This is a very perceptive article. Mayor Wilson, to my knowledge, has not invited or allowed any meaningful exchange with the community on this subject. As you pointed out in an earlier article, the mayor shot down the plan for a critic who was scheduled to present at the July 28 town hall. Apparently he did not feel "up to" listening to any critics??!! At last week's housing/homeless council meeting, he and his staff high-tailed it away from the audience immediately after presenting, thus refusing to have any interaction with the public. He continues to repeat the same skewed statistics, for example, stating that crime goes down around shelters when in fact, it does not. I don't blame the mayor for sticking to his guns, but I do fault him for his refusal to have meaningful engagement with the community. His staff has dodged all questions from the community, including these: 1) when will he enforce the no-camping laws, 2) how can he guarantee expedited camp sweeps in the 1000-foot impact zone, if the county refuses to clean up the existing and future tents under 405, on any expedited timeline, due to the expired contract with the city and the lack of budget?, 3) how can the promises of expedited handling of livability issues be assured, if there is no mechanism for ensuring such? There are WAY too many unanswered questions, and it makes neighbors very nervous (and very skeptical of the mayor's reliability) when they realize that they cannot get honest answers or any meaningful exchange going with the mayor and his staff on important details and logistics surrounding the shelters.
I am particularly interested in what three significant stakeholders expect when the shelter opens and how they plan to manage the influx of newcomers. The first would be the NW Lovejoy Safeway. The shelter will begin to disgorge its overnight visitors at 6 am with a small snack of some kind. The shelter is located 2-3 blocks from the Safeway, which opens at 6 am. No one can forget the situation at the SW Jefferson Safeway and Plaid Pantry and there was not even an organized overnight shelter nearby that business. The Portland Streetcar passes by both Safeway locations, making going and coming to them much easier than approaching the W. Burnside Fred Meyer. What kind of planning / monitoring / changes do Portland Streetcar LLC and Safeway anticipate setting in motion to prepare?
There is currently no firm date for the opening of the new NW Branch Library between NW Overton and Pettygrove and NW 20th & 21st, nor a timetable for the anticipated park that was to be developed on the north side of Pettygrove, opposite the library. What preparation, if any, has Multnomah County Library undertaken to incorporate hundreds of new indigent library "visitors" in order that it doesn't become a day shelter and restroom drug den?
In the absence of all but a couple of day navigation and services centers, these places often become default safe loitering, sleeping, and shoplifting zones.
There are also a few food pantries which are currently over-extended and short of resources in the Pearl and Stumptown neighborhoods. When 200+ dispossessed people suddenly make this neighborhood their home - be it overnight or 24/7 - whose responsibility will it be to feed them?
I also thought of another player that was probably not included in any preparation or discussion: Good Samaritan Hospital on NW 23rd, whose ER already sees more than its share of emergency visits by homeless injured, mentally ill, and drug-affected people.
The presence of a large, all sex, low-barrier shelter inevitably represents not only more people in the shelter itself, but overflow loiterers, campers and dealers surrounding it in order to take advantage of the opportunities the new gathering represents.
I see that simply finding a place to warehouse folks overnight only solves a single transitory dilemma, leaving neighborhoods who were not consulted in the set-up to fulfill all other needs even if they are struggling to provide for low- and no-income people who already call NW Portland their home. If the city plans to "import" or move more, then it needs to seriously consider providing better support and communication to the institutions, businesses, and residents who have become involuntary hosts.
Very well said. In old Town Chinatown we are prepping for a day center for the houseless. This will most likely be a place to go to from this new night shelter in NW. 👆🏻
it’s a perfect place for them to walk to. (Between Broadway & 6th / NW Glisan & Hoyt) I think they will be handing out tickets.
I have no doubt this will amplify our crime rate by 30% if not more. I’d like to see the NW examiner give that “Oasis Day Center” more attention.
As someone that has lived downtown for fourteen years… I must say, not a lot changes regardless of who is in charge.
Michael Taylor, you makessome excellent points. One short answer to your question about the new library branch. It is very modest compared to some of the more impressive facilities being rolled out elsewhere in the city. When the NWDA Planning Committee met with them, they explained that they are not going to utilize the entire building for the branch. Essentially the building has been subdivided and they mentioned that the other half could be sublet to the city or another agency and used for homeless or shelter services.
I'm new to Portland, but thought Mayor Wilson has a business background? How can he know if he's failing or succeeding without some metrics in place? Unless he's not really interested in the answer. Any outcome can be labeled a "success" when there's nothing to measure success (or failure) against.
What a great number of insights here. I clearly have not given this subject the same level of thought some of you have. But, this does seem like an interesting forum to ask a question that has bothered me for some months now - since the Mayor's juggernaut to put all homeless in shelters became a policy of disproportionately doing so in downtown and the alphabet neighborhoods. Understanding, as I think I do, that the present court decisions prohibit municipalities from enforcing loitering and public trespass/camping laws until they provide shelter sufficient to house all homeless parties living on the streets: how exactly does making that housing available magically remove all homeless from the streets? And what government employee or contractor is going to see to that? More to the point: in my neighborhood, where the homeless are almost all drug-using junkies who hide in the forest and along ODOT properties during the day and come out, seeking a fix, at night; how are these substance abusing addicts going to get lured into these shelters and make a home there while simultaneously preferring the freedom to buy, cook and take their daily fix away from authority or shelter operator scrutiny? What I have not heard, in the Mayor's magical approach to fixing this problem, is how the drug-using homeless, already operating without interference from our under-staffed police force, are going to willingly go and stay in these shelters which would operate contradicting the lifestyle they require to maintain their substance abuse habits. Did I miss the memo that explains how this works?
Actually, court mandated requirements for only banning camping if enough shelter beds are available was a 9th Circuit Court decision eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The current Governor, when she was Oregon's Speaker of the House, promoted and passed her pet bill that mandated compliance with that standard (House Bill 3115). Basically Kotek enshrined into state law a now defunct legal standard.
I am embarrassed and appalled that I did not know this. Going back to read more on it, I note that June 2024 the legislature was going to update that bill to "clarify" what is meant by "reasonable." Did that occur? And, if so, did the city revise their ordinances to reflect same? We are talking about a city that violated fire and building code to enshrine permanency of the Hazelnut Grove Homeless camp constructed just off N. Interstate in contradiction to the overwhelming neighborhood association fight against same. Do City Commissioners ever plan to rewrite ordinances to come in line with their practice of malfeasance? Or do we just sit by and let city officials regularly fail to uphold laws they enact but then chose to not enforce? Better yet, when does bureaucratic malfeasance and nonfeasance become an intolerable liability to citizens for which legal action against them is the only remedy? Is it lawful for any bureaucrat to not do their job (uphold city ordinances assigned their jurisdiction) and stand protected from damage claims? (As I said elsewhere in posts, this same malfeasance aids in the City's existing financial problems as well. They neither protect the livability of the city nor bring in much needed income to their budgets.)
This is a very perceptive article. Mayor Wilson, to my knowledge, has not invited or allowed any meaningful exchange with the community on this subject. As you pointed out in an earlier article, the mayor shot down the plan for a critic who was scheduled to present at the July 28 town hall. Apparently he did not feel "up to" listening to any critics??!! At last week's housing/homeless council meeting, he and his staff high-tailed it away from the audience immediately after presenting, thus refusing to have any interaction with the public. He continues to repeat the same skewed statistics, for example, stating that crime goes down around shelters when in fact, it does not. I don't blame the mayor for sticking to his guns, but I do fault him for his refusal to have meaningful engagement with the community. His staff has dodged all questions from the community, including these: 1) when will he enforce the no-camping laws, 2) how can he guarantee expedited camp sweeps in the 1000-foot impact zone, if the county refuses to clean up the existing and future tents under 405, on any expedited timeline, due to the expired contract with the city and the lack of budget?, 3) how can the promises of expedited handling of livability issues be assured, if there is no mechanism for ensuring such? There are WAY too many unanswered questions, and it makes neighbors very nervous (and very skeptical of the mayor's reliability) when they realize that they cannot get honest answers or any meaningful exchange going with the mayor and his staff on important details and logistics surrounding the shelters.
Agreed. 💯
I am particularly interested in what three significant stakeholders expect when the shelter opens and how they plan to manage the influx of newcomers. The first would be the NW Lovejoy Safeway. The shelter will begin to disgorge its overnight visitors at 6 am with a small snack of some kind. The shelter is located 2-3 blocks from the Safeway, which opens at 6 am. No one can forget the situation at the SW Jefferson Safeway and Plaid Pantry and there was not even an organized overnight shelter nearby that business. The Portland Streetcar passes by both Safeway locations, making going and coming to them much easier than approaching the W. Burnside Fred Meyer. What kind of planning / monitoring / changes do Portland Streetcar LLC and Safeway anticipate setting in motion to prepare?
There is currently no firm date for the opening of the new NW Branch Library between NW Overton and Pettygrove and NW 20th & 21st, nor a timetable for the anticipated park that was to be developed on the north side of Pettygrove, opposite the library. What preparation, if any, has Multnomah County Library undertaken to incorporate hundreds of new indigent library "visitors" in order that it doesn't become a day shelter and restroom drug den?
In the absence of all but a couple of day navigation and services centers, these places often become default safe loitering, sleeping, and shoplifting zones.
There are also a few food pantries which are currently over-extended and short of resources in the Pearl and Stumptown neighborhoods. When 200+ dispossessed people suddenly make this neighborhood their home - be it overnight or 24/7 - whose responsibility will it be to feed them?
I also thought of another player that was probably not included in any preparation or discussion: Good Samaritan Hospital on NW 23rd, whose ER already sees more than its share of emergency visits by homeless injured, mentally ill, and drug-affected people.
The presence of a large, all sex, low-barrier shelter inevitably represents not only more people in the shelter itself, but overflow loiterers, campers and dealers surrounding it in order to take advantage of the opportunities the new gathering represents.
I see that simply finding a place to warehouse folks overnight only solves a single transitory dilemma, leaving neighborhoods who were not consulted in the set-up to fulfill all other needs even if they are struggling to provide for low- and no-income people who already call NW Portland their home. If the city plans to "import" or move more, then it needs to seriously consider providing better support and communication to the institutions, businesses, and residents who have become involuntary hosts.
Very well said. In old Town Chinatown we are prepping for a day center for the houseless. This will most likely be a place to go to from this new night shelter in NW. 👆🏻
it’s a perfect place for them to walk to. (Between Broadway & 6th / NW Glisan & Hoyt) I think they will be handing out tickets.
I have no doubt this will amplify our crime rate by 30% if not more. I’d like to see the NW examiner give that “Oasis Day Center” more attention.
As someone that has lived downtown for fourteen years… I must say, not a lot changes regardless of who is in charge.
Michael Taylor, you makessome excellent points. One short answer to your question about the new library branch. It is very modest compared to some of the more impressive facilities being rolled out elsewhere in the city. When the NWDA Planning Committee met with them, they explained that they are not going to utilize the entire building for the branch. Essentially the building has been subdivided and they mentioned that the other half could be sublet to the city or another agency and used for homeless or shelter services.
Great! I can just see it. Potentially a library AND a shelter in the same building? Make it make sense.
I'm new to Portland, but thought Mayor Wilson has a business background? How can he know if he's failing or succeeding without some metrics in place? Unless he's not really interested in the answer. Any outcome can be labeled a "success" when there's nothing to measure success (or failure) against.
I’ve seen failure - his picture is at the top of this article.
What a great number of insights here. I clearly have not given this subject the same level of thought some of you have. But, this does seem like an interesting forum to ask a question that has bothered me for some months now - since the Mayor's juggernaut to put all homeless in shelters became a policy of disproportionately doing so in downtown and the alphabet neighborhoods. Understanding, as I think I do, that the present court decisions prohibit municipalities from enforcing loitering and public trespass/camping laws until they provide shelter sufficient to house all homeless parties living on the streets: how exactly does making that housing available magically remove all homeless from the streets? And what government employee or contractor is going to see to that? More to the point: in my neighborhood, where the homeless are almost all drug-using junkies who hide in the forest and along ODOT properties during the day and come out, seeking a fix, at night; how are these substance abusing addicts going to get lured into these shelters and make a home there while simultaneously preferring the freedom to buy, cook and take their daily fix away from authority or shelter operator scrutiny? What I have not heard, in the Mayor's magical approach to fixing this problem, is how the drug-using homeless, already operating without interference from our under-staffed police force, are going to willingly go and stay in these shelters which would operate contradicting the lifestyle they require to maintain their substance abuse habits. Did I miss the memo that explains how this works?
Actually, court mandated requirements for only banning camping if enough shelter beds are available was a 9th Circuit Court decision eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. The current Governor, when she was Oregon's Speaker of the House, promoted and passed her pet bill that mandated compliance with that standard (House Bill 3115). Basically Kotek enshrined into state law a now defunct legal standard.
Thanks Tina.
I am embarrassed and appalled that I did not know this. Going back to read more on it, I note that June 2024 the legislature was going to update that bill to "clarify" what is meant by "reasonable." Did that occur? And, if so, did the city revise their ordinances to reflect same? We are talking about a city that violated fire and building code to enshrine permanency of the Hazelnut Grove Homeless camp constructed just off N. Interstate in contradiction to the overwhelming neighborhood association fight against same. Do City Commissioners ever plan to rewrite ordinances to come in line with their practice of malfeasance? Or do we just sit by and let city officials regularly fail to uphold laws they enact but then chose to not enforce? Better yet, when does bureaucratic malfeasance and nonfeasance become an intolerable liability to citizens for which legal action against them is the only remedy? Is it lawful for any bureaucrat to not do their job (uphold city ordinances assigned their jurisdiction) and stand protected from damage claims? (As I said elsewhere in posts, this same malfeasance aids in the City's existing financial problems as well. They neither protect the livability of the city nor bring in much needed income to their budgets.)
Well said, Allen. This is not a problem that has a simple solution. Your reference to Lyndon Johnson was spot on.