation. Multnomah County may struggle to recruit and retain people willing to do this work under current pay levels, safety risks, and political scrutiny.
Building-level accountability and transparency
Primary obstacles
A. Data exists but is not released
Home Forward and the county maintain operational records on vacancies, maintenance activity, and resident concerns as part of standard property management, risk management, and federal reporting requirements. However, this information is not routinely released in a building-specific, public format.
B. Political risk asymmetry
In Multnomah County, acknowledging program failure may carry significant political cost, while allowing ongoing dysfunction may carry relatively little personal cost for decision-makers. There may be limited electoral or administrative incentives for candor.
C. Nonprofit protectionism
Many housing operators are politically connected nonprofits. Building-level accountability could expose uneven performance, tolerance of chronic disruption, or ineffective service coordination, potentially affecting funding streams and organizational reputations.
The unifying obstacle: governance without clear authority
Across all four proposals, a shared structural issue may be present. Multnomah County appears to disperse responsibility across multiple actors while concentrating accountability nowhere in particular.
Housing operators may have limited enforcement authority.
Service providers may lack tools to compel participation.
The county may be reluctant to impose requirements.
The city may limit its policing role.
Advocates may oppose conditions.
Legal counsel may prioritize risk avoidance.
As a result, quiet enjoyment can become an under-enforced abstraction despite being a recognized legal right.
What this means in practice
The obstacles do not appear to be primarily a lack of money, a lack of authority, or a lack of evidence. Significant funding exists, many tools are available, and relevant evidence is well documented.
Instead, the barriers may include ideological rigidity, fear of litigation, fragmented responsibility, and political incentives that tend to reward inaction. These dynamics may help explain why vacancy rates rise even as nominal housing capacity expands.
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. You have just listed all of the reasons/ideologies/thinking that has kept us in this mess for decades. As a formally houseless, recovering addict, who now runs a nonprofit that focusses on these issues, I can honestly say that there is a way out of this, but it is going to take a massive overhaul of the entire continuum.
I was depressed reading Ollie Parks detailed and thoughtful response, really seeing no way out of this. Yet you, as a person with lived experience and the history of running a nonprofit, state there is a way out. Do you mind commenting further about this path? Thanks in advance for your insight.
No problem. Here are a few "musts" that need to change first. There has to be accountability built into the system at every level....the courts, the jails, law enforcement, city/county leadership, and especially the nonprofits like me. Then, from my vantage point on the ground, there are a few practical steps that can help local systems innovate even when national narratives are loud and polarized:
• Define outcomes locally, then align funding and strategies to those outcomes. Every community is different. Here in Portland, when someone exits our recovery programs employed and stable, they rarely need subsidized housing. That is success. We should measure what actually works for the people in front of us.
• Invest in accountability within supportive housing. Housing must include pathways to stability, health, and work. “Permanent” should never mean “permanently stuck.” Strong case management, behavioral health access, and expectations for progress are critical.
• Build stronger public-private partnerships. Cities cannot solve this alone. Employers, nonprofits, landlords, and philanthropy all have a stake in better outcomes. Collaboration at the neighborhood level is where real systems change occurs.
• Elevate lived-experience leadership. People who have overcome addiction or homelessness bring the insight needed to design solutions that are both compassionate and effective. When their voices drive strategy, innovation accelerates.
• Create flexible pilots that can scale. Small-scale, rapid-testing environments allow systems to try new models without waiting for federal policy to shift. When something works, expand it. When it doesn’t, pivot quickly.
In short, I believe the way forward is to keep our focus on human transformation and community integration, not ideology. Narratives will continue to evolve, but progress comes when we stay grounded in what works and who it is for.
It would help to have visible and agile leadership from reformers who can shape public opinion. That is because it may be easier to change who represents us in County and City government than to change the current officeholders' outlook on the interrelated crises of homelessness, addiction and untreated mental illness. That can't happen without effective reform candidates who can weather the inevitable smear campaigns from the left accusing them of being the tools of real estate developers, landlords or whoever is the DSA bugbear of the moment.
Also, it is essential to break the absolute power that the Multnomah County chair has over the county commission's agenda.
Thanks Ollie for your comments. Until the County, with the State’s pushing, adopts an integrated intake, behavioral health, housing and jobs strategy it will be very difficult to make real progress on the overall unsheltered homeless problem. The Homeless Solutions Coalition has offered such a plan to State, County and City leaders to consider, but it takes leadership and action, mostly at the County. Ken
What does Pinehurst get paid for (badly) managing these properties? It is heartbreaking and infuriating to know that there are so many empty units.
The simple answer? Too much.
Why, this sounds like an ideal cause for the lefty tenants' rights lawyers over at the Oregon Justice Resource Center. A class action, perhaps?
Seriously, though, here's a back-of-the-napkin list of the obstacles to achieving Mr. Thrasher's laudable and desperately needed four-point action plan:
Ground-truth assessment of why these remedies encounter resistance in Multnomah County
Screening applicants and requiring wrap-around services
Primary obstacles
A. Federal fair-housing risk aversion (over-interpreted, not absolute)
Agencies such as Home Forward operate under significant concern about violating the Fair Housing Act, disability discrimination rules, and potential DOJ or HUD enforcement actions. Although service-linked housing is legally permissible, county lawyers and compliance staff may treat screening tied to mental health or substance use as presenting elevated litigation risk. The result can be a form of defensive non-management.
In Multnomah County, the safest bureaucratic position may be perceived as avoiding questions, minimizing documentation, and refraining from conditioning tenancy on participation in services.
B. Ideological hostility to tenant-conduct requirements
Among some advocates and nonprofit partners, requirements may be framed as coercive, punitive, or incompatible with dignity. This is not a legal barrier but a normative one. Programs that attempt screening may face political opposition even when they appear legally defensible.
C. Capacity mismatch
Even if screening were implemented, the county may lack sufficient behavioral health providers, waitlists may be long, and enforcement of service participation may be weak or nonexistent. Agencies may avoid screening in part because they cannot reliably guarantee follow-through, which could expose them to complaints or grievances.
Intake center and personal improvement plan before housing
Primary obstacles
A. Housing First as institutional doctrine, not evaluative policy
In Multnomah County, Housing First may function in practice as an institutional doctrine rather than a policy continuously evaluated against outcomes. Questioning it may be perceived as moral failure, political heresy, or coded hostility toward unhoused people. As a result, alternatives such as staged housing with services first may be dismissed before implementation details are fully considered.
B. Fragmented governance
An intake center would require coordination among county behavioral health services, city public safety agencies, nonprofit service providers, and housing operators. Multnomah County may lack effective command authority across these systems. Responsibility is distributed across multiple actors, while accountability for outcomes may be diffuse.
C. Liability anxiety
Personal improvement plans imply assessment, documentation, benchmarks, and consequences for non-participation. County counsel may view these elements as increasing legal exposure, grievance filings, or disability-rights complaints. The system may therefore default to non-conditional placement even when that approach produces poor outcomes.
Rapid action on maintenance, security, controlled access, and on-site managers
Primary obstacles
A. Contract structure with property managers
Home Forward relies on third-party management firms whose contracts often emphasize cost containment, limit staffing ratios, and make eviction or exclusion procedurally slow. Security upgrades, staffing increases, and access controls generally require funding and approvals that may move slowly through public procurement processes.
B. Political reluctance to enforce rules
Enforcement against non-residents, drug dealing, or repeat disruptive behavior may trigger backlash, including claims of criminalization, protests, or media pressure. As a result, management may be encouraged, explicitly or implicitly, to tolerate dysfunction rather than confront it directly.
C. Labor and hiring constraints
On-site managers require trained staff, hazard pay, and burnout mitigation. Multnomah County may struggle to recruit and retain people willing to do this work under current pay levels, safety risks, and political scrutiny.
Building-level accountability and transparency
Primary obstacles
A. Data exists but is not released
Home Forward and the county maintain operational records on vacancies, maintenance activity, and resident concerns as part of standard property management, risk management, and federal reporting requirements. However, this information is not routinely released in a building-specific, public format.
B. Political risk asymmetry
In Multnomah County, acknowledging program failure may carry significant political cost, while allowing ongoing dysfunction may carry relatively little personal cost for decision-makers. There may be limited electoral or administrative incentives for candor.
C. Nonprofit protectionism
Many housing operators are politically connected nonprofits. Building-level accountability could expose uneven performance, tolerance of chronic disruption, or ineffective service coordination, potentially affecting funding streams and organizational reputations.
The unifying obstacle: governance without clear authority
Across all four proposals, a shared structural issue may be present. Multnomah County appears to disperse responsibility across multiple actors while concentrating accountability nowhere in particular.
Housing operators may have limited enforcement authority.
Service providers may lack tools to compel participation.
The county may be reluctant to impose requirements.
The city may limit its policing role.
Advocates may oppose conditions.
Legal counsel may prioritize risk avoidance.
As a result, quiet enjoyment can become an under-enforced abstraction despite being a recognized legal right.
What this means in practice
The obstacles do not appear to be primarily a lack of money, a lack of authority, or a lack of evidence. Significant funding exists, many tools are available, and relevant evidence is well documented.
Instead, the barriers may include ideological rigidity, fear of litigation, fragmented responsibility, and political incentives that tend to reward inaction. These dynamics may help explain why vacancy rates rise even as nominal housing capacity expands.
Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. You have just listed all of the reasons/ideologies/thinking that has kept us in this mess for decades. As a formally houseless, recovering addict, who now runs a nonprofit that focusses on these issues, I can honestly say that there is a way out of this, but it is going to take a massive overhaul of the entire continuum.
I was depressed reading Ollie Parks detailed and thoughtful response, really seeing no way out of this. Yet you, as a person with lived experience and the history of running a nonprofit, state there is a way out. Do you mind commenting further about this path? Thanks in advance for your insight.
No problem. Here are a few "musts" that need to change first. There has to be accountability built into the system at every level....the courts, the jails, law enforcement, city/county leadership, and especially the nonprofits like me. Then, from my vantage point on the ground, there are a few practical steps that can help local systems innovate even when national narratives are loud and polarized:
• Define outcomes locally, then align funding and strategies to those outcomes. Every community is different. Here in Portland, when someone exits our recovery programs employed and stable, they rarely need subsidized housing. That is success. We should measure what actually works for the people in front of us.
• Invest in accountability within supportive housing. Housing must include pathways to stability, health, and work. “Permanent” should never mean “permanently stuck.” Strong case management, behavioral health access, and expectations for progress are critical.
• Build stronger public-private partnerships. Cities cannot solve this alone. Employers, nonprofits, landlords, and philanthropy all have a stake in better outcomes. Collaboration at the neighborhood level is where real systems change occurs.
• Elevate lived-experience leadership. People who have overcome addiction or homelessness bring the insight needed to design solutions that are both compassionate and effective. When their voices drive strategy, innovation accelerates.
• Create flexible pilots that can scale. Small-scale, rapid-testing environments allow systems to try new models without waiting for federal policy to shift. When something works, expand it. When it doesn’t, pivot quickly.
In short, I believe the way forward is to keep our focus on human transformation and community integration, not ideology. Narratives will continue to evolve, but progress comes when we stay grounded in what works and who it is for.
It would help to have visible and agile leadership from reformers who can shape public opinion. That is because it may be easier to change who represents us in County and City government than to change the current officeholders' outlook on the interrelated crises of homelessness, addiction and untreated mental illness. That can't happen without effective reform candidates who can weather the inevitable smear campaigns from the left accusing them of being the tools of real estate developers, landlords or whoever is the DSA bugbear of the moment.
Also, it is essential to break the absolute power that the Multnomah County chair has over the county commission's agenda.
Thanks Ollie for your comments. Until the County, with the State’s pushing, adopts an integrated intake, behavioral health, housing and jobs strategy it will be very difficult to make real progress on the overall unsheltered homeless problem. The Homeless Solutions Coalition has offered such a plan to State, County and City leaders to consider, but it takes leadership and action, mostly at the County. Ken
People down on their luck should not be housed with addicts and mentally ill homeless.
This would show more successful outcomes.