This is SO SPOT-ON, Alan Classen! Consolidating services in a single location would eliminate the damage to livability in the rest of Portland -- areas with working families, children, the elderly, schools and struggling businesses. Centralization of homeless resources would also be vastly more efficient in terms of resources and cost-effectiveness -- a wiser use of the increasingly limited taxpayer funds. Instead of spreading scores of outreach workers and specialized homeless services sparsely all over the city, they could be consolidated in one place, along with EVERY WRAP-AROUND SERVICE IMAGINABLE, for the convenience of doing real-time, effective and thoughtful triage that would help the homeless overcome their individual issues, whether it's a missing Social Security card, missing teeth, missing meds, missing a connection to low-cost housing, trauma/PTSD, or entrenched opioid or alcohol addiction.
Here's the catch: The mayor thinks that he MUST spread out the services so as to be convenient to the homeless, "meeting them where they are." However, other cities ditched that thinking and found much more success by purposefully consolidating services in outlying areas - Las Vegas, San Diego, Fresno, Amsterdam, Calgary, Alberta, and Vienna are a few examples. Public policy experts like Vadim Mozyrsky have said that placing shelters in areas with the least impact to the economy and residents "not only benefits those city residents who are working and raising families but also helps homeless individuals by placing them in environments conducive to recovery and away from negative influences such as drug dealing.”
Why does the mayor pursue this path that sacrifices the economy and livability of whole swathes of the city to the needs of a small number of persons, the majority of whom have entrenched opioid abuse and mental illness problems? (Portland's current homeless population is estimated to be made of 75% of mentally ill, opioid addition, or both.) Could the mayor be listening to failed policy advisors who have zero track record of actually making substantial inroads in the homelessness emergency, despite huge cash infusions over many years? Could the mayor be ignoring, perhaps, the wise counsel of public policy experts like Vadim Mozyrsky and Betsy Johnson? Could he be ignoring homeless sector experts like Alan Evans, who has an outstanding, data-backed, proven success rate in helping the homeless turn their lives around -- and who offered to the mayor to add adjunct low-barrier facilities on available land near Bybee Lakes)? Could the mayor be listening only to the entrenched homeless industrial complex, who are so heavily invested in their million-dollar properties in downtown, that they refuse to consider relocating to a centralized facility, but who prefer instead to simply churn ever bigger, year-after-year contracts with the city and county?
When will the insanity end? When can Portland neighborhoods reclaim their prosperity, their livability, their FUTURE? When will this mayor abandon his failed and very costly harm reduction policies, and instead embrace the law-and-order "tough love" approaches that have successfully reduced camping in San Francisco by 85%? Centralized homeless services, combined with enforcement of camping bans, would dramatically improve the homeless emergency practically overnight. It would save lives that would be lost to opioid overdose and it would pull Portland out of its disastrous death spiral.
Despite the widespread praise for Mayor Wilson’s supposedly genuine and well-meaning intentions, it is the height of political arrogance for him to have persisted in his incredibly amateurish and tone-deaf proposal for the new sparsely equipped homeless shelter in the Pearl District. The hopes and dreams of thousands of residents and hundreds of business owners who have made substantial personal investments in their residences and establishments, on top of the municipal governments and developers who have invested billions in planning and constructing the neighborhood since the 1990s, are being ignored by a single headstrong politician with no experience whatsoever in much the same way that our nation’s President gives the middle finger to millions of Americans who know better than their designated leader. So who will compensate Pearl residents and others with a stakehold in that area when their livelihood and safety will be further eroded by this feckless Mayor? We already know the answer.
You are 100% correct in this comment - there is no well intention with this Mayor, he’s basically a homeless zealot willing to bring down whole sections of the city against the warnings of almost everyone. I think he will go down as the worst mayor this city has ever had, and that’s really saying something. I blame the entire rest of the city council as well, especially those in district 4 that are supposed to represent us. They are all pathetic and luckily we will have the chance to vote all of them out next year.
Keep reminding yourself--the mayor that claims his job is to be a "cheerleader for downtown" is also the same mayor who presented a budget that left a funding gap so that the council could raise parking fees and extend the parking hours downtown. And where were the District 4 councilors? They represent the entire west side of Portland and a sliver of southeast Portland. Get ready to block their fundraising appeals which should start in about 10 months.
In case anyone needs a reminder of the people who are attempting to destroy the Pearl District/NW area: Mayor Keith Wilson and district 4 reps Olivia Clark, Mitch Green, Eric Zimmerman. Let’s make sure they never occupy a government seat here again.
Agree in part. Green is beyond the pale and must go. Clark is a "useful idiot", and all which that old sobriquet implies. No critical thiking skills. I think there is hope for Zimmerman.
It’s Mitch Green and the DSA. Zimmerman has made it clear he doesn’t want the shelter there. I’m pretty sure Clark doesn’t either. It seems the mayor is a people pleaser and needs to keep the activist happy
My opinion is both could have spoken out more publicly and earlier in the process against it if that is the case. We don’t even have so much as a good neighbor agreement on this with the city. I attended a Zoom call with Zimmerman in attendance where he basically said, I’m not willing to get in the way of the mayor’s plans - if you have issues just make sure to call 911. If this is all the support we get from them, I really don’t see the point in keeping any of them around. Clark just gave a tv interview where she said something to the effect of, well I wish it weren’t happening there but it is. So they’ll all just standby and witness what everyone knows is going to be a disaster, I guess, and let the neighborhood deal with the fallout, as usual.
Valid points. They should’ve done more, and they 100% could have before these plans were set in stone. I don’t have a lot of faith in the mayors plan considering it doesn’t address the vast majority of the problem. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
I agree that nobody is going to be happy with a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. The best way forward is for the city and state to get together and provide proper and helpful forced treatment(civil commitment) to those with severe mental disorders who are homeless. Like the woman I saw yesterday on Everett and 18th, standing in the rain, with little clothing, trying unsuccessfully in the pouring rain to get her other thong on her foot. We have to act to get people like her hospitalized whether they want it or not, and get them cleaned up, off drugs, mentally healthier with medications if necessary. Short term limited hospital care with a maximum of six weeks can do alot to improve people who are severely mentally ill become much more functional and able to make more appropriate long term decisions along with the potential to be more socially conforming. It is a fantasy(I won't say a delusion) to think that wrap around services, or assertive case management, or giving them coffee and donuts is going to be of much use to the vast majority of them, who like the rest of us, are quite stuck in doing things our way not matter the costs. If people don't care about people like the woman I am describing, perhaps, consider that it will be a benefit to your community to have less severely mentally ill people on the street who are not being properly attended to. And finally, just say no, to sending them all back to the state mental hospital for life. Very cruel and counterproductive for the severely mentally ill.
This is SO SPOT-ON, Alan Classen! Consolidating services in a single location would eliminate the damage to livability in the rest of Portland -- areas with working families, children, the elderly, schools and struggling businesses. Centralization of homeless resources would also be vastly more efficient in terms of resources and cost-effectiveness -- a wiser use of the increasingly limited taxpayer funds. Instead of spreading scores of outreach workers and specialized homeless services sparsely all over the city, they could be consolidated in one place, along with EVERY WRAP-AROUND SERVICE IMAGINABLE, for the convenience of doing real-time, effective and thoughtful triage that would help the homeless overcome their individual issues, whether it's a missing Social Security card, missing teeth, missing meds, missing a connection to low-cost housing, trauma/PTSD, or entrenched opioid or alcohol addiction.
Here's the catch: The mayor thinks that he MUST spread out the services so as to be convenient to the homeless, "meeting them where they are." However, other cities ditched that thinking and found much more success by purposefully consolidating services in outlying areas - Las Vegas, San Diego, Fresno, Amsterdam, Calgary, Alberta, and Vienna are a few examples. Public policy experts like Vadim Mozyrsky have said that placing shelters in areas with the least impact to the economy and residents "not only benefits those city residents who are working and raising families but also helps homeless individuals by placing them in environments conducive to recovery and away from negative influences such as drug dealing.”
Why does the mayor pursue this path that sacrifices the economy and livability of whole swathes of the city to the needs of a small number of persons, the majority of whom have entrenched opioid abuse and mental illness problems? (Portland's current homeless population is estimated to be made of 75% of mentally ill, opioid addition, or both.) Could the mayor be listening to failed policy advisors who have zero track record of actually making substantial inroads in the homelessness emergency, despite huge cash infusions over many years? Could the mayor be ignoring, perhaps, the wise counsel of public policy experts like Vadim Mozyrsky and Betsy Johnson? Could he be ignoring homeless sector experts like Alan Evans, who has an outstanding, data-backed, proven success rate in helping the homeless turn their lives around -- and who offered to the mayor to add adjunct low-barrier facilities on available land near Bybee Lakes)? Could the mayor be listening only to the entrenched homeless industrial complex, who are so heavily invested in their million-dollar properties in downtown, that they refuse to consider relocating to a centralized facility, but who prefer instead to simply churn ever bigger, year-after-year contracts with the city and county?
When will the insanity end? When can Portland neighborhoods reclaim their prosperity, their livability, their FUTURE? When will this mayor abandon his failed and very costly harm reduction policies, and instead embrace the law-and-order "tough love" approaches that have successfully reduced camping in San Francisco by 85%? Centralized homeless services, combined with enforcement of camping bans, would dramatically improve the homeless emergency practically overnight. It would save lives that would be lost to opioid overdose and it would pull Portland out of its disastrous death spiral.
Well said.
Despite the widespread praise for Mayor Wilson’s supposedly genuine and well-meaning intentions, it is the height of political arrogance for him to have persisted in his incredibly amateurish and tone-deaf proposal for the new sparsely equipped homeless shelter in the Pearl District. The hopes and dreams of thousands of residents and hundreds of business owners who have made substantial personal investments in their residences and establishments, on top of the municipal governments and developers who have invested billions in planning and constructing the neighborhood since the 1990s, are being ignored by a single headstrong politician with no experience whatsoever in much the same way that our nation’s President gives the middle finger to millions of Americans who know better than their designated leader. So who will compensate Pearl residents and others with a stakehold in that area when their livelihood and safety will be further eroded by this feckless Mayor? We already know the answer.
You are 100% correct in this comment - there is no well intention with this Mayor, he’s basically a homeless zealot willing to bring down whole sections of the city against the warnings of almost everyone. I think he will go down as the worst mayor this city has ever had, and that’s really saying something. I blame the entire rest of the city council as well, especially those in district 4 that are supposed to represent us. They are all pathetic and luckily we will have the chance to vote all of them out next year.
Keep reminding yourself--the mayor that claims his job is to be a "cheerleader for downtown" is also the same mayor who presented a budget that left a funding gap so that the council could raise parking fees and extend the parking hours downtown. And where were the District 4 councilors? They represent the entire west side of Portland and a sliver of southeast Portland. Get ready to block their fundraising appeals which should start in about 10 months.
In case anyone needs a reminder of the people who are attempting to destroy the Pearl District/NW area: Mayor Keith Wilson and district 4 reps Olivia Clark, Mitch Green, Eric Zimmerman. Let’s make sure they never occupy a government seat here again.
Agree in part. Green is beyond the pale and must go. Clark is a "useful idiot", and all which that old sobriquet implies. No critical thiking skills. I think there is hope for Zimmerman.
YMMV.
It’s Mitch Green and the DSA. Zimmerman has made it clear he doesn’t want the shelter there. I’m pretty sure Clark doesn’t either. It seems the mayor is a people pleaser and needs to keep the activist happy
My opinion is both could have spoken out more publicly and earlier in the process against it if that is the case. We don’t even have so much as a good neighbor agreement on this with the city. I attended a Zoom call with Zimmerman in attendance where he basically said, I’m not willing to get in the way of the mayor’s plans - if you have issues just make sure to call 911. If this is all the support we get from them, I really don’t see the point in keeping any of them around. Clark just gave a tv interview where she said something to the effect of, well I wish it weren’t happening there but it is. So they’ll all just standby and witness what everyone knows is going to be a disaster, I guess, and let the neighborhood deal with the fallout, as usual.
Valid points. They should’ve done more, and they 100% could have before these plans were set in stone. I don’t have a lot of faith in the mayors plan considering it doesn’t address the vast majority of the problem. Let’s hope I’m wrong.
Excellent commentary.
Thank you. ✨
Cogent editorial. Well done.
I agree that nobody is going to be happy with a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. The best way forward is for the city and state to get together and provide proper and helpful forced treatment(civil commitment) to those with severe mental disorders who are homeless. Like the woman I saw yesterday on Everett and 18th, standing in the rain, with little clothing, trying unsuccessfully in the pouring rain to get her other thong on her foot. We have to act to get people like her hospitalized whether they want it or not, and get them cleaned up, off drugs, mentally healthier with medications if necessary. Short term limited hospital care with a maximum of six weeks can do alot to improve people who are severely mentally ill become much more functional and able to make more appropriate long term decisions along with the potential to be more socially conforming. It is a fantasy(I won't say a delusion) to think that wrap around services, or assertive case management, or giving them coffee and donuts is going to be of much use to the vast majority of them, who like the rest of us, are quite stuck in doing things our way not matter the costs. If people don't care about people like the woman I am describing, perhaps, consider that it will be a benefit to your community to have less severely mentally ill people on the street who are not being properly attended to. And finally, just say no, to sending them all back to the state mental hospital for life. Very cruel and counterproductive for the severely mentally ill.