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.
The “homeless” it turns out are smarter and more particular about where they sleep than we thought. They don’t want one big room with beds spaced 4 feet apart, with no place to put their stuff, no thought for their pets.
The line from a Costner baseball film says: “ If you build it, they will come”.
Seems like it didn’t happen. NO one showed up!
Turns out they don’t want our charity and condescending attitude toward them.
Leave them alone, keep the door open and a hot pot of soup….they will come when they are ready.
Shelter clients can bring in a pet. They can bring in as many belongings as they can store under their bed. Typically this is 2 shopping bags and a handbag or backpack.
First, Ruby Reichart: Public transportation in Portland is up and running a lot earlier than 6:00 AM. And I must comment on Gail Cronyn's plan to put all the Poors of the Pearl in jail for 30 days by echoing the great German filmmaker Werner Rainer Fassbinder in "The Merchant of Four Seasons" (1973) when, after someone breaks some glass in a bar, the bartender leaps up and bellows "WHO PAYS FOR THIS!" Yes, who pays for the astronomical cost of all that imprisonment? All those "county" doctors and nurses and the people to guard them too... WHO PAYS FOR THIS? I'm sure the nice people of Northwest Portland would be happy to contribute to a Go Fund Me campaign... because where else is the money coming from?
Of course, the solution is... affordable housing! Yes, mentioning Affordable Housing is when everybody gets a chance to be a Serious Person. Unfortunately, that housing has to be built, or at least developed from renovations, also expensive, and such construction only happens when at least a few people get to make some serious money... and WHO PAYS FOR THIS? Isn't that what capitalism at its purest is all about, using the poors to turn a profit?
I still think Mayor Wilson's plan to set up more overnight homeless shelters, using existing structures whenever possible, at least has the tidy virtue of being an inexpensive first step. And I deeply admire him for doing this without first consulting every last bore in Portland. In his plan, when the rent-a-cops in white gloves sweep the trash from a sidewalk encampment those evicted and without tents will at least have a sheltered place to sleep. And hopefully, everybody in the neighborhood will be able to walk their dogs without being too scared.
It’s weird your entire comment completely ignores the rampant real issue - which is drug addiction. And yes, I’d gladly pay my tax money (millions spent, so far) on actual imprisonment for those who commit crimes, than this constant, useless enablement of disorder. And god forbid the government here listen to their actual tax paying residents, they wouldn’t want to waste time doing that!
It’s bizarre you dismiss people’s valid fears about walking around their own neighborhood with sarcasm, as if assaults and crime don’t happen with great frequency in NW. You sound like the condescending and out of touch bore.
Estimates of drug us amongst the homeless is 40-50%. So substance use is indeed a major factor among chronically homeless populations, but studies consistently show that housing loss is driven primarily by affordability and eviction, with addiction often a consequence rather than the sole cause.
I share your outrage at the constant, useless disorder. However, imprisoning people for drug use has not been shown to reduce homelessness and is more costly than treatment/housing.
“Actual imprisonment for those who commit crimes” is not a controversial sentiment, and the fact that some people still make excuses for addicts, implying they should be above the law because of “why” they commit crimes, is playing a large role in why we have such an ongoing problem with enablement here. People do in fact come to Portland to camp out on our streets and take the handouts given with no expectation that they make any attempt to conform to societal expectations. I have unfortunately known addicts in my life and one of the AA slogans is even something to the effect of, if they don’t stop using they will end up institutionalized, in jail, or dead. This is meant as a stark reminder of what will happen if they don’t get clean - addicts need to face real consequences as an incentive for doing so, or their already low success rate plummets to basically zero. Well, Oregon has taken away institutions and jail. We know what that’s leaving them as a third option, but homeless advocates seem to think a slow death on the streets (pulling the rest of the city down with them, as addicts do to their enablers) is preferable to them facing consequences.
Are you contending that all homeless people are drug addicts and that they should all be thrown in prison?
Can you provide information on homeless advocates who seem to think a slow death on the streets is preferable to them facing consequences? I have never met one.
You write: "This is meant as a stark reminder of what will happen if they don’t get clean - addicts need to face real consequences as an incentive for doing so, or their already low success rate plummets to basically zero."
Do you support no treatment for addiction services?
Can you explain this statement? "Oregon has taken away institutions and jail."
I ask because Oregon certainly has inadequate mental health beds, but due to decriminalizationof marijuana offenses, there are adequate beds for the prisons convicted of state level crimes.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were talking about because you said “imprisoning people for drug use has not been shown to reduce homelessness”. Nowhere in my comment did I imply that it did, I simply stated that I’d rather my money at this point go to more prison space so people who commit crimes can actually be kept there rather than more and varied ways of throwing money at the homeless issue, since they seem to do everything but address addiction as part of the problem. At least enforcing laws would shield the rest of society from bearing the brunt of addiction fallout, which is what has been happening here pretty egregiously for the last 5 years. It’s news to me that we apparently already have enough space in prison, since we’re often told lack of resources are the reason they won’t keep people in jail.
Also, there are plenty of people who live in Portland (and who sit on city council) who very much do excuse a lot of actual crime (property crime, open drug use, loitering on private property, public defecation, rioting, etc.) - it’s not exactly a poster child for law and order.
If they do attempt to clean up some of the more dangerous camps, a slew of homeless advocates do show up to defend their “right” to ongoing live an unhealthy and unsanitary (and unsafe) life in the street, so some of them sure do believe this lifestyle should continue to be enabled. You can find numerous stories such as this with a google search.
In any case, I feel like you are also reading a lot more into my statements than are actually there, and then arguing points that I never made.
Maybe all the streetcars are running (they’re not) but it was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment to our mayor’s argument that the Pearl for this reason is a good place for a homeless shelter.
The Streetcar is likely ecstatic about its paying customers from Northrop to Nowhere, I’m sure.
All the studies mentioned by Wilson, eliminates the fact that most cities he offers as examples for his ill advised ideas, have long ago abandoned overnight shelters in city centers as a solution. This society and the culture of bandaids and shoddy fixes are again behind the curve and further degrading our cities to a level unimaginable in many western civilized countries like the Netherlands.
You write "most cities he offers as examples for his ill advised ideas, have long ago abandoned overnight shelters in city centers as a solution." Can you provide links to support your assertion? The research that I have seen disputes your claim.
The link below details Boston's program of centrally located low barrier shelters. Within the article are links for similar programs in New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
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.
The “homeless” it turns out are smarter and more particular about where they sleep than we thought. They don’t want one big room with beds spaced 4 feet apart, with no place to put their stuff, no thought for their pets.
The line from a Costner baseball film says: “ If you build it, they will come”.
Seems like it didn’t happen. NO one showed up!
Turns out they don’t want our charity and condescending attitude toward them.
Leave them alone, keep the door open and a hot pot of soup….they will come when they are ready.
Shelter clients can bring in a pet. They can bring in as many belongings as they can store under their bed. Typically this is 2 shopping bags and a handbag or backpack.
First, Ruby Reichart: Public transportation in Portland is up and running a lot earlier than 6:00 AM. And I must comment on Gail Cronyn's plan to put all the Poors of the Pearl in jail for 30 days by echoing the great German filmmaker Werner Rainer Fassbinder in "The Merchant of Four Seasons" (1973) when, after someone breaks some glass in a bar, the bartender leaps up and bellows "WHO PAYS FOR THIS!" Yes, who pays for the astronomical cost of all that imprisonment? All those "county" doctors and nurses and the people to guard them too... WHO PAYS FOR THIS? I'm sure the nice people of Northwest Portland would be happy to contribute to a Go Fund Me campaign... because where else is the money coming from?
Of course, the solution is... affordable housing! Yes, mentioning Affordable Housing is when everybody gets a chance to be a Serious Person. Unfortunately, that housing has to be built, or at least developed from renovations, also expensive, and such construction only happens when at least a few people get to make some serious money... and WHO PAYS FOR THIS? Isn't that what capitalism at its purest is all about, using the poors to turn a profit?
I still think Mayor Wilson's plan to set up more overnight homeless shelters, using existing structures whenever possible, at least has the tidy virtue of being an inexpensive first step. And I deeply admire him for doing this without first consulting every last bore in Portland. In his plan, when the rent-a-cops in white gloves sweep the trash from a sidewalk encampment those evicted and without tents will at least have a sheltered place to sleep. And hopefully, everybody in the neighborhood will be able to walk their dogs without being too scared.
It’s weird your entire comment completely ignores the rampant real issue - which is drug addiction. And yes, I’d gladly pay my tax money (millions spent, so far) on actual imprisonment for those who commit crimes, than this constant, useless enablement of disorder. And god forbid the government here listen to their actual tax paying residents, they wouldn’t want to waste time doing that!
It’s bizarre you dismiss people’s valid fears about walking around their own neighborhood with sarcasm, as if assaults and crime don’t happen with great frequency in NW. You sound like the condescending and out of touch bore.
Estimates of drug us amongst the homeless is 40-50%. So substance use is indeed a major factor among chronically homeless populations, but studies consistently show that housing loss is driven primarily by affordability and eviction, with addiction often a consequence rather than the sole cause.
I share your outrage at the constant, useless disorder. However, imprisoning people for drug use has not been shown to reduce homelessness and is more costly than treatment/housing.
“Actual imprisonment for those who commit crimes” is not a controversial sentiment, and the fact that some people still make excuses for addicts, implying they should be above the law because of “why” they commit crimes, is playing a large role in why we have such an ongoing problem with enablement here. People do in fact come to Portland to camp out on our streets and take the handouts given with no expectation that they make any attempt to conform to societal expectations. I have unfortunately known addicts in my life and one of the AA slogans is even something to the effect of, if they don’t stop using they will end up institutionalized, in jail, or dead. This is meant as a stark reminder of what will happen if they don’t get clean - addicts need to face real consequences as an incentive for doing so, or their already low success rate plummets to basically zero. Well, Oregon has taken away institutions and jail. We know what that’s leaving them as a third option, but homeless advocates seem to think a slow death on the streets (pulling the rest of the city down with them, as addicts do to their enablers) is preferable to them facing consequences.
Who is saying “Actual imprisonment for those who commit crimes” is a controversial sentiment?
I don't know of anyone who doesn't want criminals held accountable?
Are you saying that I personally still make excuses for addicts, implying they should be above the law because "why" they commit crimes?
If not me, who are the people who still make excuses for addicts, implying they should be above the law because of “why” they commit crimes?
Are you referring to the George Floyd era "Defund the Police" groups like the Portland State University American Association of University Professors? https://psuaaup.net/blog/entry/defunding-the-police-what-does-it-mean-and-why-does-psu-aaup-support-it?
Are you contending that all homeless people are drug addicts and that they should all be thrown in prison?
Can you provide information on homeless advocates who seem to think a slow death on the streets is preferable to them facing consequences? I have never met one.
You write: "This is meant as a stark reminder of what will happen if they don’t get clean - addicts need to face real consequences as an incentive for doing so, or their already low success rate plummets to basically zero."
Do you support no treatment for addiction services?
Can you explain this statement? "Oregon has taken away institutions and jail."
I ask because Oregon certainly has inadequate mental health beds, but due to decriminalizationof marijuana offenses, there are adequate beds for the prisons convicted of state level crimes.
Looking forward to your thoughtful response.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you were talking about because you said “imprisoning people for drug use has not been shown to reduce homelessness”. Nowhere in my comment did I imply that it did, I simply stated that I’d rather my money at this point go to more prison space so people who commit crimes can actually be kept there rather than more and varied ways of throwing money at the homeless issue, since they seem to do everything but address addiction as part of the problem. At least enforcing laws would shield the rest of society from bearing the brunt of addiction fallout, which is what has been happening here pretty egregiously for the last 5 years. It’s news to me that we apparently already have enough space in prison, since we’re often told lack of resources are the reason they won’t keep people in jail.
Also, there are plenty of people who live in Portland (and who sit on city council) who very much do excuse a lot of actual crime (property crime, open drug use, loitering on private property, public defecation, rioting, etc.) - it’s not exactly a poster child for law and order.
If they do attempt to clean up some of the more dangerous camps, a slew of homeless advocates do show up to defend their “right” to ongoing live an unhealthy and unsanitary (and unsafe) life in the street, so some of them sure do believe this lifestyle should continue to be enabled. You can find numerous stories such as this with a google search.
In any case, I feel like you are also reading a lot more into my statements than are actually there, and then arguing points that I never made.
Maybe all the streetcars are running (they’re not) but it was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment to our mayor’s argument that the Pearl for this reason is a good place for a homeless shelter.
The Streetcar is likely ecstatic about its paying customers from Northrop to Nowhere, I’m sure.
All the studies mentioned by Wilson, eliminates the fact that most cities he offers as examples for his ill advised ideas, have long ago abandoned overnight shelters in city centers as a solution. This society and the culture of bandaids and shoddy fixes are again behind the curve and further degrading our cities to a level unimaginable in many western civilized countries like the Netherlands.
You write "most cities he offers as examples for his ill advised ideas, have long ago abandoned overnight shelters in city centers as a solution." Can you provide links to support your assertion? The research that I have seen disputes your claim.
The link below details Boston's program of centrally located low barrier shelters. Within the article are links for similar programs in New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2021/07/OLTS%20Practice%20Guidance.pdf?utm_