Shelters not a solution
I recently made Portland my permanent home after living in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, New York City and other eastern U.S. cities and towns. I’ve experienced urban life in all its complexity and richness. At 67, I came here deliberately—not to retreat, but to engage. I chose Portland for its scale, culture, access to nature and potential. I invested in a home in the Pearl District because I believed in this city’s future.
I didn’t come here blind. I’ve seen Portland through its darkest moments—its decline, revival and ongoing battle since COVID.
I care deeply about people who are unhoused, suffering and addicted. But I also care about those of us who live here, build businesses, pay taxes and are working to bring this city back to life.
That’s why the mayor’s decision to place a 200-bed overnight shelter in the Pearl feels like a slap in the face. This is a dense, residential, mixed-use neighborhood—home to families, barely surviving businesses and people who deliberately chose to live in the urban core and contribute to Portland’s recovery.
There will be no showers. There’s no clear intake process, no behavioral guidelines, no transportation plan and no clear wrap-around services. People will be discharged at 6 a.m. when no transit is running and residents are walking their dogs, going to the gym next door, grabbing a coffee and commuting to work. What exactly is the plan for them—or for us?
This is not a real solution. It’s a reactive, bare-minimum campaign promise gesture that burdens neighborhoods already doing more than their share. It helps no one, least of all the people in need who deserve care.
This is not compassion but political convenience. And it undermines the people who are reinvesting in Portland in hopes of rebuilding what once made it great.
Ruby Reichardt
NW 12th Ave.
Ill-founded pride
If you build it, they will come. Build more shelters and “services” to support those drug-addled lost souls so they can suffer and die before our eyes. Portland is a destination spot to descend into the hell of heroin, fentanyl or whatever the new drug is.
The solution is simple, cheap, straight-forward and effective. It’s also the most compassionate treatment possible. The solution to the homeless problem would put all of the social workers and homeless advocates out of business in 90 days. Our streets would be safe, and the mentally ill would be treated. Drug addiction would be a rare condition if not totally eradicated.
We might have to forgo our pride in our sense of righteousness and compassion.
It we put drug-addicted people in jail for 30 days to detox under the care of county doctors and nurses, we might also forego the feeling that comes when another poor soul dies in front of us on Portland streets. Can we give up our compassion and actually help people?
Gail Cronyn
NW Luray Terrace
At 6am they will be sent over to the new “Oasis Day Center” in NW Old Town (Broadway & 6th - nw Glisan & Hoyt) across from the Art Collage.
The entire block will be used for the hangout / clean up / resource center. Their hours: 6am - 10pm.
I’ve resided in OTCT for 14 years. I can’t tell you how much this will impact our lively hood and livability here. I imagine this will amplify crime 30% in my neighborhood as well as the neighboring areas.
We must stop our government officials from continuing to center services on our west side!
In “Ill-founded pride,” Gail Cronyn argues that Portland should jail people for 30 days to detox, dismissing shelters and social workers as part of the problem. It is an appealingly simple idea, but it does not align with evidence.
Most unhoused people here did not arrive from somewhere else to take advantage of services. Surveys consistently show that 70-80 percent of people living unsheltered in Portland already lived in Oregon before becoming homeless.
The belief that a month in jail could end addiction is not backed by research. Medical evidence shows relapse rates as high as 95% for people who leave short-term, forced detox without long-term treatment or housing. Because tolerance drops sharply, their risk of overdose death rises once they are back on the street. Far from being compassionate, this approach would most likely increase fatalities.
This policy would not be “cheap” or “straightforward.” Oregon already struggles to meet the health needs of those in custody. Expanding jails to handle thousands of people in forced detox would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, consume scarce medical resources, and overwhelm local facilities.
A blanket policy of locking up all drug users would be unconstitutional and unenforceable. There are no laws in Oregon that would allow the state to forcibly incarcerate every addicted person for 30 days of treatment. Civil commitment statutes are narrow, applying only to cases where someone is judged a danger to themselves or others.
The United States already has the highest rate of incarceration in the world while at the same time having the highest rate of drug deaths in the world. The U.S. overdose death rate is over 27 times as high as overdose deaths in France, Spain, Italy and Japan. These countries incarcerate at least 5 times fewer people than the US. Instead prisons, these other countries direct their resources towards supportive housing and best practice addiction services.
The letter above suggests that eliminating social workers would end homelessness in “90 days.” That misunderstands their role. Social workers connect people to housing, recovery programs, and family supports. Addiction and mental illness are not fixed in 30 days. Recovery takes years of effort and connection. Cutting the very people who guide that process would only deepen the crisis.
The letter's assertion that social workers and homeless advocates only focus on drug addiction is misguided. Social workers support the poor, disabled, elderly, and abused, while also connecting unhoused people to housing, health care, and recovery. Advocates do not want homelessness to persist; they work to end it. Addiction among the homeless is real, but often it follows the trauma of losing housing rather than causing it.
Portlanders are right to demand action, but advocating for solutions that are not legal, not practical and that are not based on best research are not helpful.