Last night's meeting at the Armory was packed. And it was incredibly disappointing, demonstrating the mayor's remarkable lack of listening skills or capacity to understand the neighborhoods' concerns. He did not answer our questions, instead offering up anecdotal stories about his neighbors, people on the streets he has helped, his wife's commitment to him as he has committed to this job, bla bla bla.
No one could argue with the platitudes he spoke; who doesn't want to help others? Who doesn't want to end street camping? Who doesn't want to see the people suffering the effects of drug addiction get the care they need? Etc Etc. We could not disagree with his assessment of what's happening in Portland. But the mayor's vision of how to achieve an end to homelessness still ignores what's already happening in the neighborhoods and what this proposed shelter will do to the Pearl.
When the mayor's chief of shelters (or whatever her title is) spoke about the shelter being low-barrier, she said no identification would be asked for. When questioned about people who are registered sex offenders being allowed into the shelter (so close to a school), she/they said offenders would not be allowed in. When asked how they would know if someone was a sex offender when no ID is going to be required, they could not offer an answer.
Yea, a few toilets, TWO showers, they hopefully will install washers and dryers, all to be used between 10pm and 6am, and then let 200 men and women out onto the streets (and over to Safeway to steal food because where else will they go to get the nourishment they need?).
The commander of the downtown police precinct spoke about his partnership with City Hall and how they are committed to patrolling the area (bike cops).
The mayor had to leave at 7; too bad he wasted his first 15 plus minutes saying the same things he has said all along, talking about the issues in Portland and not addressing anything that people have written to him about. When questions were asked, as I mentioned, he responded with platitudes and anecdotes.
Our district 4 councilors spoke afterward for a few minutes. Olivia Clark is supportive but skeptical. Mitch Green is supportive. And Eric Zimmerman seemed kind of resigned to the deal, skeptical and willing to hold the mayor accountable (though how does one do that?). Mr. Zimmerman lives in the Pearl and works in the Pearl (I think that's what he said).
I'd like to hear what others who attended got from it last night. I was so blown away by the dissonance the mayor and his chief of shelters displayed. If a recall could work, if there was a better candidate, I'd put my efforts behind it.
Overnight shelters didn't help my daughter get off the streets. I don't see how this shelter is going to successfully address the ongoing needs of the shelter's overnight occupants. It's just a 10 hour a day bandaid for something that needs a surgical solution.
The new mayoral position is a figurehead position only. We had a moderately strong mayoral system before Julia Meier and the DSA hijacked Charter Reform, but now we have just what they wanted: a Mayor with no actual power, except to break a tie vote on the City Council (which they didn't even allow him to do on the FIRST DAY they met!).
This mayor is only carrying out the wishes of the Portland City Council. They could quash this scheme in a hummingbird's heartbeat if they wanted to, but guess what? They don't want to, especially the DSA faction. We can try to recall Keith Wilson but he will be replaced with someone equally powerless, as long as this current so-called Charter "Reform" system of electing clowns with 25% +1 of the vote is still operating.
And as to the last election, does anyone seriously think that Rene Gonzalez would have foisted this shelter dump on NW Portland had he been elected Mayor? How we vote turns out to have real consequences as we who are invested in Portland are discovering to our chagrin.
This comment addresses the issue of registered sex offenders.
1. Sex offenders already live and camp in the area
• The absence of shelters does not prevent sex offenders from being present in a neighborhood; they often end up in unsheltered encampments, under bridges, or in public spaces nearby.
• A shelter actually consolidates people in a supervised environment instead of dispersing them invisibly throughout the community for around 10 hours a day.
________________________________________
2. Shelters provide oversight, while street homelessness does not.
• Overnight shelters are staffed, monitored, and often have security present.
• Without shelters, individuals—including those on registries—live without oversight, making monitoring far harder.
________________________________________
3. Registry restrictions already apply, regardless of shelter rules
• Registered sex offenders must comply with legal restrictions on proximity to schools, daycares, and other sensitive areas.
• Failure to comply is a criminal offense and enforced by probation/parole officers and law enforcement.
________________________________________
4. Shelter access reduces recidivism risk.
• Studies show that stable shelter and housing reduce re-offense rates for people with a criminal history, including sex offenses.
• Homelessness increases instability, stress, and invisibility—factors linked to higher recidivism.
Sorry, registered sex offenders are all around us. Everyone who's lived in apartments for awhile has had a peek at the map, been horrified, researched it, and moved to the real problems of city life like parking. t's always "so close to a school". Not sure which school is close to 14th and Northrup.
It's the unregistered ones embedded in communities or rich enough to get whatever they want that are the big problem in society. (Rather thankful for our country's universal aversion to this since it seems to stretch across the board politically and may be th salvation of the nation.)
Metropolitan Learning Center is probably a 10 minute walk away - Body Vox Dance Studio (which has several kids classes) is like 4 blocks away. There are other schools easily in walking distance. Frankly as a female in the area, I’m also not thrilled about the idea of sex offenders (not anywhere on a map since they don’t have to ID themselves) and drug addicts now being given the green light to gather and hang out every day in my neighborhood. If parking is your biggest everyday worry about living here, my guess is you operate in a mode fairly oblivious to reality.
Little kids don't run around unaccompanied on the streets. Older couch school students are going to school in the, well, city and theoretically know not to take candy from strangers.
I've lived here for thirty years, and before that eight years in Manhattan, where I learned street smarts and not to catastrophize my operating mode.
Ok I guess we have a difference of opinion. I think responsible adults look to mitigate or limit the amount of exposure children have to drug use and sex offenders when there are other options. This is a scenario where the city has other options and I believe if they aren’t going to be adults with sound decision making skills, then we as residents should keep forcing the issue. “Sex offenders are all around so we might as well add more” is a weird argument, but you do you.
I took away several concerning insights from the meeting on the proposed 200-bed homeless shelter in the Pearl —beyond the obvious ones.
1. Inadequate Community Engagement
Despite Portland Solutions Director Skyler Brocker-Knapp’s statements about community engagement, the actual process appears backwards: the city selects locations, signs leases, and only afterward—or in this case when information leaks publicly—attempts to involve neighborhood residents and businesses. This contradicts genuine community engagement principles.
2. Insufficient Safety Protocols
The city’s response regarding safety concerns, particularly given the proximity to BodyVox Dance Studio where children attend classes, was inadequate. City officials acknowledged they will not verify identities of shelter residents, meaning they cannot screen out registered sex offenders who would then have unsupervised access to the surrounding neighborhood. This represents a serious gap in public safety planning.
That’s not a safety plan; it’s negligence.
(I spoke last night with the owner of BodyVox, who said the city had never contacted him—despite officials claiming outreach to neighborhood businesses.)
3. There’s no clear accountability. The city has offered no criteria for measuring whether this shelter succeeds or fails—and no plan for what happens if serious neighborhood concerns turn out to be justified. That’s not responsible governance; it’s blind hope disguised as policy.
Based on comments, I thought I made a mistake, but I was wrong. After reviewing the youtube video --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hkKjpGBhSk at about the 56:00 minute marker-- I find Brocker-Knapp said, regarding the citywide shelter program she oversees:
"those are all based on good neighbor agreements and other negotiations we’ve had with a lot of other shelters."
That's not tightly worded, but GNAs were mentioned as the norm.
No. Only person, as you noted, who mentioned good neighbor agreements (absent here) was Eric Zimmerman who said he only supports a shelter if one or an equivalent is in place.
Brocker-Knapp definitely said that the entire site identification process - from initial research to lease signing --does NOT involve input from affected neighbors. By the time neighbors are told about it, it's a done deal. Shameful!
Since the Mayor received accolades for how much he’s always working, I think we should visit him at his office together and wait until he agrees to listen to us. And I’m all for recalling him. BTW Where is Tina Kotek, our Governor? She’s been MIA.
The clown car that dominates the Portland City Council are actually her peeps, and she doesn't want to cross her base. She's got an election next year and she only had 47% of the vote last time. She doesn't want to have the über-left wing of her supporters get cranky with her.
Wilson: I'm a hero - see what I've done - I stop to help everyone. Bravo. = That's not why we were present. Police rep: I could have resigned last year. = who cares? Sure, if I could afford to move away last year... you want a medal for doing your job?.....That's not why we were present. Shelter exec: looking for appropriate cost, transportation, etc. for shelter placement, and assures us that sexual offenders are required to report themselves, AND a no i.d. policy at the door, AND a low barrier shelter means any condition = 🙄/ neighborhood needs to brace themselves.
HERE IS WHAT WAS MISSING FROM THE LOT: "What do you need for this to succeed"? Not ONE ELECTED PERSON ASKED THE COMMUNITY WHAT THEY NEED.
100% dissappointed in Wilson's campaign b.s. - I don't care about his good deeds, his personal relationship with his wife. I care about how he will SERVE this community. Same for the rest.
Green: If you want to change locations, let me know. = Not holding my breath.
200-bed overnight shelter at 14th & Northrup: The question should be, what do we need for this to succeed? "the community" will ask for as much as they can get (i.e. no shelter.) But I take home from seeing the word "manage" in Allan's article. How can the shelter be planned so that it's *managed* somewhat below community standards (i.e. catastrophic fears) but remains essentially workable?
For example:
"low barrier" should be "sensible barriers" meaning staff will get to know clients and be able to turn some away based on bad behavior. Maybe set up a "frequent visitor" card where you get to accumulate credits of some sort. There are official IDs and unofficial identification
yes, there should be a lot more showers.
the number of beds should be reduced.
Not sure whether GNAs are just pieces of paper. What I'd be looking for is a detailed plan from the city, on which the GNA and its consequences are based.
1) Plan including suggested improvements such as showers and laundry facilities
2) Verification of funding for renovation and furnishing
3) Documentation guaranteeing least five years' of ongoing operational funding including staff positions and job descriptions (this is how you implement staff authority to impose "barriers" like the way St. Vincent allows people into its meal program.)
4) Based on conversations with Kathy Sharp, sounds like there needs to be a plan for intake and exit procedures and managing the line for entry each night:
Again, TRAINED staff involvement. It's possible to create a line in one place and move it to another place when the time comes (re: my experience with Japanese museum entry proceudres.) The line has to keep sidewalks free or you go to the end, etc. This will require volunteer / paid monitors.
5) Outside of my wheelhouse, but measurements are needed to assess compliance with the plan. If thresholds are reached, the city must close the shelter. (And so the plan also needs budget for maintaining the property in the event of a permanent or temporary shelter closure.)
I suspect the Mayor has no clue as to how to plan and document a project like this. Our D4 commissioners certainly have this expertise, but this is not their job now. What are city staff doing? How can the interested non-profits be roped in to provide more than advocacy?
Agree with all your points save 1. I don't believe the community would go for "no shelter" IF there was a plan as thorough as what you outline.
Point being, I believe 99% of all citizens want those on the street to move off the street, not simply for optics, and certainly not at a health and wellness impact expense of the host community.
To that - I re-state the electorate did not ask the community what is needed for success. Your assessment above is a case in point.
I live across from the Moore St Shelter and it's not being run efficiently and causing a lot of issues for neighbors. The city doesn't have the resources to run these shelters yet and it's a lot of trip and error and neighborhoods and residents are and will suffer. Crime is not down, we are fatigued reporting everything we see bc the city depends on US to report every single issue. Once you're on hold with non-emergency for 15mins when someone is smoking fentanyl outside your house do I want to spend another 15-30 mins continuing to report? Or call 911 to which police don't show up yet call you 35mins later? The city doesn't care they don't have the resources their actions speak volumes...they will do what they want!
Unfortunately it’s very tough to get the numbers needed to recall a mayor, but it’s easier to recall district councilors, especially when you have this much common anger about something. The good thing about being a high density neighborhood is we have large numbers. People could probably sit outside Lovejoy Safeway/Stadium Fred Meyer (both probably to be shuttered soon due to city ineptitude) for a week collecting signatures from residents and have enough to recall one or all of them to send a message. Kidding - kind of.
This new system was touted by the Charter Reform Commission as being more equitable and giving the average citizen "greater access" to their City Council Reps. Although the system is new to be fair, I have found it far harder to get a response from my District 2 Representatives so far, than I ever did with the old, at-large representation system it replaced (Here's looking at you Sameer).
Yes, for a system supposedly built to give the districts more representation on council, it surely seems to be doing the opposite thus far. What’s the point of having them if they will just stand by while the mayor destroys a neighborhood? Everyone knows this is stupid, but no one will stand up for us.
Portland.gov is providing to the public information that contradicts the mayor's statements on July 28.
According to the most updated information as of July 21 on portland.gov:
"Each shelter will include a 1,000-foot engagement area where the City pledges to actively manage livability concerns. This includes:"
"City teams will assess and engage with any unsanctioned campsites within 3 business days, with cleanups posted and completed in accordance with Oregon law. Significant trash and graffiti will be removed within 5 business days."
If I understood the mayor at the armory meeting, unsanctioned campsites would be removed immediately.
"City teams will assess and engage" "with in 3 business days" could mean that unsanctioned campsites would be there for weeks.
"Assess and engage" is meaningless jargon. It seems like a smoke screen for maintaining the status quo.
If I understood the mayor on July 28 said, trash and graffiti would be removed on a daily basis.
The portland.gov however says: "Significant trash and graffiti will be removed within 5 business days."
Either the mayor is not being honest or his staff is utterly incompetent.
Last night's meeting at the Armory was packed. And it was incredibly disappointing, demonstrating the mayor's remarkable lack of listening skills or capacity to understand the neighborhoods' concerns. He did not answer our questions, instead offering up anecdotal stories about his neighbors, people on the streets he has helped, his wife's commitment to him as he has committed to this job, bla bla bla.
No one could argue with the platitudes he spoke; who doesn't want to help others? Who doesn't want to end street camping? Who doesn't want to see the people suffering the effects of drug addiction get the care they need? Etc Etc. We could not disagree with his assessment of what's happening in Portland. But the mayor's vision of how to achieve an end to homelessness still ignores what's already happening in the neighborhoods and what this proposed shelter will do to the Pearl.
When the mayor's chief of shelters (or whatever her title is) spoke about the shelter being low-barrier, she said no identification would be asked for. When questioned about people who are registered sex offenders being allowed into the shelter (so close to a school), she/they said offenders would not be allowed in. When asked how they would know if someone was a sex offender when no ID is going to be required, they could not offer an answer.
Yea, a few toilets, TWO showers, they hopefully will install washers and dryers, all to be used between 10pm and 6am, and then let 200 men and women out onto the streets (and over to Safeway to steal food because where else will they go to get the nourishment they need?).
The commander of the downtown police precinct spoke about his partnership with City Hall and how they are committed to patrolling the area (bike cops).
The mayor had to leave at 7; too bad he wasted his first 15 plus minutes saying the same things he has said all along, talking about the issues in Portland and not addressing anything that people have written to him about. When questions were asked, as I mentioned, he responded with platitudes and anecdotes.
Our district 4 councilors spoke afterward for a few minutes. Olivia Clark is supportive but skeptical. Mitch Green is supportive. And Eric Zimmerman seemed kind of resigned to the deal, skeptical and willing to hold the mayor accountable (though how does one do that?). Mr. Zimmerman lives in the Pearl and works in the Pearl (I think that's what he said).
I'd like to hear what others who attended got from it last night. I was so blown away by the dissonance the mayor and his chief of shelters displayed. If a recall could work, if there was a better candidate, I'd put my efforts behind it.
Overnight shelters didn't help my daughter get off the streets. I don't see how this shelter is going to successfully address the ongoing needs of the shelter's overnight occupants. It's just a 10 hour a day bandaid for something that needs a surgical solution.
The new mayoral position is a figurehead position only. We had a moderately strong mayoral system before Julia Meier and the DSA hijacked Charter Reform, but now we have just what they wanted: a Mayor with no actual power, except to break a tie vote on the City Council (which they didn't even allow him to do on the FIRST DAY they met!).
This mayor is only carrying out the wishes of the Portland City Council. They could quash this scheme in a hummingbird's heartbeat if they wanted to, but guess what? They don't want to, especially the DSA faction. We can try to recall Keith Wilson but he will be replaced with someone equally powerless, as long as this current so-called Charter "Reform" system of electing clowns with 25% +1 of the vote is still operating.
And as to the last election, does anyone seriously think that Rene Gonzalez would have foisted this shelter dump on NW Portland had he been elected Mayor? How we vote turns out to have real consequences as we who are invested in Portland are discovering to our chagrin.
This comment addresses the issue of registered sex offenders.
1. Sex offenders already live and camp in the area
• The absence of shelters does not prevent sex offenders from being present in a neighborhood; they often end up in unsheltered encampments, under bridges, or in public spaces nearby.
• A shelter actually consolidates people in a supervised environment instead of dispersing them invisibly throughout the community for around 10 hours a day.
________________________________________
2. Shelters provide oversight, while street homelessness does not.
• Overnight shelters are staffed, monitored, and often have security present.
• Without shelters, individuals—including those on registries—live without oversight, making monitoring far harder.
________________________________________
3. Registry restrictions already apply, regardless of shelter rules
• Registered sex offenders must comply with legal restrictions on proximity to schools, daycares, and other sensitive areas.
• Failure to comply is a criminal offense and enforced by probation/parole officers and law enforcement.
________________________________________
4. Shelter access reduces recidivism risk.
• Studies show that stable shelter and housing reduce re-offense rates for people with a criminal history, including sex offenses.
• Homelessness increases instability, stress, and invisibility—factors linked to higher recidivism.
Sorry, registered sex offenders are all around us. Everyone who's lived in apartments for awhile has had a peek at the map, been horrified, researched it, and moved to the real problems of city life like parking. t's always "so close to a school". Not sure which school is close to 14th and Northrup.
It's the unregistered ones embedded in communities or rich enough to get whatever they want that are the big problem in society. (Rather thankful for our country's universal aversion to this since it seems to stretch across the board politically and may be th salvation of the nation.)
Metropolitan Learning Center is probably a 10 minute walk away - Body Vox Dance Studio (which has several kids classes) is like 4 blocks away. There are other schools easily in walking distance. Frankly as a female in the area, I’m also not thrilled about the idea of sex offenders (not anywhere on a map since they don’t have to ID themselves) and drug addicts now being given the green light to gather and hang out every day in my neighborhood. If parking is your biggest everyday worry about living here, my guess is you operate in a mode fairly oblivious to reality.
Here they are; they're all around us:
https://www.offenderradar.com/offender/state-oregon-county-multnomah-city-portland-zip-97209
Little kids don't run around unaccompanied on the streets. Older couch school students are going to school in the, well, city and theoretically know not to take candy from strangers.
I've lived here for thirty years, and before that eight years in Manhattan, where I learned street smarts and not to catastrophize my operating mode.
Ok I guess we have a difference of opinion. I think responsible adults look to mitigate or limit the amount of exposure children have to drug use and sex offenders when there are other options. This is a scenario where the city has other options and I believe if they aren’t going to be adults with sound decision making skills, then we as residents should keep forcing the issue. “Sex offenders are all around so we might as well add more” is a weird argument, but you do you.
Good comment except for the last four words - I avoid using that fillip.
I took away several concerning insights from the meeting on the proposed 200-bed homeless shelter in the Pearl —beyond the obvious ones.
1. Inadequate Community Engagement
Despite Portland Solutions Director Skyler Brocker-Knapp’s statements about community engagement, the actual process appears backwards: the city selects locations, signs leases, and only afterward—or in this case when information leaks publicly—attempts to involve neighborhood residents and businesses. This contradicts genuine community engagement principles.
2. Insufficient Safety Protocols
The city’s response regarding safety concerns, particularly given the proximity to BodyVox Dance Studio where children attend classes, was inadequate. City officials acknowledged they will not verify identities of shelter residents, meaning they cannot screen out registered sex offenders who would then have unsupervised access to the surrounding neighborhood. This represents a serious gap in public safety planning.
That’s not a safety plan; it’s negligence.
(I spoke last night with the owner of BodyVox, who said the city had never contacted him—despite officials claiming outreach to neighborhood businesses.)
3. There’s no clear accountability. The city has offered no criteria for measuring whether this shelter succeeds or fails—and no plan for what happens if serious neighborhood concerns turn out to be justified. That’s not responsible governance; it’s blind hope disguised as policy.
Did anyone else hear Brocker-Knapp say good neighbor agreements are part of shelter sitings? That is definitely not part of the mayor's plan.
Based on comments, I thought I made a mistake, but I was wrong. After reviewing the youtube video --https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hkKjpGBhSk at about the 56:00 minute marker-- I find Brocker-Knapp said, regarding the citywide shelter program she oversees:
"those are all based on good neighbor agreements and other negotiations we’ve had with a lot of other shelters."
That's not tightly worded, but GNAs were mentioned as the norm.
No. Only person, as you noted, who mentioned good neighbor agreements (absent here) was Eric Zimmerman who said he only supports a shelter if one or an equivalent is in place.
Brocker-Knapp definitely said that the entire site identification process - from initial research to lease signing --does NOT involve input from affected neighbors. By the time neighbors are told about it, it's a done deal. Shameful!
Since the Mayor received accolades for how much he’s always working, I think we should visit him at his office together and wait until he agrees to listen to us. And I’m all for recalling him. BTW Where is Tina Kotek, our Governor? She’s been MIA.
The clown car that dominates the Portland City Council are actually her peeps, and she doesn't want to cross her base. She's got an election next year and she only had 47% of the vote last time. She doesn't want to have the über-left wing of her supporters get cranky with her.
RECALL!!!
Dissappointed.
Wilson: I'm a hero - see what I've done - I stop to help everyone. Bravo. = That's not why we were present. Police rep: I could have resigned last year. = who cares? Sure, if I could afford to move away last year... you want a medal for doing your job?.....That's not why we were present. Shelter exec: looking for appropriate cost, transportation, etc. for shelter placement, and assures us that sexual offenders are required to report themselves, AND a no i.d. policy at the door, AND a low barrier shelter means any condition = 🙄/ neighborhood needs to brace themselves.
HERE IS WHAT WAS MISSING FROM THE LOT: "What do you need for this to succeed"? Not ONE ELECTED PERSON ASKED THE COMMUNITY WHAT THEY NEED.
100% dissappointed in Wilson's campaign b.s. - I don't care about his good deeds, his personal relationship with his wife. I care about how he will SERVE this community. Same for the rest.
Green: If you want to change locations, let me know. = Not holding my breath.
200-bed overnight shelter at 14th & Northrup: The question should be, what do we need for this to succeed? "the community" will ask for as much as they can get (i.e. no shelter.) But I take home from seeing the word "manage" in Allan's article. How can the shelter be planned so that it's *managed* somewhat below community standards (i.e. catastrophic fears) but remains essentially workable?
For example:
"low barrier" should be "sensible barriers" meaning staff will get to know clients and be able to turn some away based on bad behavior. Maybe set up a "frequent visitor" card where you get to accumulate credits of some sort. There are official IDs and unofficial identification
yes, there should be a lot more showers.
the number of beds should be reduced.
Not sure whether GNAs are just pieces of paper. What I'd be looking for is a detailed plan from the city, on which the GNA and its consequences are based.
1) Plan including suggested improvements such as showers and laundry facilities
2) Verification of funding for renovation and furnishing
3) Documentation guaranteeing least five years' of ongoing operational funding including staff positions and job descriptions (this is how you implement staff authority to impose "barriers" like the way St. Vincent allows people into its meal program.)
4) Based on conversations with Kathy Sharp, sounds like there needs to be a plan for intake and exit procedures and managing the line for entry each night:
Again, TRAINED staff involvement. It's possible to create a line in one place and move it to another place when the time comes (re: my experience with Japanese museum entry proceudres.) The line has to keep sidewalks free or you go to the end, etc. This will require volunteer / paid monitors.
5) Outside of my wheelhouse, but measurements are needed to assess compliance with the plan. If thresholds are reached, the city must close the shelter. (And so the plan also needs budget for maintaining the property in the event of a permanent or temporary shelter closure.)
I suspect the Mayor has no clue as to how to plan and document a project like this. Our D4 commissioners certainly have this expertise, but this is not their job now. What are city staff doing? How can the interested non-profits be roped in to provide more than advocacy?
Agree with all your points save 1. I don't believe the community would go for "no shelter" IF there was a plan as thorough as what you outline.
Point being, I believe 99% of all citizens want those on the street to move off the street, not simply for optics, and certainly not at a health and wellness impact expense of the host community.
To that - I re-state the electorate did not ask the community what is needed for success. Your assessment above is a case in point.
I live across from the Moore St Shelter and it's not being run efficiently and causing a lot of issues for neighbors. The city doesn't have the resources to run these shelters yet and it's a lot of trip and error and neighborhoods and residents are and will suffer. Crime is not down, we are fatigued reporting everything we see bc the city depends on US to report every single issue. Once you're on hold with non-emergency for 15mins when someone is smoking fentanyl outside your house do I want to spend another 15-30 mins continuing to report? Or call 911 to which police don't show up yet call you 35mins later? The city doesn't care they don't have the resources their actions speak volumes...they will do what they want!
Unfortunately it’s very tough to get the numbers needed to recall a mayor, but it’s easier to recall district councilors, especially when you have this much common anger about something. The good thing about being a high density neighborhood is we have large numbers. People could probably sit outside Lovejoy Safeway/Stadium Fred Meyer (both probably to be shuttered soon due to city ineptitude) for a week collecting signatures from residents and have enough to recall one or all of them to send a message. Kidding - kind of.
This new system was touted by the Charter Reform Commission as being more equitable and giving the average citizen "greater access" to their City Council Reps. Although the system is new to be fair, I have found it far harder to get a response from my District 2 Representatives so far, than I ever did with the old, at-large representation system it replaced (Here's looking at you Sameer).
Yes, for a system supposedly built to give the districts more representation on council, it surely seems to be doing the opposite thus far. What’s the point of having them if they will just stand by while the mayor destroys a neighborhood? Everyone knows this is stupid, but no one will stand up for us.
I am perplexed.
Portland.gov is providing to the public information that contradicts the mayor's statements on July 28.
According to the most updated information as of July 21 on portland.gov:
"Each shelter will include a 1,000-foot engagement area where the City pledges to actively manage livability concerns. This includes:"
"City teams will assess and engage with any unsanctioned campsites within 3 business days, with cleanups posted and completed in accordance with Oregon law. Significant trash and graffiti will be removed within 5 business days."
If I understood the mayor at the armory meeting, unsanctioned campsites would be removed immediately.
"City teams will assess and engage" "with in 3 business days" could mean that unsanctioned campsites would be there for weeks.
"Assess and engage" is meaningless jargon. It seems like a smoke screen for maintaining the status quo.
If I understood the mayor on July 28 said, trash and graffiti would be removed on a daily basis.
The portland.gov however says: "Significant trash and graffiti will be removed within 5 business days."
Either the mayor is not being honest or his staff is utterly incompetent.
I for one am disappointed.
https://www.portland.gov/shelter-services/news/2025/7/21/building-trust-through-action-portlands-commitment-neighborhoods?utm_source=chatgpt.com
I think it’s both - the mayor is a liar and his staff is incompetent.