People suffering mental illness do not - often / sometimes - recognize thier illness. I know this from my neighborhood. Body autonomy should NOT equate public danger. Backwards Portland, backwards.
And NOW is the opportunity to change this direction. Vote!
Excellent piece, Bob. We must change the state civil commitment laws and provide places for these folks. Perhaps an annex of the state hospital in Portland?
I appreciate your opinion. At the cost of 419,000 dollars per patient per year, however, it seems unrealistic. In addition, long term hospital care causes a worsening of patient condition. Some become more apathetic, others more violent. It is inhumane to warehouse the severely mentally ill. Six weeks max in a local community hospital psychiatric ward is a middle road that could do a lot of good for Portland to adopt.
I am not sure where that budget figure comes from, but I'll stipulate it is a large number to instiutionally house and care for a mental health patient. But any cost-based analysis should also evaluate the money spent on other housing initiatives and their success/failure rates, before eliminating any models.
Thank you for saying plainly what many Portland residents have been living with for years—and are currently being told to ignore.
Across this city, neighborhoods are dealing with the daily reality of open drug use, repeat theft and vandalism, and unacceptable public behavior tied to addiction and untreated mental illness. This isn’t abstract—it’s lived experience.
And yet leadership—from the Multnomah County Commissioners, chaired by Jessica Vega Pederson, to the Portland City Council under mayor Keith Wilson, and up through the Oregon State Government—continue to defend strategies that are not delivering safety, recovery, or stability at the street level.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent annually through the Joint Office of Homeless Services and the Supportive Housing Services Measure. These were sold to voters as transformational investments. Yet many neighborhoods only experience worsening conditions year over year. When budgets have to (inexplicably, every year) be cut, public safety is always considered expendable, while unnecessary pet projects (and associated fraud) are never looked into or touched. We are living this right now, as the mayor and city council further gut citizen facing services that are already inadequate.
At the same time, Oregon continues to rank near the bottom nationally in access to mental health care. That gap shows up visibly in our public spaces every day, as people cycle through crisis, brief intervention, and release without lasting stabilization.
As the NW neighborhood knows all too well, expansion of low-barrier shelters has moved forward quickly, without adequate systems in place to manage surrounding impacts. Communities are expected to absorb the consequences, while accountability for outcomes remains non-existent.
This is the core failure: not a lack of funding, not a lack of stated compassion—but a lack of measurable results and a refusal to change course when policies aren’t working or to use common sense or relevant public input when implementing them in the first place.
Civil commitment reform also has to be part of this conversation. The current threshold is so high that many people in repeated, visible crisis (as in this case) are left to deteriorate until they reach an emergency threshold. That is neither humane nor sustainable. Any serious approach must include both expanded treatment capacity and the ability to intervene earlier when someone cannot care for themselves.
So here are the questions for county commissioners, city council, and state leaders:
- How much more funding will be approved before outcomes actually change?
- How many more programs will be expanded without measurable improvement?
- And how long are neighborhoods, individual citizens, and businesses, expected to carry the burden of policies that aren’t delivering results?
Frankly, this cannot continue to be treated as a technical problem within the same political framework that created it. The upcoming election cycles at the city, county, and state level are where this direction either continues—or finally changes.
There are very few current officeholders I have confidence will both acknowledge the reality and be willing to fundamentally change course. Many of them have had plenty of time already to display their ability to do this and they have failed. If that’s going to shift, it starts with voters paying close attention to who is willing to break from the status quo, demand measurable outcomes, and finally prioritize public safety.
Agreed. “When we protect only the autonomy of the person in crisis while ignoring the terror imposed on everyone around him, we are not defending justice. We are abandoning it.” Thank you.
Forced civil commitment is a controversial issue, but I would encourage the Governor to create a commission composed of medical professionals, law enforcement officials, and legal experts to draft reforms to Oregon's civil commitment laws that protect the community while also safeguarding individuals from a system with a history of violating individuals rights. This also gets to the homeless crisis, it's not compassion to allow a severely mentally ill individual to live on the street, nor is it good for the community.
The people I talk to rarely want to talk about civil commitment. It is a very uncomfortable subject in part because of our freedom loving country. Being severely mentally ill is much more stigmatizing than being a criminal who robs a bank or kills someone in a bar fight. And it is often not a one time deal. It can last a lifetime, with its ups and downs.
It is an absolute need, however, for us to balance the liberty interests of the severely mentally ill with community rights for safety, civility and beauty in the public square. And also to intervene in a humane way to try to help those whose illness is so severe as to make it important for their welfare. As humans we should not continue to sit by and watch people rot with their rights on which is what is happening around the country.
Forced hospital care can lead to significant improvements in peoples functioning with modern medications and talk therapy. As importantly, it gives the community a process to pursue when someone obviously is personally and socially non-conforming to a degree that they are destroying their communities or families. It should be limited in its duration but also should be prompt in being instituted, as often time is of the essence.
If the Governor forms a commission, I want to be on it.
Changing the system with civil commitment is not just about the law and criteria for commitment, it is also about the process. The bottom line is that it isn't just the criteria of commitment, it is the fact that these cases don't get to a judge. To satisfy both the liberty interests of the severely mentally ill, and the public, these cases need to be seen within 12 hours by a judge to decide whether they should be committed or not.
Why is it that our leadership—from the Multnomah County Commissioners, chaired by Jessica Vega Pederson, to the Portland City Council under mayor Keith Wilson, and up through the Oregon State Government—PUT EVERYONE BUT THE TAXPAYERS FIRST! This is so typical for liberal government. And why blue cities are failing while red cities are thriving.
I couldn’t agree more. I can’t tell you how many cases Ive seen in the hospital where people needed civil commitment, but the laws were so restrictive, we couldn’t commit them. Of the 5 commitment cases Ive seen in my 12 years as a nurse, because it’s so rare, all of them were on death’s door before they were committed. Many people who needed civil commitment, or at the very least drug treatment, died within days of leaving the hospital.
It’s unconscionable that the State and Multnomah county have not created more psychiatric hospitals when OSH and Unity are constantly filled to the brim. So much so that OSH is being sued. Our esteemed county chair has also refused to fund our 600 open jail beds and is planning to cut behavioral health services in jails all while dedicating millions to needle and pipe handouts.
The County Chair race is probably the most important race this election. We can elect Singleton, who will be more of the same. Or we can competent candidates like Julia Brim-Edward’s or Sharon Meieran. Both of whom are willing to listen to the experts and make difficult choices.
Of these two, I believe Meieran should be elected. I don’t anticipate that Brim-Edwards (while not as misguided as Peterson) will provide the needed, dramatic changes to policy required. Throwing her support into the hiring selection of the failed LA Homeless Services director was a complete misstep and signals to me she just doesn’t get it. Agreed that Singleton is just copy/paste as well, which we absolutely can’t afford for another round.
I completely agree. I should’ve specified. Brim-Edwards has also caved to political pressure by the unions multiple times now and was just defending needle handouts. She also caved when she had the deciding vote to appoint Terrance Hayes (fully supported by Clackamas county) or Lamar Wise (a union boy that moves between districts to get appointed) to HD48 and she chose Wise. I’ve lost a lot of respect for her but I’d choose her over Singleton. Meieran is absolutely the best choice though.
As they say, the debbil's in the details. So, re this: "The bar for forced treatment should be high. But high cannot mean waiting until someone builds a car bomb." Which is as close as Weinstein gets to saying what--exactly--should be the bar, law, procedure, etc.
To actually do something about the crazies wandering around would require a new corps of "professionals," many beds, some agreement on new laws and procedures--all while the do-gooders and people making money from the status quo scream bloody civil rights. Think Portland is capable of this nuanced debate?
Perhaps we need a change in the color of government. Oregon has been blue for so long and has fallen over the far left edge when it comes to both mental illness and addiction. If O'Connor v Donaldson were brought before today's Supreme Court, I venture to say there would have been a much different ruling. Is there no one out there willing to test the limits and revisit the case for a different opinion. Unless someone is willing to step up to the bar - pun intended - this can will forever be kicked down the political alley of status quo along with the can of homelessness.
100000%!!!
People suffering mental illness do not - often / sometimes - recognize thier illness. I know this from my neighborhood. Body autonomy should NOT equate public danger. Backwards Portland, backwards.
And NOW is the opportunity to change this direction. Vote!
Excellent piece, Bob. We must change the state civil commitment laws and provide places for these folks. Perhaps an annex of the state hospital in Portland?
I appreciate your opinion. At the cost of 419,000 dollars per patient per year, however, it seems unrealistic. In addition, long term hospital care causes a worsening of patient condition. Some become more apathetic, others more violent. It is inhumane to warehouse the severely mentally ill. Six weeks max in a local community hospital psychiatric ward is a middle road that could do a lot of good for Portland to adopt.
I am not sure where that budget figure comes from, but I'll stipulate it is a large number to instiutionally house and care for a mental health patient. But any cost-based analysis should also evaluate the money spent on other housing initiatives and their success/failure rates, before eliminating any models.
Thank you for saying plainly what many Portland residents have been living with for years—and are currently being told to ignore.
Across this city, neighborhoods are dealing with the daily reality of open drug use, repeat theft and vandalism, and unacceptable public behavior tied to addiction and untreated mental illness. This isn’t abstract—it’s lived experience.
And yet leadership—from the Multnomah County Commissioners, chaired by Jessica Vega Pederson, to the Portland City Council under mayor Keith Wilson, and up through the Oregon State Government—continue to defend strategies that are not delivering safety, recovery, or stability at the street level.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent annually through the Joint Office of Homeless Services and the Supportive Housing Services Measure. These were sold to voters as transformational investments. Yet many neighborhoods only experience worsening conditions year over year. When budgets have to (inexplicably, every year) be cut, public safety is always considered expendable, while unnecessary pet projects (and associated fraud) are never looked into or touched. We are living this right now, as the mayor and city council further gut citizen facing services that are already inadequate.
At the same time, Oregon continues to rank near the bottom nationally in access to mental health care. That gap shows up visibly in our public spaces every day, as people cycle through crisis, brief intervention, and release without lasting stabilization.
As the NW neighborhood knows all too well, expansion of low-barrier shelters has moved forward quickly, without adequate systems in place to manage surrounding impacts. Communities are expected to absorb the consequences, while accountability for outcomes remains non-existent.
This is the core failure: not a lack of funding, not a lack of stated compassion—but a lack of measurable results and a refusal to change course when policies aren’t working or to use common sense or relevant public input when implementing them in the first place.
Civil commitment reform also has to be part of this conversation. The current threshold is so high that many people in repeated, visible crisis (as in this case) are left to deteriorate until they reach an emergency threshold. That is neither humane nor sustainable. Any serious approach must include both expanded treatment capacity and the ability to intervene earlier when someone cannot care for themselves.
So here are the questions for county commissioners, city council, and state leaders:
- How much more funding will be approved before outcomes actually change?
- How many more programs will be expanded without measurable improvement?
- And how long are neighborhoods, individual citizens, and businesses, expected to carry the burden of policies that aren’t delivering results?
Frankly, this cannot continue to be treated as a technical problem within the same political framework that created it. The upcoming election cycles at the city, county, and state level are where this direction either continues—or finally changes.
There are very few current officeholders I have confidence will both acknowledge the reality and be willing to fundamentally change course. Many of them have had plenty of time already to display their ability to do this and they have failed. If that’s going to shift, it starts with voters paying close attention to who is willing to break from the status quo, demand measurable outcomes, and finally prioritize public safety.
Agreed. “When we protect only the autonomy of the person in crisis while ignoring the terror imposed on everyone around him, we are not defending justice. We are abandoning it.” Thank you.
Forced civil commitment is a controversial issue, but I would encourage the Governor to create a commission composed of medical professionals, law enforcement officials, and legal experts to draft reforms to Oregon's civil commitment laws that protect the community while also safeguarding individuals from a system with a history of violating individuals rights. This also gets to the homeless crisis, it's not compassion to allow a severely mentally ill individual to live on the street, nor is it good for the community.
The people I talk to rarely want to talk about civil commitment. It is a very uncomfortable subject in part because of our freedom loving country. Being severely mentally ill is much more stigmatizing than being a criminal who robs a bank or kills someone in a bar fight. And it is often not a one time deal. It can last a lifetime, with its ups and downs.
It is an absolute need, however, for us to balance the liberty interests of the severely mentally ill with community rights for safety, civility and beauty in the public square. And also to intervene in a humane way to try to help those whose illness is so severe as to make it important for their welfare. As humans we should not continue to sit by and watch people rot with their rights on which is what is happening around the country.
Forced hospital care can lead to significant improvements in peoples functioning with modern medications and talk therapy. As importantly, it gives the community a process to pursue when someone obviously is personally and socially non-conforming to a degree that they are destroying their communities or families. It should be limited in its duration but also should be prompt in being instituted, as often time is of the essence.
If the Governor forms a commission, I want to be on it.
Enjoyed this piece- as always Bob is a voice of reason I appreciate 🙌
Changing the system with civil commitment is not just about the law and criteria for commitment, it is also about the process. The bottom line is that it isn't just the criteria of commitment, it is the fact that these cases don't get to a judge. To satisfy both the liberty interests of the severely mentally ill, and the public, these cases need to be seen within 12 hours by a judge to decide whether they should be committed or not.
Why is it that our leadership—from the Multnomah County Commissioners, chaired by Jessica Vega Pederson, to the Portland City Council under mayor Keith Wilson, and up through the Oregon State Government—PUT EVERYONE BUT THE TAXPAYERS FIRST! This is so typical for liberal government. And why blue cities are failing while red cities are thriving.
I couldn’t agree more. I can’t tell you how many cases Ive seen in the hospital where people needed civil commitment, but the laws were so restrictive, we couldn’t commit them. Of the 5 commitment cases Ive seen in my 12 years as a nurse, because it’s so rare, all of them were on death’s door before they were committed. Many people who needed civil commitment, or at the very least drug treatment, died within days of leaving the hospital.
It’s unconscionable that the State and Multnomah county have not created more psychiatric hospitals when OSH and Unity are constantly filled to the brim. So much so that OSH is being sued. Our esteemed county chair has also refused to fund our 600 open jail beds and is planning to cut behavioral health services in jails all while dedicating millions to needle and pipe handouts.
The County Chair race is probably the most important race this election. We can elect Singleton, who will be more of the same. Or we can competent candidates like Julia Brim-Edward’s or Sharon Meieran. Both of whom are willing to listen to the experts and make difficult choices.
Of these two, I believe Meieran should be elected. I don’t anticipate that Brim-Edwards (while not as misguided as Peterson) will provide the needed, dramatic changes to policy required. Throwing her support into the hiring selection of the failed LA Homeless Services director was a complete misstep and signals to me she just doesn’t get it. Agreed that Singleton is just copy/paste as well, which we absolutely can’t afford for another round.
I completely agree. I should’ve specified. Brim-Edwards has also caved to political pressure by the unions multiple times now and was just defending needle handouts. She also caved when she had the deciding vote to appoint Terrance Hayes (fully supported by Clackamas county) or Lamar Wise (a union boy that moves between districts to get appointed) to HD48 and she chose Wise. I’ve lost a lot of respect for her but I’d choose her over Singleton. Meieran is absolutely the best choice though.
Excellent! Well said.
Now, what Portland?!
As they say, the debbil's in the details. So, re this: "The bar for forced treatment should be high. But high cannot mean waiting until someone builds a car bomb." Which is as close as Weinstein gets to saying what--exactly--should be the bar, law, procedure, etc.
To actually do something about the crazies wandering around would require a new corps of "professionals," many beds, some agreement on new laws and procedures--all while the do-gooders and people making money from the status quo scream bloody civil rights. Think Portland is capable of this nuanced debate?
The question answers itself.
Perhaps we need a change in the color of government. Oregon has been blue for so long and has fallen over the far left edge when it comes to both mental illness and addiction. If O'Connor v Donaldson were brought before today's Supreme Court, I venture to say there would have been a much different ruling. Is there no one out there willing to test the limits and revisit the case for a different opinion. Unless someone is willing to step up to the bar - pun intended - this can will forever be kicked down the political alley of status quo along with the can of homelessness.