As you reported, Mayor Wilson promises to "control livability impacts on the neighborhood," but we KNOW that that is not possible. I have testimony from residents around the shelters in neighborhoods (i.e., Clinton Triangle, Multnomah Village, and River District), and they tell us that the city is simply unable to keep up with the litter, loitering, drug-dealing, camping, prostitution, graffiti, and crime that ALWAYS and INEVITABLY trails the shelters. The nearby residents tell us it's exhausting to have to continually report issues to the authorities, only to be ignored. One neighborhood group has been unable to get ANY response to their complaints about the nearby shelter for 14 months! And since the shelter proposed for the Pearl is of the lowest-barrier, overnight-only format, its impacts will be even greater than those other shelters. Remember, despite GNAs (Good Neighbor Agreements) that promise to control camping around the site, the River District Navigation Center (just a few blocks away) has only been able to document 6.5 camp-free weeks on that shelter's perimeter over a period of 5 years, despite the city's promises! Crime and safety issues got so bad around the Old Town shelter that it had to be shuttered. This abject failure of policy and complete lack of communication with area residents gives clear cause for NW/Pearl residents to reject the proposed shelter and to insist on NEW directions -- recovery beds and services -- that 1) don't bail out big developers, 2) don't sacrifice working families' livability, and 3) actually make a real dent in the homeless crisis. As relayed by Vadim Mozyrsky and clear-eyed homeless experts: The cities that have been successful in addressing homelessness long-term, and particularly when coupled with drug addiction, have placed shelters in areas where they would have the least impact on residents and the economy. This not only benefits the city residents who are working and raising families, but also helps homeless individuals by placing them in environments conducive to recovery, away from drug dealing and other negative influences. Makes common sense, right? Or as Alan Evans of Bybee Lakes says, "If you take a sick person and just put them in a house, you get a sick house." If the Mayor proceeds with this ill-conceived and expensive plan, we'll not only get a sick house, but a sick NEIGHBORHOOD that will spiral into a deep decline, just at the moment when it’s starting to get back on its feet.
“We know what’s best for you” seems to be the prevailing attitude of City elected officials for as long as I can remember. Such arrogance and unwillingness to address the legitimate concerns of tax-paying local residents is appalling.
I think it’s disgusting that the mayor and all city council reps continue to ignore and refuse to engage with their constituents. Maybe a district rep recall is in order since the ones we have seem uninterested in doing their basic jobs? I’d also sign a recall for the mayor tomorrow, it’s clear he’s lacking basic cognitive abilities. Portland will continue to (rapidly) decline with these idiots at the helm.
How nice that the Pearl is now joining other neighborhoods in "serving" the feral. Out here in Montavilla, we have a major-league "affordable" apartment complex for the officially poor plus an attached dorm for up to 50 "transitioning" from the streets types (great near-neighbors for any families with kids in the complex); a "village" of little plastic cells for car-campers; another something-or-other nearby for regular-type bums to kick back rent-free on 82d; a smattering of halfway houses...with a big "homeless mothers" complex at the old Multnomah University campus slotted for the future; and apartments owned by out-of-state bottom-feeders for Section 8 folks.
Of course, there will be "Good Neiighbor Agreements," labored over and then disregarded.
Let me assure the residents of overpriced condos in the Pearl that public officials won't be listening--a civics lesson that other folks on the east side have learned the hard way.
As you reported, Mayor Wilson promises to "control livability impacts on the neighborhood," but we KNOW that that is not possible. I have testimony from residents around the shelters in neighborhoods (i.e., Clinton Triangle, Multnomah Village, and River District), and they tell us that the city is simply unable to keep up with the litter, loitering, drug-dealing, camping, prostitution, graffiti, and crime that ALWAYS and INEVITABLY trails the shelters. The nearby residents tell us it's exhausting to have to continually report issues to the authorities, only to be ignored. One neighborhood group has been unable to get ANY response to their complaints about the nearby shelter for 14 months! And since the shelter proposed for the Pearl is of the lowest-barrier, overnight-only format, its impacts will be even greater than those other shelters. Remember, despite GNAs (Good Neighbor Agreements) that promise to control camping around the site, the River District Navigation Center (just a few blocks away) has only been able to document 6.5 camp-free weeks on that shelter's perimeter over a period of 5 years, despite the city's promises! Crime and safety issues got so bad around the Old Town shelter that it had to be shuttered. This abject failure of policy and complete lack of communication with area residents gives clear cause for NW/Pearl residents to reject the proposed shelter and to insist on NEW directions -- recovery beds and services -- that 1) don't bail out big developers, 2) don't sacrifice working families' livability, and 3) actually make a real dent in the homeless crisis. As relayed by Vadim Mozyrsky and clear-eyed homeless experts: The cities that have been successful in addressing homelessness long-term, and particularly when coupled with drug addiction, have placed shelters in areas where they would have the least impact on residents and the economy. This not only benefits the city residents who are working and raising families, but also helps homeless individuals by placing them in environments conducive to recovery, away from drug dealing and other negative influences. Makes common sense, right? Or as Alan Evans of Bybee Lakes says, "If you take a sick person and just put them in a house, you get a sick house." If the Mayor proceeds with this ill-conceived and expensive plan, we'll not only get a sick house, but a sick NEIGHBORHOOD that will spiral into a deep decline, just at the moment when it’s starting to get back on its feet.
“We know what’s best for you” seems to be the prevailing attitude of City elected officials for as long as I can remember. Such arrogance and unwillingness to address the legitimate concerns of tax-paying local residents is appalling.
I think it’s disgusting that the mayor and all city council reps continue to ignore and refuse to engage with their constituents. Maybe a district rep recall is in order since the ones we have seem uninterested in doing their basic jobs? I’d also sign a recall for the mayor tomorrow, it’s clear he’s lacking basic cognitive abilities. Portland will continue to (rapidly) decline with these idiots at the helm.
How nice that the Pearl is now joining other neighborhoods in "serving" the feral. Out here in Montavilla, we have a major-league "affordable" apartment complex for the officially poor plus an attached dorm for up to 50 "transitioning" from the streets types (great near-neighbors for any families with kids in the complex); a "village" of little plastic cells for car-campers; another something-or-other nearby for regular-type bums to kick back rent-free on 82d; a smattering of halfway houses...with a big "homeless mothers" complex at the old Multnomah University campus slotted for the future; and apartments owned by out-of-state bottom-feeders for Section 8 folks.
Of course, there will be "Good Neiighbor Agreements," labored over and then disregarded.
Let me assure the residents of overpriced condos in the Pearl that public officials won't be listening--a civics lesson that other folks on the east side have learned the hard way.
Yell all you want. Then suck it up.
Seems the best solution is no solution then? Perhaps those in the room aren't as impacted by homelessness as the rest of the Pearl.
I was there and the demographic was clear.