The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness.
What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. As many who want to and are able to work should be hired to help feed others and to maintain the facilities. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities were available they should send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who did not physically resist.
They should require custodial care for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current housing first attempts to fix the problem. Most of our homeless lack the capacity to live unassisted in modern society but that is not an excuse to destroy our beautiful cities for the rest of us.
You forgot to mention that 2 were endorsed by the local socialist party (DSA) —Green and Koyama Lane. They support the following:
Defunding the Police – Advocating for cuts to police budgets and redirecting funds to community services.
Wealth Redistribution – Pushing for direct payments to individuals and radical wealth redistribution.
Opposition to Capitalism – Advocating for the dismantling of capitalism in favor of socialist systems.
Support for Protests and Civil Disobedience – Backing protests, sometimes alongside more radical groups, which can lead to violence and property damage.
Prison Abolition – Calling for alternatives to incarceration and the eventual abolition of prisons.
Thank you for the vital reporting through this transition, it has been a true public service.
One thing which bothered me during the campaign, and which you are repeating, is that:
"Most of the incoming councilors are on the record as opposing the outgoing council’s policy of arresting unhoused individuals who refuse shelter."
The important question is whether those councilors will spend political capital to change the policy. "Opposing" is just posturing. Morillo, Lane and Green face re-election campaigns in less than two years, in a city which wants to see progress on homelessness, quickly. If they aren't going to take the political risk to back up their stance, then their opinion on the current policy doesn't really matter.
I understand you believe people should have the freedom to camp where they choose, but I think we’re missing the larger picture here. Allowing people to remain on the streets without any real consequences or support can ultimately harm both them and the community. When people refuse shelter, they often face heightened risks of violence, addiction, and illness in environments that are unsafe and unsanitary. It's not compassionate to let people live in these conditions.
While we need to provide shelter and supportive services, there will also be a point where enforcement becomes necessary for those who refuse help. If someone is offered a safe space to stay but continually chooses to remain in dangerous, unhealthy conditions, then consequences, including arrests, might be the only way to ensure that people get the care and safety they need. Simply allowing individuals to do as they please when it’s clear they need more than just a place to sleep doesn’t lead to real recovery or long-term solutions.
A balanced approach is key—offering shelter and services, but also enforcing some level of accountability for those who refuse help. That’s how we can begin to break the cycle of homelessness in a compassionate, meaningful way. Mayor Wilson had said arrests will be needed. What are your thoughts on holding individuals accountable while still providing support
Javier, I must be holding my cards too close, I *agree* with your comment, it's inhumane to let people live on the street. What bothered me during the campaign was that the question was always asked as "Do you support the Mayor's camping ban." That let many candidates play it both ways. They could win points with the "We can't arrest our way out of the problem" crowd by answering that they were against arresting campers. The question should have been, "If elected, will you work to change city policy regarding arresting campers who refuse available shelter."
I disagree with your take about yesterday's City Council meeting. I thought it was beautiful. It was like watching a group of old jazz musicians play a standard for the 758th time, while a group of young 'uns scrambled with the sheet music. "Two sharps, that's 'D major,' right?" LOL.
The tape of the session should be used for educational purposes for incoming newbie legislators -- of any body -- as an example of how not to get outfoxed.
Thanks for the clarification. Even “Kid Glove Keith” finally agreed arrests will be necessary for those that refuse shelter. I’m not hopeful he will have enough spine to make it happen though. And given that Wilson doesn’t understand his very limited powers and who we elected to City Council and Multnomah County (huge lurch to the left) I’m expecting the terribly unkind status quo we enable to continue. Portland has truly morphed into a cruel city.
No need to arrest the non violent.
The major issue in homelessness is not the lack of housing. It's the refusal of society to say no. No, you can't camp in this city. No, you can't shit in the streets. No, you can't panhandle aggressively. No, you can't shoot up publicly and leave your used needles lying around. The fact that we are not going to allow you to destroy our city by doing these things is not our problem. It's your problem. You can solve your problem by not doing drugs, getting help for your mental problems, getting a job, and sharing rent with others so inclined until you can afford a place of your own, probably in a lower cost community. This is not going to happen because the people we have elected allow the homeless to wallow in their victimhood rather than accept personal responsibility for their self destructiveness.
What specific steps should be taken by cities to deal with the problem? Cities should use all existing shelters and further provide simple shelter space with surplus military tents with mess and recreational tents, a medical tent and restroom and shower facilities (the way I lived in the army) on leased or purchased unused commercial or industrial sites on the outskirts of the city. As many who want to and are able to work should be hired to help feed others and to maintain the facilities. Individuals could use surplus military squad tents or their own for sleeping. When those facilities were available they should send in crews to clean up existing encampments, without arresting anyone who did not physically resist.
They should require custodial care for those who are so mentally or drug addicted that they cannot care for themselves. We did a huge disservice to the mentally ill when we closed rather than reform our state mental hospitals. We need them back. This approach actually would cost far less and be far more effective than the current housing first attempts to fix the problem. Most of our homeless lack the capacity to live unassisted in modern society but that is not an excuse to destroy our beautiful cities for the rest of us.
XXX
They say socialism kills greed.
If so, it's first victims are hope, motivation, dignity, and respect.
Well their first meeting was quite the sh&$show. If you haven’t check out Richard Cheverton’s take. It’s simultaneously eye opening and depressing. https://open.substack.com/pub/portlanddissent/p/the-blind-leading-the-halt?r=12nari&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
We’re excited to see how the coalition politics and innovative policies develop.
Here’s an informative post on the chaos of the 1st Portland City Council meeting:
https://open.substack.com/pub/coachmaxsteele/p/hanukkah-presents-88?r=12nari&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
You forgot to mention that 2 were endorsed by the local socialist party (DSA) —Green and Koyama Lane. They support the following:
Defunding the Police – Advocating for cuts to police budgets and redirecting funds to community services.
Wealth Redistribution – Pushing for direct payments to individuals and radical wealth redistribution.
Opposition to Capitalism – Advocating for the dismantling of capitalism in favor of socialist systems.
Support for Protests and Civil Disobedience – Backing protests, sometimes alongside more radical groups, which can lead to violence and property damage.
Prison Abolition – Calling for alternatives to incarceration and the eventual abolition of prisons.
Thank you for the vital reporting through this transition, it has been a true public service.
One thing which bothered me during the campaign, and which you are repeating, is that:
"Most of the incoming councilors are on the record as opposing the outgoing council’s policy of arresting unhoused individuals who refuse shelter."
The important question is whether those councilors will spend political capital to change the policy. "Opposing" is just posturing. Morillo, Lane and Green face re-election campaigns in less than two years, in a city which wants to see progress on homelessness, quickly. If they aren't going to take the political risk to back up their stance, then their opinion on the current policy doesn't really matter.
Hi Lisa,
I understand you believe people should have the freedom to camp where they choose, but I think we’re missing the larger picture here. Allowing people to remain on the streets without any real consequences or support can ultimately harm both them and the community. When people refuse shelter, they often face heightened risks of violence, addiction, and illness in environments that are unsafe and unsanitary. It's not compassionate to let people live in these conditions.
While we need to provide shelter and supportive services, there will also be a point where enforcement becomes necessary for those who refuse help. If someone is offered a safe space to stay but continually chooses to remain in dangerous, unhealthy conditions, then consequences, including arrests, might be the only way to ensure that people get the care and safety they need. Simply allowing individuals to do as they please when it’s clear they need more than just a place to sleep doesn’t lead to real recovery or long-term solutions.
A balanced approach is key—offering shelter and services, but also enforcing some level of accountability for those who refuse help. That’s how we can begin to break the cycle of homelessness in a compassionate, meaningful way. Mayor Wilson had said arrests will be needed. What are your thoughts on holding individuals accountable while still providing support
Javier, I must be holding my cards too close, I *agree* with your comment, it's inhumane to let people live on the street. What bothered me during the campaign was that the question was always asked as "Do you support the Mayor's camping ban." That let many candidates play it both ways. They could win points with the "We can't arrest our way out of the problem" crowd by answering that they were against arresting campers. The question should have been, "If elected, will you work to change city policy regarding arresting campers who refuse available shelter."
I disagree with your take about yesterday's City Council meeting. I thought it was beautiful. It was like watching a group of old jazz musicians play a standard for the 758th time, while a group of young 'uns scrambled with the sheet music. "Two sharps, that's 'D major,' right?" LOL.
The tape of the session should be used for educational purposes for incoming newbie legislators -- of any body -- as an example of how not to get outfoxed.
Thanks for the clarification. Even “Kid Glove Keith” finally agreed arrests will be necessary for those that refuse shelter. I’m not hopeful he will have enough spine to make it happen though. And given that Wilson doesn’t understand his very limited powers and who we elected to City Council and Multnomah County (huge lurch to the left) I’m expecting the terribly unkind status quo we enable to continue. Portland has truly morphed into a cruel city.
Very sad.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/10/mayoral-candidate-keith-wilson-says-he-can-end-unsheltered-homelessness-in-portland-critics-say-his-plan-has-holes.html