We are happy to include on-topic comments that respect other commenters. Personal attacks or broadsides on the nature of population sectors are not welcome and may be deleted.
Once they're in housing then what? We're not going to be a permanent storage facility to house nation's vagrants indefinitely.
Something you hear often near services: Hey man, how are you, I'm.. so and so. I just got in town. We shouldn't accommodate them. We need to keep them from coming in from elsewhere. What can we do?
This is laudable but all pointless Sharon. Until we get rid of Jessica Vega Pederson and her syncophants on the Multnonah Commission (Megan Moyer, Shannon Singleton and Vince Dixon-Jones) the dysfunction will continue. All of them voted to support JVP's budget, Brimm-Edwards was the only one to show some resolve.
Verified reports of violence or criminal activity other than camping
But, there needs to be zero tolerance policy on being found behind cut fence, or areas that are strictly off limits to all but authorized personnel and that includes much of the area along the freeway.
Someone being found in some rich homelessness services executive's backyard with his lock cut off is no different than being in off limits area of ODOT property and we need to stop tolerating the latter.
I like the hard look at honest organizing and assessing, it is a theoretical improvement, but I think even this would fail, if it's all carrot, and no stick. Also so much depends on step 3., "transition" but that seems like a magic wand to me, given all the individual dysfunction, addiction, and mental illness. Transition out of homelessness and out of taxpayer funded forever housing doesn't seem to happen much, and our leaders don't want to talk about it, nor do they seem honest when they do.
I view things differently in that the plan Meieran proposes is a government solution to a personal problem. Every homeless person has a story, but like all of us, each of our stories are different. We should stop excluding the homeless and pretending as if they are so different from us. Future government investments will lead us, our children, and our grandchildren with the tab that keeps rising like a credit card bill that you keep paying the minimum on.
We must shelter and feed the homeless but hopefully some of that can be done by truly charitable institutions based on service like the Salvation Army and Union Gospel Mission. Placing government at the helm of the whole endeavor will lead to more of the same bad policy decisions that have been the root of our problem.
If people won't go to the shelter, or the shelter won't have them because they are drunk or high, they can spend a few days in jail where they would get much needed medical care for their physical and mental health needs. And perhaps they will learn from their punishment that there are social expectations of them that will be enforced. If because of severe mental illness they are unable to handle a shelter and suffer the legal consequences of not sheltering, they should get mandatory mental health care on a psychiatric unit under a civil commitment plan based on an inability to care for basic needs and overseen by a judge who will provide substitute consent. Modern psychiatric care can help many of them and those that are released after a maximum of six weeks' time. It isn't unreasonable to think that some philanthropist might think this is worthwhile and might help with the hospital costs, since the city is struggling with our reputation over homelessness and safety. Think of all the money that is sent to the third world when we have this carnage on our own streets.
It is far from a perfect solution, but we will at least get them some good treatment for a period of time, and a chance for them to start anew.
It is the homeless persons responsibility to conform their behavior to social norms, and we should do the above, but keep the focus on that simple reality.
So, the City of Portland, OMF-IRP posted the small blue tent on the sidewalk, closest to the curb edge in front of the City Hall at 10:30AM just last Friday. Yes, ONE small tent. It's not in the way of anything.
Why is it that a camp in front of the City Hall is posted for removal at much lower threshold than in people's non hoity-toity neighborhoods? Apparently, the solution to Portland's homelessness crisis is to relax enforcement and let them take over neighborhoods, but draw a hard boundary when it's in front of the City Hall.
We are happy to include on-topic comments that respect other commenters. Personal attacks or broadsides on the nature of population sectors are not welcome and may be deleted.
Once they're in housing then what? We're not going to be a permanent storage facility to house nation's vagrants indefinitely.
Something you hear often near services: Hey man, how are you, I'm.. so and so. I just got in town. We shouldn't accommodate them. We need to keep them from coming in from elsewhere. What can we do?
Good question-with Newsom declaring that all municipalities in California should remove all homeless encampments, I fear a massive influx.
This is laudable but all pointless Sharon. Until we get rid of Jessica Vega Pederson and her syncophants on the Multnonah Commission (Megan Moyer, Shannon Singleton and Vince Dixon-Jones) the dysfunction will continue. All of them voted to support JVP's budget, Brimm-Edwards was the only one to show some resolve.
These housing do not need to be placed in traditional homelessness districts. Put them in places of lowest cost of living.
The Portland city government's SSCC and OMF-IRP claims that they prioritize camp removals in situations where camps are:
https://www.portland.gov/homelessness-impact-reduction/campremovalpolicy
Areas that are posted no-trespassing
Verified reports of violence or criminal activity other than camping
But, there needs to be zero tolerance policy on being found behind cut fence, or areas that are strictly off limits to all but authorized personnel and that includes much of the area along the freeway.
Someone being found in some rich homelessness services executive's backyard with his lock cut off is no different than being in off limits area of ODOT property and we need to stop tolerating the latter.
I like the hard look at honest organizing and assessing, it is a theoretical improvement, but I think even this would fail, if it's all carrot, and no stick. Also so much depends on step 3., "transition" but that seems like a magic wand to me, given all the individual dysfunction, addiction, and mental illness. Transition out of homelessness and out of taxpayer funded forever housing doesn't seem to happen much, and our leaders don't want to talk about it, nor do they seem honest when they do.
Did you know that 1 out of 3 Oregonians are on public assistance? WTH!! How much longer can taxpayers afford this? 😱
I view things differently in that the plan Meieran proposes is a government solution to a personal problem. Every homeless person has a story, but like all of us, each of our stories are different. We should stop excluding the homeless and pretending as if they are so different from us. Future government investments will lead us, our children, and our grandchildren with the tab that keeps rising like a credit card bill that you keep paying the minimum on.
We must shelter and feed the homeless but hopefully some of that can be done by truly charitable institutions based on service like the Salvation Army and Union Gospel Mission. Placing government at the helm of the whole endeavor will lead to more of the same bad policy decisions that have been the root of our problem.
If people won't go to the shelter, or the shelter won't have them because they are drunk or high, they can spend a few days in jail where they would get much needed medical care for their physical and mental health needs. And perhaps they will learn from their punishment that there are social expectations of them that will be enforced. If because of severe mental illness they are unable to handle a shelter and suffer the legal consequences of not sheltering, they should get mandatory mental health care on a psychiatric unit under a civil commitment plan based on an inability to care for basic needs and overseen by a judge who will provide substitute consent. Modern psychiatric care can help many of them and those that are released after a maximum of six weeks' time. It isn't unreasonable to think that some philanthropist might think this is worthwhile and might help with the hospital costs, since the city is struggling with our reputation over homelessness and safety. Think of all the money that is sent to the third world when we have this carnage on our own streets.
It is far from a perfect solution, but we will at least get them some good treatment for a period of time, and a chance for them to start anew.
It is the homeless persons responsibility to conform their behavior to social norms, and we should do the above, but keep the focus on that simple reality.
So, the City of Portland, OMF-IRP posted the small blue tent on the sidewalk, closest to the curb edge in front of the City Hall at 10:30AM just last Friday. Yes, ONE small tent. It's not in the way of anything.
Why is it that a camp in front of the City Hall is posted for removal at much lower threshold than in people's non hoity-toity neighborhoods? Apparently, the solution to Portland's homelessness crisis is to relax enforcement and let them take over neighborhoods, but draw a hard boundary when it's in front of the City Hall.
Let's have more "centralized" bureaucracy--and heaven forbid we make the feral get off our streets.
Same old, same old--but with a noxious management consultant feel.