Bob: Your usual good sense has left you. The more money you throw at so-called homelessness the more homelessness there will be. Who can forget that in the 1980's when you know who had to get homeless voters for a certain county in Central Oregon a nationwide casting call was required. Jurisdictions like Portland have subsidized the homeless lifestyle since then and made it an attractive alternative for a portion of our population. The way to cut homelessness is to cut the subsidies not ask counties that are less committed to subsidizing the problem to throw money at ones that can't seem to get it.
Norm: I think you’re raising a concern a lot of people share—whether current spending is actually reducing homelessness or, in some cases, unintentionally sustaining it.
But my piece was narrower than that. I wasn’t arguing for more spending or defending how existing dollars are used. I was focused specifically on the allocation formula, i.e. whether the current distribution of regional funds fairly reflects where services are being delivered and who is bearing the costs.
Those are two separate questions:
Are we spending the money effectively?
Is the funding distributed equitably across jurisdictions?
I agree the first deserves scrutiny. But even if you believe spending should be reduced or restructured, in my opinion, the second issue still matters. If there is a regional system, it should at least be based on a fair and transparent formula. The current situation is like having a regional public safety tax, and spending disproportionately in low crime areas rather than high crime areas- whatever the reasons those crimes take place.
My goal was to address that narrower point of Metro SHS tax allocation, not to settle the broader debate over homelessness policy
I typically agree with your take on Portland’s afflictions, but not in this case. The homeless are concentrated in Multnomah County/Portland because of county/city policies related to camping, open air drug use, lax law enforcement, etc. Portland shouldn’t be rewarded with additional funding to address social dysfunction its policies enable. The Mayor and Council need to live within their means. They have plenty of money, what they lack is prioritization/focus, pragmatism and effectiveness. Funneling more money to these people is throwing good money after bad.
I think you’re pointing to an important debate: how much local policy choices influence where homelessness is concentrated, and whether current approaches are effective. That’s a fair critique.
But my column was focused on a narrower issue: whether the regional funding formula is equitable, given where services are actually being delivered and who is paying for them.
Even if one believes Portland’s policies have contributed to the problem, or that the city and county should change course, that’s a separate question from how regional funds are allocated. If we have a regional system, it should be grounded in a clear and defensible formula, regardless of differing views on policy effectiveness.
In other words, I wasn’t arguing that Portland deserves “more” because of its policies. I was making a case that whatever funds are being distributed should be allocated on a fair and transparent basis.
I understand your point, but can’t accept the premise that public dollars should be allocated purely on a headcount basis without considering:
1) Whether local government creates “supply” through policies that enable and otherwise support (or turn a blind eye to) dysfunctional behavior
2). Whether government policies and programs demonstrate effectiveness in addressing the societal problem
In Portland, the mayor and city council are failing on both dimensions. Portland’s policies and programs make the city a “destination” location for the homeless and chronic drug users. And despite investing hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to address the crisis, the numbers keep growing. While headcount should be an important driver in allocating public funds, we need accountability for efficiency and effectiveness. No private sector company would fund a low performance team at the same level of higher performance teams. Portland is run by a very low performance team. Kudos to Clackamas and Washington counties for rejecting Mayor Wilson’s tin cup routine. I’m sure those counties would be sympathetic to the request if they had confidence their money would be well spent.
Thanks again for your response…….your opinion on these matters is thoughtful and much appreciated.
A more effective long-term approach would be for Portland to reconsider its participation in the Metro program and instead implement a Portland-based tax dedicated primarily to developing affordable housing for city residents.
At the same time, the city should refocus its homelessness strategy. Priorities should include expanding affordable housing, increasing rent assistance, strengthening eviction prevention services, and prioritizing support for individuals whose last known address was in Portland.
For those from outside the area, policies should emphasize stronger incentives to return to their communities of origin, rather than allowing Portland to function as a regional destination for homelessness services.
City leaders should recognize that the criminal justice system can be an appropriate tool in certain situations. For individuals who are repeatedly involved in criminal activity or unable to access services voluntarily, incarceration can provide structure, accountability, and a pathway to treatment and support.
More broadly, Portland should carefully evaluate whether continually expanding services without clear accountability is producing the intended outcomes, or inadvertently encouraging further in-migration.
Finally, the city could consider supporting a statewide initiative inspired by Depression-era work and housing programs. A modern version—modeled on programs like Blanchet Farm—could provide structured housing, job training, and support services on a larger scale.
I strongly agree with you and also Mayor Wilson's strategy of sheltering the homeless. Unlike Mr. Frink, I do not see that providing a warm bed to those who are homeless is throwing money at them. It is a humane action that perhaps can supplement other similar actions by many like the Union Gospel Mission and other organizations who demonstrate compassion and common sense in dealing with this issue. There are limits to how long we will shelter individuals who are not making reasonable efforts to care for themselves and also think they should do some work to pay in part for the money that is spent to house them.
I am opposed to the housing first movement, along with the distribution of needles by the county and PPOP which is contributing to the problems we have in Portland. Short term psychiatric hospitalization is necessary for many of the individuals along with placement at times in supervised housing requiring compliance with treatment. Government does the worst job of that so getting help from organizations that are free of government funding entirely is best. If camping on the street or in other public spaces is illegal, which I assume it is, then they should be arrested and spend a few days in jail. There are 400 non funded jail beds.
I don’t think anyone is vehemently against shelters per se - but (as with most things) the city goes about opening and sustaining them in ways that defy all logic. They operate in a total vacuum from reality or care for the rest of the city. They don’t seem to take the surrounding neighborhoods into account in placement appropriateness, they don’t beef up security/police presence around the shelters to manage inevitable fallout, they don’t enforce their own supposed rules about camping and loitering and lining up early outside of them, etc. There seems to be no standard of oversight regarding the non-profits running many of them. They don’t go after drug or property related crime. They throw some cots on the ground and call it a day. Then people like Wilson throw more and more money into these, never capturing any data related to them, and with no plan to ever move out of this expensive, inefficient, and ultimately ineffective mode. The other county leaders cited that they did not trust the “leadership” in Multnomah County to actually manage the extra dollars, and it’s ongoing a mystery to me why voters here seem to continue supporting these same failed people/policies over and over.
So there seems to be two categories of responses here, one, don’t throw good money at poorly performing Multnomah County, and two, the services seem to be attracting more homeless. Easy solution to both. If Washington and Clackamas Counties are doing so well with the homeless (per a few commenters, and they should be given the ratio of dollars to homeless population) then let’s bus the homeless to these counties that are doing so well. Even out the ratios. Instead of moving the dollars, move the homeless. Let’s see how well they do.
I don’t buy the idea that “services” are what’s driving this. At this point it looks a lot more like a policy and culture problem in Multnomah County are perpetuating the issues.
Multnomah County and city leadership have downplayed the role drugs play while barely enforcing basic laws. When you combine widespread drug use with low enforcement, you get exactly what we’re seeing now—more disorder, more street camping, more repeat low-level crime, and more people coming here who want free reign to “live” that life.
Also, Multnomah leans heavily on diversion instead of prosecution for drug offenses. In theory, that sounds great. In reality, it only works if people actually engage in treatment and there’s accountability if they don’t. So instead of reducing drug use, they’ve ended up normalizing it. Not to mention the actual practice of harm reduction that they’ve leaned into heavy as well, which again, paired with zero incentives to get clean, looks an awful lot like normalization and enabling.
At this point, why should other counties help fund the consequences of policies they didn’t adopt? Why would they “take in” people who have flocked to Multnomah County based on their failed policies?
If Multnomah County won’t acknowledge that its current approach isn’t working—especially on drugs and enforcement—then no amount of outside money or help is going to fix the problem.
Not sure why my original comment was placed as a reply to you in the first place. My bad. I was responding globally to the thread of discussion. That said, I don’t disagree with you in regards to the enabling that Multnomah County does to the homeless population, it’s pathological.
I think that most people believe that there must be a common-sense middle road that helps the disadvantaged in a humane manner but also addresses the overall public good.
Really good dialog. I think everyone is a little right in this argument depending on what we really want and how zoomed in or out we are. My objectives (and the Mayor's are):
1. Signal that homelessness is not a lifestyle choice to be encouraged in Portland. There are fire, public health, public safety and moral concerns in a society that outweigh an "individual's right to live in public space as a lifestyle. As society, we have an obligation to house those who cannot afford housing and determine why and how. If they they are too ill, we need to help them get treated and recover. If they can't work due to disability or genetics, we need to find them housing and necessary services to protect them and society. If they don't want our help, we need to send them on their way. Shelter is not a "solution". It is an interim step along the way.
2. We want to grow the entire Metro area (three Oregon Counties and Clark County WA) to provide employment, culture and entertainment and transportation resources that they cannot attract alone. We have traditionally developed around the central city of Portland which is home to many of the legacy entertainment and cultural and employment resources for the Metro Area; Zoo, Art Museum, performing arts venues, History Museum, park system, major bridges, universities, sports arenas. We built a whole public transit network around this (except Clackamas County who prefers to freeload). It also has traditionally hosted the most wealthy and the most disadvantaged of residents, although the former are moving out and the latter are moving in.
3. Creating a safe, financially vibrant 24 hour Central City. It is natural that the Central City with host not just the bulk of the shared resources, but also the bulk of shared services to help those in need. It was almost there pre-Pandemic. It can do this again if all parts of the Metro area cooperate to re-imagine and re-build Portland.
The Metro SHS tax is not a good way to provide housing. We tax the wealthy and big business to solve the housing and related behavioral health problem. Those being taxed act on their own best interest and move to lower tax jurisdictions, yet still take advantage of the services, infrastructure and cultural entertainment resources provided by the Central City. The less fortunate remain and demand better services for their needs. We end up with more need, a disproportionate number of voters demanding services and we elect people who represent only those in need of services, not those who pay for the needed services. They take flight to the suburbs.
Yes, Multnomah County is doing very stupid things if they want to accomplish the goals I outline, but it is the democracy that has emerged, post Charter reform. Multnomah County alone is working in its own worst revenue interests.
Bob: Your usual good sense has left you. The more money you throw at so-called homelessness the more homelessness there will be. Who can forget that in the 1980's when you know who had to get homeless voters for a certain county in Central Oregon a nationwide casting call was required. Jurisdictions like Portland have subsidized the homeless lifestyle since then and made it an attractive alternative for a portion of our population. The way to cut homelessness is to cut the subsidies not ask counties that are less committed to subsidizing the problem to throw money at ones that can't seem to get it.
Norm: I think you’re raising a concern a lot of people share—whether current spending is actually reducing homelessness or, in some cases, unintentionally sustaining it.
But my piece was narrower than that. I wasn’t arguing for more spending or defending how existing dollars are used. I was focused specifically on the allocation formula, i.e. whether the current distribution of regional funds fairly reflects where services are being delivered and who is bearing the costs.
Those are two separate questions:
Are we spending the money effectively?
Is the funding distributed equitably across jurisdictions?
I agree the first deserves scrutiny. But even if you believe spending should be reduced or restructured, in my opinion, the second issue still matters. If there is a regional system, it should at least be based on a fair and transparent formula. The current situation is like having a regional public safety tax, and spending disproportionately in low crime areas rather than high crime areas- whatever the reasons those crimes take place.
My goal was to address that narrower point of Metro SHS tax allocation, not to settle the broader debate over homelessness policy
I typically agree with your take on Portland’s afflictions, but not in this case. The homeless are concentrated in Multnomah County/Portland because of county/city policies related to camping, open air drug use, lax law enforcement, etc. Portland shouldn’t be rewarded with additional funding to address social dysfunction its policies enable. The Mayor and Council need to live within their means. They have plenty of money, what they lack is prioritization/focus, pragmatism and effectiveness. Funneling more money to these people is throwing good money after bad.
Thanks for your comment.
I think you’re pointing to an important debate: how much local policy choices influence where homelessness is concentrated, and whether current approaches are effective. That’s a fair critique.
But my column was focused on a narrower issue: whether the regional funding formula is equitable, given where services are actually being delivered and who is paying for them.
Even if one believes Portland’s policies have contributed to the problem, or that the city and county should change course, that’s a separate question from how regional funds are allocated. If we have a regional system, it should be grounded in a clear and defensible formula, regardless of differing views on policy effectiveness.
In other words, I wasn’t arguing that Portland deserves “more” because of its policies. I was making a case that whatever funds are being distributed should be allocated on a fair and transparent basis.
Hey Bob,
I understand your point, but can’t accept the premise that public dollars should be allocated purely on a headcount basis without considering:
1) Whether local government creates “supply” through policies that enable and otherwise support (or turn a blind eye to) dysfunctional behavior
2). Whether government policies and programs demonstrate effectiveness in addressing the societal problem
In Portland, the mayor and city council are failing on both dimensions. Portland’s policies and programs make the city a “destination” location for the homeless and chronic drug users. And despite investing hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to address the crisis, the numbers keep growing. While headcount should be an important driver in allocating public funds, we need accountability for efficiency and effectiveness. No private sector company would fund a low performance team at the same level of higher performance teams. Portland is run by a very low performance team. Kudos to Clackamas and Washington counties for rejecting Mayor Wilson’s tin cup routine. I’m sure those counties would be sympathetic to the request if they had confidence their money would be well spent.
Thanks again for your response…….your opinion on these matters is thoughtful and much appreciated.
A more effective long-term approach would be for Portland to reconsider its participation in the Metro program and instead implement a Portland-based tax dedicated primarily to developing affordable housing for city residents.
At the same time, the city should refocus its homelessness strategy. Priorities should include expanding affordable housing, increasing rent assistance, strengthening eviction prevention services, and prioritizing support for individuals whose last known address was in Portland.
For those from outside the area, policies should emphasize stronger incentives to return to their communities of origin, rather than allowing Portland to function as a regional destination for homelessness services.
City leaders should recognize that the criminal justice system can be an appropriate tool in certain situations. For individuals who are repeatedly involved in criminal activity or unable to access services voluntarily, incarceration can provide structure, accountability, and a pathway to treatment and support.
More broadly, Portland should carefully evaluate whether continually expanding services without clear accountability is producing the intended outcomes, or inadvertently encouraging further in-migration.
Finally, the city could consider supporting a statewide initiative inspired by Depression-era work and housing programs. A modern version—modeled on programs like Blanchet Farm—could provide structured housing, job training, and support services on a larger scale.
I strongly agree with you and also Mayor Wilson's strategy of sheltering the homeless. Unlike Mr. Frink, I do not see that providing a warm bed to those who are homeless is throwing money at them. It is a humane action that perhaps can supplement other similar actions by many like the Union Gospel Mission and other organizations who demonstrate compassion and common sense in dealing with this issue. There are limits to how long we will shelter individuals who are not making reasonable efforts to care for themselves and also think they should do some work to pay in part for the money that is spent to house them.
I am opposed to the housing first movement, along with the distribution of needles by the county and PPOP which is contributing to the problems we have in Portland. Short term psychiatric hospitalization is necessary for many of the individuals along with placement at times in supervised housing requiring compliance with treatment. Government does the worst job of that so getting help from organizations that are free of government funding entirely is best. If camping on the street or in other public spaces is illegal, which I assume it is, then they should be arrested and spend a few days in jail. There are 400 non funded jail beds.
I don’t think anyone is vehemently against shelters per se - but (as with most things) the city goes about opening and sustaining them in ways that defy all logic. They operate in a total vacuum from reality or care for the rest of the city. They don’t seem to take the surrounding neighborhoods into account in placement appropriateness, they don’t beef up security/police presence around the shelters to manage inevitable fallout, they don’t enforce their own supposed rules about camping and loitering and lining up early outside of them, etc. There seems to be no standard of oversight regarding the non-profits running many of them. They don’t go after drug or property related crime. They throw some cots on the ground and call it a day. Then people like Wilson throw more and more money into these, never capturing any data related to them, and with no plan to ever move out of this expensive, inefficient, and ultimately ineffective mode. The other county leaders cited that they did not trust the “leadership” in Multnomah County to actually manage the extra dollars, and it’s ongoing a mystery to me why voters here seem to continue supporting these same failed people/policies over and over.
So there seems to be two categories of responses here, one, don’t throw good money at poorly performing Multnomah County, and two, the services seem to be attracting more homeless. Easy solution to both. If Washington and Clackamas Counties are doing so well with the homeless (per a few commenters, and they should be given the ratio of dollars to homeless population) then let’s bus the homeless to these counties that are doing so well. Even out the ratios. Instead of moving the dollars, move the homeless. Let’s see how well they do.
I don’t buy the idea that “services” are what’s driving this. At this point it looks a lot more like a policy and culture problem in Multnomah County are perpetuating the issues.
Multnomah County and city leadership have downplayed the role drugs play while barely enforcing basic laws. When you combine widespread drug use with low enforcement, you get exactly what we’re seeing now—more disorder, more street camping, more repeat low-level crime, and more people coming here who want free reign to “live” that life.
Shoplifting / low-level property crime prosecution rates:
Multnomah: 46%
Clackamas: 84%
Washington: 93%
Also, Multnomah leans heavily on diversion instead of prosecution for drug offenses. In theory, that sounds great. In reality, it only works if people actually engage in treatment and there’s accountability if they don’t. So instead of reducing drug use, they’ve ended up normalizing it. Not to mention the actual practice of harm reduction that they’ve leaned into heavy as well, which again, paired with zero incentives to get clean, looks an awful lot like normalization and enabling.
At this point, why should other counties help fund the consequences of policies they didn’t adopt? Why would they “take in” people who have flocked to Multnomah County based on their failed policies?
If Multnomah County won’t acknowledge that its current approach isn’t working—especially on drugs and enforcement—then no amount of outside money or help is going to fix the problem.
Not sure why my original comment was placed as a reply to you in the first place. My bad. I was responding globally to the thread of discussion. That said, I don’t disagree with you in regards to the enabling that Multnomah County does to the homeless population, it’s pathological.
I think that most people believe that there must be a common-sense middle road that helps the disadvantaged in a humane manner but also addresses the overall public good.
Really good dialog. I think everyone is a little right in this argument depending on what we really want and how zoomed in or out we are. My objectives (and the Mayor's are):
1. Signal that homelessness is not a lifestyle choice to be encouraged in Portland. There are fire, public health, public safety and moral concerns in a society that outweigh an "individual's right to live in public space as a lifestyle. As society, we have an obligation to house those who cannot afford housing and determine why and how. If they they are too ill, we need to help them get treated and recover. If they can't work due to disability or genetics, we need to find them housing and necessary services to protect them and society. If they don't want our help, we need to send them on their way. Shelter is not a "solution". It is an interim step along the way.
2. We want to grow the entire Metro area (three Oregon Counties and Clark County WA) to provide employment, culture and entertainment and transportation resources that they cannot attract alone. We have traditionally developed around the central city of Portland which is home to many of the legacy entertainment and cultural and employment resources for the Metro Area; Zoo, Art Museum, performing arts venues, History Museum, park system, major bridges, universities, sports arenas. We built a whole public transit network around this (except Clackamas County who prefers to freeload). It also has traditionally hosted the most wealthy and the most disadvantaged of residents, although the former are moving out and the latter are moving in.
3. Creating a safe, financially vibrant 24 hour Central City. It is natural that the Central City with host not just the bulk of the shared resources, but also the bulk of shared services to help those in need. It was almost there pre-Pandemic. It can do this again if all parts of the Metro area cooperate to re-imagine and re-build Portland.
The Metro SHS tax is not a good way to provide housing. We tax the wealthy and big business to solve the housing and related behavioral health problem. Those being taxed act on their own best interest and move to lower tax jurisdictions, yet still take advantage of the services, infrastructure and cultural entertainment resources provided by the Central City. The less fortunate remain and demand better services for their needs. We end up with more need, a disproportionate number of voters demanding services and we elect people who represent only those in need of services, not those who pay for the needed services. They take flight to the suburbs.
Yes, Multnomah County is doing very stupid things if they want to accomplish the goals I outline, but it is the democracy that has emerged, post Charter reform. Multnomah County alone is working in its own worst revenue interests.