The compiled research at the end of the article is filled with data from 2021, 22, 23, and 24. It’s almost April, 2026. If you’re going to continue parroting the doom loop narrative, at least use current data.
At least she is using data....if you are offering a rebuttal, where is your data? Are you suggesting Portland is succeeding in any category of measurable success.....that I would love to see, applaud, learn from and repeat. We're waiting.....
This article is ultimately just high-quality rage bait for an audience desperate to confirm their belief that Portland peaked in 1997, 2009, or 2017. No amount of data will decouple that nostalgia from their minds, which is why a piece like this works: it strips away the macroeconomic climate and nationwide structural shifts to build a localized doom-loop narrative.
If you’re actually on the ground, walking through the city every day, you see the reality: things are improving. We made some bold decisions in Portland. Some of them take time to work, and others need to be reassessed, but framing the necessary lag-time in policy implementation as a permanent failure is intellectually dishonest.
Take the behavioral health crisis. The article conflates allocated funds with the immediate availability of infrastructure. Multnomah County cannot instantly purchase treatment capacity that doesn't physically exist amidst a nationwide shortage of mental health professionals—from behavioral techs to psychiatrists. You can't just magically summon providers overnight to staff acute care beds. And that $104 million "shortfall"? That's the county spending down its accumulated reserves to rapidly stand up services during the peak of the crisis. You can't simultaneously complain that they aren't spending money fast enough and that they spent their reserves.
The narrative around the economy and core services ignores the post-2020 landscape. Yes, a 37 percent downtown office vacancy rate is brutal for commercial real estate, but it isn't the death of the local economy. A massive portion of the knowledge economy, including software development, has shifted permanently to remote or hybrid models. At a macro level, are we attracting companies like Tesla to move their headquarters here? No, of course not. But is that the city we want to live in? One where the wealthiest people on earth use tax arbitrage to further consolidate their power? I'd rather see the organic investment currently happening in the manufacturing technology and green energy sectors outside the downtown core.
The framing of K-12 education is just as misleading. Attributing enrollment declines entirely to a "family exodus" ignores the massive demographic cliff hitting public schools nationwide. Millennials are having fewer kids and having them later. For those planning to start families around the turn of the decade, the current, painful process of consolidating half-empty buildings is a necessary fiscal correction that will actually stabilize the district's financial future and improve student-to-teacher ratios for the next generation.
Similarly, programs like Preschool for All underspending in their first three years isn't a failure; you can't responsibly spend hundreds of millions before physical preschools are built and the workforce is trained. Pausing or adjusting the tax rate is an example of responsive governance, not a collapse.
We are undertaking novel policies in America. Nowhere has this happened on this scale in the last 50 years. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out. It’s never going to be 2016 again, but we can create a new 2016—one with more equity, affordability, and respect for the whole spectrum of human existence.
Thank you for a reasoned rebuttal. I’m a person who briefly went to college in Portland decades ago, mostly lived in Eugene, and now happily live in downtown Portland. Yes there are problems but the music and arts are vibrant (I know everyone is struggling), the food is great and the streetcar, Max and buses get me everywhere. Happy to be here.
I walk through the city everyday and live in what used to be a thriving economic and residential hub - things are not improving and every current metric (which you failed to actually produce) supports this. Please, go do some research that involves numbers, results, and actual benchmarking.
A “narrative” as you say, is continuing to make anecdotal comments about how you think things are getting better or producing excuses for why we just never seem to be seeing improvement despite all our tax increases because everything is just going to somehow magically come together at some later time, despite all evidence to the contrary. Thanks for outing yourself as part of the main problem we have though - a delusional voter base who perpetuates collapse but still somehow manages to be annoyingly self righteous about it.
Current metrics from early 2026:
* Office Vacancy Crisis: Portland's Central Business District (CBD) recorded a historic high vacancy rate of 34.7% to 36.3% in late 2025/early 2026. This is nearly double the national average and exceeds other struggling markets like San Francisco.
* Job Market Decline: The Portland region lost approximately 8,800 jobs in 2025, ranking it the fourth worst performing metro region in the nation. Multnomah County's unemployment rate reached 5.5% in August 2025, more than a full percentage point higher than the national average.
* Property Value Collapse: High-profile sales illustrate a massive loss in asset value. For example, the US Bancorp Tower ("Big Pink") sold for $45 million in July 2025—an 88% decline from its $373 million valuation in 2015.
* Investment Attractiveness: The city now ranks 80th (second to last) in national real estate attractiveness, a sharp fall from its 2017 ranking of 3rd.
* Homelessness Growth: While homelessness trended down nationally by an estimated 3% to 7% in 2025, Oregon's homeless population grew by 35% since 2023. The Portland tri-county area saw a 61% increase in its homeless population over a two-year period.
* Drug Overdose Rates: Although total overdose deaths in Oregon decreased by 22% in 2024 (mirroring a national trend), the state’s methamphetamine overdose death rate (26.3 per 100,000) remains more than double the national rate (10.3 per 100,000).
* Taxation: High-income earners in Portland face a top marginal tax rate of 14.7%, which is reported as the highest among peer cities.
* Oregon property crime rate is 36% higher than U.S. average. And as noted in the article, good luck getting police assistance when you are a victim.
You are presenting one single crisis—the commercial office real estate crash—as three separate economic failures. A 35% downtown office vacancy rate is brutal for commercial landlords, but it does not equal a collapsed regional economy. This is a structural shift in how people work (the permanent shift to remote/hybrid), not a sign that work has stopped. While office space sits empty, Portland's industrial and manufacturing real estate market remains incredibly tight, with vacancy rates consistently in the single digits. That "80th in the nation" metric measures how easy it is for out-of-state equity firms to extract quick returns from office buildings, not the actual economic output or livability of the city.
**Claim: The Portland region lost approximately 8,800 jobs in 2025, and Multnomah County's unemployment rate reached 5.5%.
Citing 2025 job losses in Multnomah County ignores the massive, nationwide tech contraction that occurred during that exact window. The Portland metro area has a high concentration of tech and information sector jobs. When interest rates rose globally, the tech sector shed hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide. This was a sector-specific contraction, not a broad municipal failure. Meanwhile, wages for the lowest quartile of earners in Oregon have grown significantly over the last few years, narrowing the inequality gap. 40% of those losses were from Intel alone, which has less than nothing to do with Oregon or Portland's economy. Do you know what ignoring the specifics of those 8,800 job losses provides for you? More confirmation bias.
**Claim: The Portland tri-county area saw a 61% increase in its homeless population over a two-year period, and Oregon's homeless population grew by 35% since 2023.
This metric is a lagging indicator of the housing affordability crisis that peaked alongside inflation. What this statistic completely ignores is the placement rate. Multnomah County and the Joint Office have moved thousands of people out of homelessness and into permanent or supportive housing. The issue isn't that the county is doing nothing; it's that the national housing crisis is pushing people onto the streets faster than local infrastructure can build new units. It is a capacity pipeline issue, not a "delusional voter" issue. With that said, I will concede that SHS tax spending hasn't been optimized. They should be spending the bulk of that $750 million/year on treatment facilities and public housing. Kind of like this https://multco.us/news/board-approves-construction-plan-247-sobering-and-crisis-stabilization-center-facility-track. Spending the money on short-term, consumable services is NOT going to work. If anything, it's going to attract more consumers of the services. We need mandatory treatment laws and the capacity to actually enforce it.
**Claim: Total overdose deaths in Oregon decreased by 22% in 2024, but the state’s methamphetamine overdose death rate remains more than double the national rate.
You literally concede the win here: total overdose deaths decreased by 22% in 2024. You cannot claim "things are not improving" and in the very same breath admit that drug overdose fatalities dropped by nearly a quarter in a single year. Highlighting the state's historical struggle with meth to distract from a massive, life-saving year-over-year improvement is moving the goalposts. That 22% drop is the direct result of recent policy adjustments (like recriminalization and targeted fentanyl enforcement) that you claim aren't happening.
**Claim: High-income earners in Portland face a top marginal tax rate of 14.7%.
Citing a 14.7% "top marginal tax rate" is a deliberate misrepresentation of how taxes actually work. That rate only applies to the margins of the highest income brackets, not the effective tax rate that citizens actually pay. More importantly, you conveniently omitted that Oregon has a 0% sales tax. When you look at the total state and local tax burden (property, income, and sales combined), Oregon routinely ranks right in the middle of the pack nationally. Singling out the income tax while ignoring the lack of a sales tax is a bad-faith economic argument.
**Claim: Oregon's property crime rate is 36% higher than the U.S. average.
Pointing to an aggregate "36% higher" figure ignores the current, aggressive downward trend in Portland's crime data. You have to look at the momentum. For example, motor vehicle theft in Portland dropped by an astounding 40% to 45% in 2024 compared to the highs of 2022/2023, largely due to targeted police task forces. Vandalism and burglary have also seen double-digit percentage drops. The peak of the crisis was in 2022; the data from the last 18 months shows a steep and undeniable decline.
To reiterate my original point, this article exists as self-flagellation for those who only see something different than 2016. Not for those who understand hard times were had, agree we have more work to do, and acknowledge the improvements.
I was here in 2016, I was also here in rough times during the ‘80s, so I’m not living in a dream-world where everything is expected to be peak livability. I am a native Portlander and have experienced all the ups and downs. However, I’d like to address a few things you’ve said to offer my viewpoint:
Office vacancy isn’t just a “remote work shift.” Remote work is real—but a 35%+ downtown vacancy rate is not typical, even for hybrid-era cities. Comparable West Coast metros also face elevated vacancy, yet Portland consistently ranks among the highest. This extends beyond landlords: downtown vacancy directly affects small businesses, transit revenue, the tax base, and public safety. Fewer workers downtown → fewer customers → more storefront closures → reduced street activity → increased disorder (both perceived and real). Calling this a “structural shift” doesn’t negate its economic consequences. A permanent shift can still represent a loss.
Blaming job losses primarily on national tech contraction also oversimplifies local conditions. Not all losses were in tech, and regional recovery has lagged behind peer metros. A 5.5% unemployment rate remains elevated relative to stronger-performing cities. In Multnomah County and the broader Portland area, job losses have been concentrated not just in technology, but also in professional and business services, retail trade, and segments of leisure and hospitality—sectors closely tied to downtown foot traffic and office utilization. Wage growth at the low end is a positive development, but much of it has been inflation-driven and does not meaningfully offset cost-of-living pressures.
Describing homelessness as a “pipeline issue” does not counter criticism—it reinforces it. While placements into housing are occurring, a 61% increase in homelessness indicates inflow is FAR exceeding outflow. That growth rate is substantially higher than in most peer cities and shows no clear sign of slowing. If we’re being honest it’s largely driven by this state’s ongoing mishandling of mental health resources coupled with a permissive (almost to the point of supportive) city/county attitude towards street camping, drug use, and lack of law enforcement for most crime.
Also, recent improvement in overdose deaths does not mean the crisis is really getting much better. A one-year decline following a sharp spike is often a partial correction, not evidence of sustained progress. The baseline still matters, and both Multnomah County and Oregon remain well above historical and national norms. Narcan data adds important context: overdose reversals have surged alongside the crisis. In Multnomah County, Narcan administrations number in the thousands annually (via EMS and community distribution). In contrast, similarly sized metros typically report lower per-capita administrations, indicating that Portland’s overdose burden—and the need for repeated reversals—remains unusually high even with intervention efforts. In other words, we may be getting better at preventing deaths from overdoses, but that does not mean fewer potentially fatal overdoses are occurring. I do agree with you on the misuse of tax spending and the need for mandatory treatment laws and ability to enforce this.
Your tax burden argument overlooks behavioral effects. While Oregon has no sales tax, that does not negate concerns about high marginal income tax rates. Nearby Vancouver has a sales tax, yet has still attracted migration from Portland. Location decisions are influenced by marginal rates and perceived competitiveness, not just overall rankings. Being “middle of the pack” does not imply neutrality, especially when the tax structure leans heavily on income.
Finally, crime declines from peak levels are positive, but they do not represent normalization. A 40–45% reduction in car theft followed an extreme surge; rates can remain elevated relative to historical and national baselines. Property crime still sits roughly 36% above the national average, which is not offset by a short-term downward trend in one area. For many residents, repeated theft, vandalism, and property damage remain ongoing realities. Encampment-related fire risk is also a persistent concern that has not been addressed.
Overall, my opinion is that good intent and incremental (sometimes performative, sometimes nonsensical) policy are not substitutes for measurable outcomes. Being clear-eyed about these conditions is not self-flagellation; in many circles, it reflects a demand for accountability and for data-driven improvements in livability that go well beyond current results. Frustration over continued decline in quality of life is understandable: downtown vitality, homelessness and drug use, and public safety remain unresolved at a structural level. If you find the speed and impact of outcomes satisfactory, please know that it is difficult for many to similarly accept that this is the best we can do.
the childish use of the f word, and your last sentence indicate your agenda: a narrow view of the city, focused on subgroups whom you believe are disadvantaged. I quit the Portand City Club for the same reason: it no longer serves as a neutral think tank for PORTLAND, but for marginal interests.
I’m actually pretty moderate when it comes to opinion on policy serving a wider variety of socioeconomic classes, but if you think the last 20 years of American, Oregon, or Portland political policy has been detrimental to the wealthy, then you’re arguing in bad faith. People may be leaving because of that policy, but it’s mostly because they’re greedy pieces of shit and has almost nothing to do with existential threat. With that said, I agree we need to bring the cumulative local tax rate down to become competitive again.
You hate the successful wealthy people that pay the vast majority of the taxes that fund services? 50% of American either do not pay any federal income tax, OR pay negative taxes (i.e., receive money) through tax credits and/or any number of federal assistance handouts. We have the most progressive tax system int he world by a mile.
You could move to Europe where EVERYONE pays 50% tax and a 16-22% sales tax for "FREE" health care that is terrible. The result is that Mississippi, the poorest state in the USA now has a higher median family income than Great Britain, France and Germany.
Meanwhile the GDP of the USA is 30% higher after being nearly equivalent to the EU when it was launched in 2000.
This retort rates high on the Fog Index.....that is to say the ratio of data to words. Your assertions are not an empirical rebuttal to the author's report. I appreciate your wish to try Utopia-building, but you will realize that ain't how humans are wired. We can't even make families function in the vision you seek, what arrogance makes you think the Peacock Caucus can do it for a city? Especially in an environment of declining revenue and an eroding tax base.
As Thomas Sowell teaches, there are no solutions only trade-offs. I suggest the trade-offs for your naive progressive societal revolution are more dangerous and deleterious to more people than the options available to us that other cities employ and that Portland once practiced.
The irony of your entire response being pseudo-intellectual pretentious hand waving isn't lost here. The funny part of all this is that by almost every metric that isn't directly tied to national/global economics, Portland is improving. Because, once again, it doesn't look like 2016 RIGHT THIS SECOND means that every action by a local government you're so desperate to discredit is a failure. To your credit, you had a good point earlier; If you're so interested in living in a city that would rather live on one knee to the Oligarchy, you might give Austin, Texas a shot.
Again, defend your claim...show me "every metric where Portland is improving", but most importantly compared to what? Portland in 2020? How about compared to other mid-size metro areas in the US today...you know a relevant comparison.
I’d say sobering statistics about the direction of Portland yet nothing seems to be sober about Portland. I want to believe these stats might make a difference in how Portland voters might vote, yet………Angelita Morillo has a gazillion followers on Bluesky and Instagram, she must be doing something right, I’ll vote for her—-typical uninformed Portland voter.
THANK YOU for summerizing what I've been sadly observing. Idealism untethered from common sense economics or basic management skills is sinking our beautiful city.
PLEASE email this to every city and county commissioner.
A key point for me was when the Mayor requested recently that city workers come to their offices (instead or working at home) at least 3 days a week. They said no.
It is interesting how divided we are and how much we want to stay anonymous in our opinions, although we are not shy about denigrating others'. I credit Michelle for her transparency and her homework. I fault KBJ and some of the detractors for hiding behind their masks, but they also make some plausible points. Portland can be weird, great and flawed all at the same time. I have lived Downtown for 22 years and worked at Big Pink for most of 12 years before that. I walk to most of the places I frequent, from music venues to cultural venues to restaurants and services. Over those years things were ascendant, declined a bit and were ascendant again. Before the Pandemic under the Trump administration, development Downtown occurred rapidly under tax incentivised development vehicles resulting in record multifamily and mixed use development like the Ritz Carlton. But George Floyd was murdered and we were reminded of the Country's broken promises. Antifa and the Proud Boys did battle on our streets and took it out on the symbols of Capitalism; Starbucks, Target, Pioneer Place, Apple. A lot of smaller businesses were collateral damage. This environment continued through the pandemic, with PPB consumed with the battle playing out while crime blossomed elsewhere, Fentanyl arrived and the Police were vilified. I was present when Antifa pulled Abe and Teddy down in the South Parks Blocks. By today's standards, both men were deeply flawed. Judged by preceding generations and their own, they moved society and culture in a positive direction, many flaws notwithstanding.
The Pandemic changed everything, slowing development and raising development costs, halting tourism and cultural and entertainment events, creating financial crises for hotels, restaurants and cultural and entertainment venues and changing how people work and where they live. WFH bolstered the suburbs, but devastated commercial real estate in the central city and the transportation networks Portland had taken years to construct around a Central City HUB. It also drove up prices of residential real estate in the suburbs and beyond, an issue we are dealing with today as an unaffordable housing market.
Yes, KBJ, Portland is getting better than it was during the Pandemic. The direct action protests have largely stopped. Window breaking still happens, but much less frequently. Starbucks and Target are gone and the random window breaking is largely a function of someone in psychosis or on Meth. There are fewer homeless in tents, because we have more shelter beds (that is changing tho) and tent handouts are not being publically funded. But Michelle's stats about who is leaving and who is coming in are still directionally correct and population growth statewide or county to county is still pathetic, based upon our past. The property values Downtown are now based on economic hope for future "net operating income" and are a half of actual replacement value. Think about that a second. Most hotels Downtown are in receivership, awaiting sale. We are a state, city and county with a highly progressive tax structure. It is intended to be highly equitable. Those who can are helping those who cannot help themselves. But if those who can are leaving and being replaced by those who can't, we run out of revenue to help everybody stay healthy, housed, safe and fed.
I love Portland. I love Oregon. But I also know what it is to face reality. We have to create an environment that lures visitors to us to deposit new income and leave and sustain our local businesses. We need out of state businesses to set up shop here and help landlords pay property taxes and pay taxes on their profits. We need them to create jobs for new and existing Oregonians that will in turn grow revenues. When we have population growth, developers will build homes. again. Why would you build homes for a population that cannot afford them? We need to stop the Nimbyism.
I look forward to a debate with someone who is not hiding behind a mask.
I think we all need to calm down, go back to our day jobs, and hand the reins of the city over to the 3 most level-headed, clear-eyed, non-dogmatic humans in sight: Perkins, Weinstein, and Meieran. There. Done.
Data always lags a bit, but rarely can a serious analyst not extrapolate to this year. And, the tone indicates you are skeptical...or worse, dismissive of this researchers efforts.
All correspondents here miss the Root Cause: reflex voting for one party. Doesn't matter which, blindly Republican strongholds are also badly managed and lack services. Oregon, Portland, Metro, counties - all are simply incompetent to MANAGE anything: the Obama software debacle, COVID shots to favorite - unionized - groups first, underspending our generously voted taxes , etc. -,Metro can't even run a toy train!! The current mayor is a salutary exception: a MANAGER and proven business leader. Keep voting for leftie Dems, and you will perpetuate this endless cycle. Vote for anyone who had a middle management job in a MacDonald's and we will all gain!
Michelle Milla's data tells us what went wrong in Portland, but to understand why it is so hard to fix, we need to look at how the 2022 charter reform was designed and by whom.
The charter reform that restructured Portland's city council — expanding it to 12 members elected by ranked-choice voting from four multi-member districts — was not primarily designed to solve the accountability and performance failures Milla documents. It was designed to change who gets elected.
The blueprint came largely from two reports produced in 2019 and 2020 by the City Club of Portland, a members-only civic organization that operates largely out of public view, whose work fed directly into the Charter Review Commission process.¹
The City Club reports are candid about their priorities. The research committee's charge was explicitly to assess "whether the City of Portland's current method of electing City representatives provides equitable representation for all residents."² The entire evaluative framework was built around an "equity lens" consisting of five questions, none of which asked whether the resulting government would deliver better services, spend money more effectively, or hold officials accountable for results.³ Competence, performance, and fiscal accountability do not appear in the criteria at all.
This was not an oversight. It reflected a deliberate choice about what the reform was for. The 2020 report is explicit that multi-member districts combined with ranked-choice voting would benefit organized voting blocs — precisely the nonprofit, activist, and public-sector coalition that has dominated Portland politics for years.⁴ What the report framed as increasing equity was also, in practice, a structural advantage for the political infrastructure already in place.
The reform was sold to voters as modernization and inclusion. What it actually delivered was consolidation. The same coalition that produced the accountability failures Milla documents — the missed targets, the unspent hundreds of millions, the homelessness spending that grew the homeless population, the permit system that failed its own standards for two decades — is now more durably entrenched in a system specifically engineered to favor organized, ideologically coherent blocs over diffuse voters who simply want functioning streets and honest government.
The City Club reports do acknowledge, briefly, that "a system should rely on structures that result in better representation, rather than relying on the benevolence of individual elected officials."⁵ That is exactly right. But the structures they designed optimize for the identity of elected officials, not their accountability to the people they serve. Those are not the same thing, and Portland is now paying the price for confusing them.
Until reform candidates emerge who are willing to run on performance and accountability — and until Portland's political culture treats those as legitimate governing values rather than code for opposition to equity — the electoral machinery now in place will continue to produce the same coalition, the same priorities, and the same results.
---
Footnotes
¹ City Club of Portland, *New Government for Today's Portland: Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System* (February 2019); City Club of Portland, *New Government for Today's Portland, Part II: Rethinking How We Vote* (August 2020). The City Club of Portland is a private membership organization. Its research reports are produced by volunteer committees of members and are adopted by member vote before being released as policy recommendations.
² City Club of Portland, *Rethinking How We Vote*, p. 1.
³ City Club of Portland, *Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System*, pp. 4–5. The five equity lens criteria ask whether the process leads to diverse candidates, whether policy outcomes are equitable, whether the process encourages participation, whether it is responsive, and whether it maintains equity long-term.
⁴ City Club of Portland, *Rethinking How We Vote*, pp. 12–14. The report notes that ranked-choice voting with multi-member districts benefits candidates who can appeal to organized voting blocs, and explicitly recommends this system as producing more candidates from "historically marginalized communities" — communities that in Portland are substantially organized through the nonprofit and activist sectors.
⁵ City Club of Portland, *Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System*, p. 19.
I was walking across town Friday evening and noticed the absence of people on a very pleasant Friday night. Hopefully people will return to the downtown area. I think businesses and government should insist that people work in person or fire them as I think the zoom and computer culture is a dead end for the human spirit. Last evening I saw a man kneeling on the ground picking at something repetitively and again saw a person obvious stoned staring at his phone with a pen in hand. He was in a steady pose for way too long for it to be normal. I think everyone is disturbed to witness this degradation of human potential from drug addiction. We carry these images with us. Why don't we just commit people so afflicted to short term psychiatric care for a maximum of six weeks. Alot of people think these people are rotting with their rights on. Many physicians feel this is very damaging to their brain in permanent ways. I don't think about it that way. If they get detoxed, fed, cleaned up, sometimes medicated, and get a chance to use their voice to explain themselves so we can understand them, we will get to know what they are like without drugs in their system for a few weeks. We can give them the opportunity to begin anew. Once the city solves the absence of a public presence downtown and the severely mentally ill homeless problem, other problems will seem just as urgent to address. There is the potential for groups of people to solve community problems, not just make thing worse. I have yet to see that happen with the two issues above, so yes, I think the city is flailing about trying to get some traction. I think the downward slide was preceded by the legalization of needle and drug paraphenalia distribution started with an Oregon Law in 1989. This legislation assisted people to destroy their lives and much like Measure 110 increases the social costs of addiction in the community. We have blinded ourselves to the way in which it incentivizes drug use, so much so, that no politicians in the state are willing to repeal it.
Good dialog. I agree with Mr. McCarthy that the Mayor has done a great job of herding ideological cats, each with their own agenda. I agree with Olie Park's analysis of the results of Charter Reform, although the biggest disappointment to me is that the City Manager's Office has not been able to move faster in creating coordination and efficiencies within and between the bureaus under the professional management they lacked. I suspect that is because it would assume the new City Council would enact clear and logical policy through democratic compromise the provide direction to the professionals and they everyone would stay in their lane. So far, that has not happened so far. And I agree, instead of getting a City Council where each district is represented by people who understand not just their district, but understand the functioning of government and fiscal constraints, we have created a new level of disfunction. This dialog needs to proceed openly leading into the election if we want to be serious about bringing Portland back. I suggest we as voters in District Four insist that each candidate provide their Vision for Portland, 2028 and what they think needs to happen to move us toward that vision. Be nice to do this openly and without threat of violence between those who may disagree.
The compiled research at the end of the article is filled with data from 2021, 22, 23, and 24. It’s almost April, 2026. If you’re going to continue parroting the doom loop narrative, at least use current data.
At least she is using data....if you are offering a rebuttal, where is your data? Are you suggesting Portland is succeeding in any category of measurable success.....that I would love to see, applaud, learn from and repeat. We're waiting.....
This article is ultimately just high-quality rage bait for an audience desperate to confirm their belief that Portland peaked in 1997, 2009, or 2017. No amount of data will decouple that nostalgia from their minds, which is why a piece like this works: it strips away the macroeconomic climate and nationwide structural shifts to build a localized doom-loop narrative.
If you’re actually on the ground, walking through the city every day, you see the reality: things are improving. We made some bold decisions in Portland. Some of them take time to work, and others need to be reassessed, but framing the necessary lag-time in policy implementation as a permanent failure is intellectually dishonest.
Take the behavioral health crisis. The article conflates allocated funds with the immediate availability of infrastructure. Multnomah County cannot instantly purchase treatment capacity that doesn't physically exist amidst a nationwide shortage of mental health professionals—from behavioral techs to psychiatrists. You can't just magically summon providers overnight to staff acute care beds. And that $104 million "shortfall"? That's the county spending down its accumulated reserves to rapidly stand up services during the peak of the crisis. You can't simultaneously complain that they aren't spending money fast enough and that they spent their reserves.
The narrative around the economy and core services ignores the post-2020 landscape. Yes, a 37 percent downtown office vacancy rate is brutal for commercial real estate, but it isn't the death of the local economy. A massive portion of the knowledge economy, including software development, has shifted permanently to remote or hybrid models. At a macro level, are we attracting companies like Tesla to move their headquarters here? No, of course not. But is that the city we want to live in? One where the wealthiest people on earth use tax arbitrage to further consolidate their power? I'd rather see the organic investment currently happening in the manufacturing technology and green energy sectors outside the downtown core.
The framing of K-12 education is just as misleading. Attributing enrollment declines entirely to a "family exodus" ignores the massive demographic cliff hitting public schools nationwide. Millennials are having fewer kids and having them later. For those planning to start families around the turn of the decade, the current, painful process of consolidating half-empty buildings is a necessary fiscal correction that will actually stabilize the district's financial future and improve student-to-teacher ratios for the next generation.
Similarly, programs like Preschool for All underspending in their first three years isn't a failure; you can't responsibly spend hundreds of millions before physical preschools are built and the workforce is trained. Pausing or adjusting the tax rate is an example of responsive governance, not a collapse.
We are undertaking novel policies in America. Nowhere has this happened on this scale in the last 50 years. Everyone needs to chill the fuck out. It’s never going to be 2016 again, but we can create a new 2016—one with more equity, affordability, and respect for the whole spectrum of human existence.
Thank you for a reasoned rebuttal. I’m a person who briefly went to college in Portland decades ago, mostly lived in Eugene, and now happily live in downtown Portland. Yes there are problems but the music and arts are vibrant (I know everyone is struggling), the food is great and the streetcar, Max and buses get me everywhere. Happy to be here.
I walk through the city everyday and live in what used to be a thriving economic and residential hub - things are not improving and every current metric (which you failed to actually produce) supports this. Please, go do some research that involves numbers, results, and actual benchmarking.
A “narrative” as you say, is continuing to make anecdotal comments about how you think things are getting better or producing excuses for why we just never seem to be seeing improvement despite all our tax increases because everything is just going to somehow magically come together at some later time, despite all evidence to the contrary. Thanks for outing yourself as part of the main problem we have though - a delusional voter base who perpetuates collapse but still somehow manages to be annoyingly self righteous about it.
Current metrics from early 2026:
* Office Vacancy Crisis: Portland's Central Business District (CBD) recorded a historic high vacancy rate of 34.7% to 36.3% in late 2025/early 2026. This is nearly double the national average and exceeds other struggling markets like San Francisco.
* Job Market Decline: The Portland region lost approximately 8,800 jobs in 2025, ranking it the fourth worst performing metro region in the nation. Multnomah County's unemployment rate reached 5.5% in August 2025, more than a full percentage point higher than the national average.
* Property Value Collapse: High-profile sales illustrate a massive loss in asset value. For example, the US Bancorp Tower ("Big Pink") sold for $45 million in July 2025—an 88% decline from its $373 million valuation in 2015.
* Investment Attractiveness: The city now ranks 80th (second to last) in national real estate attractiveness, a sharp fall from its 2017 ranking of 3rd.
* Homelessness Growth: While homelessness trended down nationally by an estimated 3% to 7% in 2025, Oregon's homeless population grew by 35% since 2023. The Portland tri-county area saw a 61% increase in its homeless population over a two-year period.
* Drug Overdose Rates: Although total overdose deaths in Oregon decreased by 22% in 2024 (mirroring a national trend), the state’s methamphetamine overdose death rate (26.3 per 100,000) remains more than double the national rate (10.3 per 100,000).
* Taxation: High-income earners in Portland face a top marginal tax rate of 14.7%, which is reported as the highest among peer cities.
* Oregon property crime rate is 36% higher than U.S. average. And as noted in the article, good luck getting police assistance when you are a victim.
**Claim: 36.3% Commercial Vacancy Rates
You are presenting one single crisis—the commercial office real estate crash—as three separate economic failures. A 35% downtown office vacancy rate is brutal for commercial landlords, but it does not equal a collapsed regional economy. This is a structural shift in how people work (the permanent shift to remote/hybrid), not a sign that work has stopped. While office space sits empty, Portland's industrial and manufacturing real estate market remains incredibly tight, with vacancy rates consistently in the single digits. That "80th in the nation" metric measures how easy it is for out-of-state equity firms to extract quick returns from office buildings, not the actual economic output or livability of the city.
**Claim: The Portland region lost approximately 8,800 jobs in 2025, and Multnomah County's unemployment rate reached 5.5%.
Citing 2025 job losses in Multnomah County ignores the massive, nationwide tech contraction that occurred during that exact window. The Portland metro area has a high concentration of tech and information sector jobs. When interest rates rose globally, the tech sector shed hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide. This was a sector-specific contraction, not a broad municipal failure. Meanwhile, wages for the lowest quartile of earners in Oregon have grown significantly over the last few years, narrowing the inequality gap. 40% of those losses were from Intel alone, which has less than nothing to do with Oregon or Portland's economy. Do you know what ignoring the specifics of those 8,800 job losses provides for you? More confirmation bias.
**Claim: The Portland tri-county area saw a 61% increase in its homeless population over a two-year period, and Oregon's homeless population grew by 35% since 2023.
This metric is a lagging indicator of the housing affordability crisis that peaked alongside inflation. What this statistic completely ignores is the placement rate. Multnomah County and the Joint Office have moved thousands of people out of homelessness and into permanent or supportive housing. The issue isn't that the county is doing nothing; it's that the national housing crisis is pushing people onto the streets faster than local infrastructure can build new units. It is a capacity pipeline issue, not a "delusional voter" issue. With that said, I will concede that SHS tax spending hasn't been optimized. They should be spending the bulk of that $750 million/year on treatment facilities and public housing. Kind of like this https://multco.us/news/board-approves-construction-plan-247-sobering-and-crisis-stabilization-center-facility-track. Spending the money on short-term, consumable services is NOT going to work. If anything, it's going to attract more consumers of the services. We need mandatory treatment laws and the capacity to actually enforce it.
**Claim: Total overdose deaths in Oregon decreased by 22% in 2024, but the state’s methamphetamine overdose death rate remains more than double the national rate.
You literally concede the win here: total overdose deaths decreased by 22% in 2024. You cannot claim "things are not improving" and in the very same breath admit that drug overdose fatalities dropped by nearly a quarter in a single year. Highlighting the state's historical struggle with meth to distract from a massive, life-saving year-over-year improvement is moving the goalposts. That 22% drop is the direct result of recent policy adjustments (like recriminalization and targeted fentanyl enforcement) that you claim aren't happening.
**Claim: High-income earners in Portland face a top marginal tax rate of 14.7%.
Citing a 14.7% "top marginal tax rate" is a deliberate misrepresentation of how taxes actually work. That rate only applies to the margins of the highest income brackets, not the effective tax rate that citizens actually pay. More importantly, you conveniently omitted that Oregon has a 0% sales tax. When you look at the total state and local tax burden (property, income, and sales combined), Oregon routinely ranks right in the middle of the pack nationally. Singling out the income tax while ignoring the lack of a sales tax is a bad-faith economic argument.
**Claim: Oregon's property crime rate is 36% higher than the U.S. average.
Pointing to an aggregate "36% higher" figure ignores the current, aggressive downward trend in Portland's crime data. You have to look at the momentum. For example, motor vehicle theft in Portland dropped by an astounding 40% to 45% in 2024 compared to the highs of 2022/2023, largely due to targeted police task forces. Vandalism and burglary have also seen double-digit percentage drops. The peak of the crisis was in 2022; the data from the last 18 months shows a steep and undeniable decline.
To reiterate my original point, this article exists as self-flagellation for those who only see something different than 2016. Not for those who understand hard times were had, agree we have more work to do, and acknowledge the improvements.
I was here in 2016, I was also here in rough times during the ‘80s, so I’m not living in a dream-world where everything is expected to be peak livability. I am a native Portlander and have experienced all the ups and downs. However, I’d like to address a few things you’ve said to offer my viewpoint:
Office vacancy isn’t just a “remote work shift.” Remote work is real—but a 35%+ downtown vacancy rate is not typical, even for hybrid-era cities. Comparable West Coast metros also face elevated vacancy, yet Portland consistently ranks among the highest. This extends beyond landlords: downtown vacancy directly affects small businesses, transit revenue, the tax base, and public safety. Fewer workers downtown → fewer customers → more storefront closures → reduced street activity → increased disorder (both perceived and real). Calling this a “structural shift” doesn’t negate its economic consequences. A permanent shift can still represent a loss.
Blaming job losses primarily on national tech contraction also oversimplifies local conditions. Not all losses were in tech, and regional recovery has lagged behind peer metros. A 5.5% unemployment rate remains elevated relative to stronger-performing cities. In Multnomah County and the broader Portland area, job losses have been concentrated not just in technology, but also in professional and business services, retail trade, and segments of leisure and hospitality—sectors closely tied to downtown foot traffic and office utilization. Wage growth at the low end is a positive development, but much of it has been inflation-driven and does not meaningfully offset cost-of-living pressures.
Describing homelessness as a “pipeline issue” does not counter criticism—it reinforces it. While placements into housing are occurring, a 61% increase in homelessness indicates inflow is FAR exceeding outflow. That growth rate is substantially higher than in most peer cities and shows no clear sign of slowing. If we’re being honest it’s largely driven by this state’s ongoing mishandling of mental health resources coupled with a permissive (almost to the point of supportive) city/county attitude towards street camping, drug use, and lack of law enforcement for most crime.
Also, recent improvement in overdose deaths does not mean the crisis is really getting much better. A one-year decline following a sharp spike is often a partial correction, not evidence of sustained progress. The baseline still matters, and both Multnomah County and Oregon remain well above historical and national norms. Narcan data adds important context: overdose reversals have surged alongside the crisis. In Multnomah County, Narcan administrations number in the thousands annually (via EMS and community distribution). In contrast, similarly sized metros typically report lower per-capita administrations, indicating that Portland’s overdose burden—and the need for repeated reversals—remains unusually high even with intervention efforts. In other words, we may be getting better at preventing deaths from overdoses, but that does not mean fewer potentially fatal overdoses are occurring. I do agree with you on the misuse of tax spending and the need for mandatory treatment laws and ability to enforce this.
Your tax burden argument overlooks behavioral effects. While Oregon has no sales tax, that does not negate concerns about high marginal income tax rates. Nearby Vancouver has a sales tax, yet has still attracted migration from Portland. Location decisions are influenced by marginal rates and perceived competitiveness, not just overall rankings. Being “middle of the pack” does not imply neutrality, especially when the tax structure leans heavily on income.
Finally, crime declines from peak levels are positive, but they do not represent normalization. A 40–45% reduction in car theft followed an extreme surge; rates can remain elevated relative to historical and national baselines. Property crime still sits roughly 36% above the national average, which is not offset by a short-term downward trend in one area. For many residents, repeated theft, vandalism, and property damage remain ongoing realities. Encampment-related fire risk is also a persistent concern that has not been addressed.
Overall, my opinion is that good intent and incremental (sometimes performative, sometimes nonsensical) policy are not substitutes for measurable outcomes. Being clear-eyed about these conditions is not self-flagellation; in many circles, it reflects a demand for accountability and for data-driven improvements in livability that go well beyond current results. Frustration over continued decline in quality of life is understandable: downtown vitality, homelessness and drug use, and public safety remain unresolved at a structural level. If you find the speed and impact of outcomes satisfactory, please know that it is difficult for many to similarly accept that this is the best we can do.
the childish use of the f word, and your last sentence indicate your agenda: a narrow view of the city, focused on subgroups whom you believe are disadvantaged. I quit the Portand City Club for the same reason: it no longer serves as a neutral think tank for PORTLAND, but for marginal interests.
I’m actually pretty moderate when it comes to opinion on policy serving a wider variety of socioeconomic classes, but if you think the last 20 years of American, Oregon, or Portland political policy has been detrimental to the wealthy, then you’re arguing in bad faith. People may be leaving because of that policy, but it’s mostly because they’re greedy pieces of shit and has almost nothing to do with existential threat. With that said, I agree we need to bring the cumulative local tax rate down to become competitive again.
You hate the successful wealthy people that pay the vast majority of the taxes that fund services? 50% of American either do not pay any federal income tax, OR pay negative taxes (i.e., receive money) through tax credits and/or any number of federal assistance handouts. We have the most progressive tax system int he world by a mile.
You could move to Europe where EVERYONE pays 50% tax and a 16-22% sales tax for "FREE" health care that is terrible. The result is that Mississippi, the poorest state in the USA now has a higher median family income than Great Britain, France and Germany.
Meanwhile the GDP of the USA is 30% higher after being nearly equivalent to the EU when it was launched in 2000.
See my comment.
Which local government employs you ? Be honest.
This retort rates high on the Fog Index.....that is to say the ratio of data to words. Your assertions are not an empirical rebuttal to the author's report. I appreciate your wish to try Utopia-building, but you will realize that ain't how humans are wired. We can't even make families function in the vision you seek, what arrogance makes you think the Peacock Caucus can do it for a city? Especially in an environment of declining revenue and an eroding tax base.
As Thomas Sowell teaches, there are no solutions only trade-offs. I suggest the trade-offs for your naive progressive societal revolution are more dangerous and deleterious to more people than the options available to us that other cities employ and that Portland once practiced.
Mildred Schwab is weeping from beyond the grave.
The irony of your entire response being pseudo-intellectual pretentious hand waving isn't lost here. The funny part of all this is that by almost every metric that isn't directly tied to national/global economics, Portland is improving. Because, once again, it doesn't look like 2016 RIGHT THIS SECOND means that every action by a local government you're so desperate to discredit is a failure. To your credit, you had a good point earlier; If you're so interested in living in a city that would rather live on one knee to the Oligarchy, you might give Austin, Texas a shot.
Again, defend your claim...show me "every metric where Portland is improving", but most importantly compared to what? Portland in 2020? How about compared to other mid-size metro areas in the US today...you know a relevant comparison.
I’d say sobering statistics about the direction of Portland yet nothing seems to be sober about Portland. I want to believe these stats might make a difference in how Portland voters might vote, yet………Angelita Morillo has a gazillion followers on Bluesky and Instagram, she must be doing something right, I’ll vote for her—-typical uninformed Portland voter.
THANK YOU for summerizing what I've been sadly observing. Idealism untethered from common sense economics or basic management skills is sinking our beautiful city.
PLEASE email this to every city and county commissioner.
Apparently you missed the NYT article from March 25th titled "Portland, Ore.: Weird, but Life Is Good"
A key point for me was when the Mayor requested recently that city workers come to their offices (instead or working at home) at least 3 days a week. They said no.
It is interesting how divided we are and how much we want to stay anonymous in our opinions, although we are not shy about denigrating others'. I credit Michelle for her transparency and her homework. I fault KBJ and some of the detractors for hiding behind their masks, but they also make some plausible points. Portland can be weird, great and flawed all at the same time. I have lived Downtown for 22 years and worked at Big Pink for most of 12 years before that. I walk to most of the places I frequent, from music venues to cultural venues to restaurants and services. Over those years things were ascendant, declined a bit and were ascendant again. Before the Pandemic under the Trump administration, development Downtown occurred rapidly under tax incentivised development vehicles resulting in record multifamily and mixed use development like the Ritz Carlton. But George Floyd was murdered and we were reminded of the Country's broken promises. Antifa and the Proud Boys did battle on our streets and took it out on the symbols of Capitalism; Starbucks, Target, Pioneer Place, Apple. A lot of smaller businesses were collateral damage. This environment continued through the pandemic, with PPB consumed with the battle playing out while crime blossomed elsewhere, Fentanyl arrived and the Police were vilified. I was present when Antifa pulled Abe and Teddy down in the South Parks Blocks. By today's standards, both men were deeply flawed. Judged by preceding generations and their own, they moved society and culture in a positive direction, many flaws notwithstanding.
The Pandemic changed everything, slowing development and raising development costs, halting tourism and cultural and entertainment events, creating financial crises for hotels, restaurants and cultural and entertainment venues and changing how people work and where they live. WFH bolstered the suburbs, but devastated commercial real estate in the central city and the transportation networks Portland had taken years to construct around a Central City HUB. It also drove up prices of residential real estate in the suburbs and beyond, an issue we are dealing with today as an unaffordable housing market.
Yes, KBJ, Portland is getting better than it was during the Pandemic. The direct action protests have largely stopped. Window breaking still happens, but much less frequently. Starbucks and Target are gone and the random window breaking is largely a function of someone in psychosis or on Meth. There are fewer homeless in tents, because we have more shelter beds (that is changing tho) and tent handouts are not being publically funded. But Michelle's stats about who is leaving and who is coming in are still directionally correct and population growth statewide or county to county is still pathetic, based upon our past. The property values Downtown are now based on economic hope for future "net operating income" and are a half of actual replacement value. Think about that a second. Most hotels Downtown are in receivership, awaiting sale. We are a state, city and county with a highly progressive tax structure. It is intended to be highly equitable. Those who can are helping those who cannot help themselves. But if those who can are leaving and being replaced by those who can't, we run out of revenue to help everybody stay healthy, housed, safe and fed.
I love Portland. I love Oregon. But I also know what it is to face reality. We have to create an environment that lures visitors to us to deposit new income and leave and sustain our local businesses. We need out of state businesses to set up shop here and help landlords pay property taxes and pay taxes on their profits. We need them to create jobs for new and existing Oregonians that will in turn grow revenues. When we have population growth, developers will build homes. again. Why would you build homes for a population that cannot afford them? We need to stop the Nimbyism.
I look forward to a debate with someone who is not hiding behind a mask.
I think we all need to calm down, go back to our day jobs, and hand the reins of the city over to the 3 most level-headed, clear-eyed, non-dogmatic humans in sight: Perkins, Weinstein, and Meieran. There. Done.
Data always lags a bit, but rarely can a serious analyst not extrapolate to this year. And, the tone indicates you are skeptical...or worse, dismissive of this researchers efforts.
All correspondents here miss the Root Cause: reflex voting for one party. Doesn't matter which, blindly Republican strongholds are also badly managed and lack services. Oregon, Portland, Metro, counties - all are simply incompetent to MANAGE anything: the Obama software debacle, COVID shots to favorite - unionized - groups first, underspending our generously voted taxes , etc. -,Metro can't even run a toy train!! The current mayor is a salutary exception: a MANAGER and proven business leader. Keep voting for leftie Dems, and you will perpetuate this endless cycle. Vote for anyone who had a middle management job in a MacDonald's and we will all gain!
Michelle Milla's data tells us what went wrong in Portland, but to understand why it is so hard to fix, we need to look at how the 2022 charter reform was designed and by whom.
The charter reform that restructured Portland's city council — expanding it to 12 members elected by ranked-choice voting from four multi-member districts — was not primarily designed to solve the accountability and performance failures Milla documents. It was designed to change who gets elected.
The blueprint came largely from two reports produced in 2019 and 2020 by the City Club of Portland, a members-only civic organization that operates largely out of public view, whose work fed directly into the Charter Review Commission process.¹
The City Club reports are candid about their priorities. The research committee's charge was explicitly to assess "whether the City of Portland's current method of electing City representatives provides equitable representation for all residents."² The entire evaluative framework was built around an "equity lens" consisting of five questions, none of which asked whether the resulting government would deliver better services, spend money more effectively, or hold officials accountable for results.³ Competence, performance, and fiscal accountability do not appear in the criteria at all.
This was not an oversight. It reflected a deliberate choice about what the reform was for. The 2020 report is explicit that multi-member districts combined with ranked-choice voting would benefit organized voting blocs — precisely the nonprofit, activist, and public-sector coalition that has dominated Portland politics for years.⁴ What the report framed as increasing equity was also, in practice, a structural advantage for the political infrastructure already in place.
The reform was sold to voters as modernization and inclusion. What it actually delivered was consolidation. The same coalition that produced the accountability failures Milla documents — the missed targets, the unspent hundreds of millions, the homelessness spending that grew the homeless population, the permit system that failed its own standards for two decades — is now more durably entrenched in a system specifically engineered to favor organized, ideologically coherent blocs over diffuse voters who simply want functioning streets and honest government.
The City Club reports do acknowledge, briefly, that "a system should rely on structures that result in better representation, rather than relying on the benevolence of individual elected officials."⁵ That is exactly right. But the structures they designed optimize for the identity of elected officials, not their accountability to the people they serve. Those are not the same thing, and Portland is now paying the price for confusing them.
Until reform candidates emerge who are willing to run on performance and accountability — and until Portland's political culture treats those as legitimate governing values rather than code for opposition to equity — the electoral machinery now in place will continue to produce the same coalition, the same priorities, and the same results.
---
Footnotes
¹ City Club of Portland, *New Government for Today's Portland: Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System* (February 2019); City Club of Portland, *New Government for Today's Portland, Part II: Rethinking How We Vote* (August 2020). The City Club of Portland is a private membership organization. Its research reports are produced by volunteer committees of members and are adopted by member vote before being released as policy recommendations.
² City Club of Portland, *Rethinking How We Vote*, p. 1.
³ City Club of Portland, *Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System*, pp. 4–5. The five equity lens criteria ask whether the process leads to diverse candidates, whether policy outcomes are equitable, whether the process encourages participation, whether it is responsive, and whether it maintains equity long-term.
⁴ City Club of Portland, *Rethinking How We Vote*, pp. 12–14. The report notes that ranked-choice voting with multi-member districts benefits candidates who can appeal to organized voting blocs, and explicitly recommends this system as producing more candidates from "historically marginalized communities" — communities that in Portland are substantially organized through the nonprofit and activist sectors.
⁵ City Club of Portland, *Rethinking 100 Years of the Commission System*, p. 19.
I was walking across town Friday evening and noticed the absence of people on a very pleasant Friday night. Hopefully people will return to the downtown area. I think businesses and government should insist that people work in person or fire them as I think the zoom and computer culture is a dead end for the human spirit. Last evening I saw a man kneeling on the ground picking at something repetitively and again saw a person obvious stoned staring at his phone with a pen in hand. He was in a steady pose for way too long for it to be normal. I think everyone is disturbed to witness this degradation of human potential from drug addiction. We carry these images with us. Why don't we just commit people so afflicted to short term psychiatric care for a maximum of six weeks. Alot of people think these people are rotting with their rights on. Many physicians feel this is very damaging to their brain in permanent ways. I don't think about it that way. If they get detoxed, fed, cleaned up, sometimes medicated, and get a chance to use their voice to explain themselves so we can understand them, we will get to know what they are like without drugs in their system for a few weeks. We can give them the opportunity to begin anew. Once the city solves the absence of a public presence downtown and the severely mentally ill homeless problem, other problems will seem just as urgent to address. There is the potential for groups of people to solve community problems, not just make thing worse. I have yet to see that happen with the two issues above, so yes, I think the city is flailing about trying to get some traction. I think the downward slide was preceded by the legalization of needle and drug paraphenalia distribution started with an Oregon Law in 1989. This legislation assisted people to destroy their lives and much like Measure 110 increases the social costs of addiction in the community. We have blinded ourselves to the way in which it incentivizes drug use, so much so, that no politicians in the state are willing to repeal it.
Good dialog. I agree with Mr. McCarthy that the Mayor has done a great job of herding ideological cats, each with their own agenda. I agree with Olie Park's analysis of the results of Charter Reform, although the biggest disappointment to me is that the City Manager's Office has not been able to move faster in creating coordination and efficiencies within and between the bureaus under the professional management they lacked. I suspect that is because it would assume the new City Council would enact clear and logical policy through democratic compromise the provide direction to the professionals and they everyone would stay in their lane. So far, that has not happened so far. And I agree, instead of getting a City Council where each district is represented by people who understand not just their district, but understand the functioning of government and fiscal constraints, we have created a new level of disfunction. This dialog needs to proceed openly leading into the election if we want to be serious about bringing Portland back. I suggest we as voters in District Four insist that each candidate provide their Vision for Portland, 2028 and what they think needs to happen to move us toward that vision. Be nice to do this openly and without threat of violence between those who may disagree.