Rumor What's going on in Portland?

Let's get the people who want housing housed, then we'll know how many don't want housing. Almost nobody would rather sleep under a under a Portland bridge in December for free when they could be sleeping in a warm apartment for free, with no additional rules. If we get most people in homes now, they can wait the 6 months or a year to get into the programs we currently have available.

Those who would prefer the bridge in December will not be as much of a problem without the huge homeless population.

I think you'll find (as every other city who has done this has found) that the people who resist housing are resisting the hoops they have to jump through to keep that housing. Housing first has no additional hoops. Just a better quality of life than homeless, as well as opportunities for those who want them.

 

Do you have any evidence to support that disbelief? You've not showed anything which would refute my claims housing people saves the municipality money, keeps public spaces cleaner and safer, and is better for the individual than being homeless.

Those are my only claims, and I've posted evidence to support them.

Do you have any evidence which disputes these claims?

 

Absolutely agree. However, we don't need tiny homes or mobile homes (though, I'd welcome them as opposed to what we have now). We can just offer them apartments and hotels. There are more than enough vacancies in Portland metro area for all of our homeless. That's the simplest solution IMO.

 

i didnt say it was against the rules insult but when you tell someone to get a clue its saying they are clueless, its belittling and insulting.
Especially how it was out at me like im some privileged dude.
But you can certainly defend that type of communication if you like. Im telling ya its ridiculous. whether you agree or not is irrelevant to my opinion of how i was addressed in his post.

Now. If i sat here and told you to get a clue and your priviliged mod statis has you sitting up on some pedistal blah blah blah, im prettyy sire you wouldnt take it kindly either.

my point is ive long been labeled and accused of being full of drama.
Yet time and again i point out how others are the ones who degrade a conversation and no one has my back.
If i were to tell people to get a clue and ridicule thier peivileged lifestyle this place would come down sooo hard on me....

such glaring double standards and hypocritical behavior.
I mean this guy told me he doesnt like confrontations!! But comes at me like that and then...

yeah. If people dont see whats going on in here ya never will...

 

“Fun” meaning it sure looks like they do whatever they want. They have free reign, no rules, just hang out and plop down where they want. They are Fucking BAR B Q’ing like they are camping in Lake Tahoe with friends in some cases. No more. The people who are flat out “choosing” this “lifestyle” need to feel like it’s not going to be as free reign anymore. They have to do both - solve the underlying issue, which is massively complex, and the short term shit that 99% of the city has to see and smell and hear just living in our city/metro area. It’s simply not fair to the 99%. Sorry. The ones who are homeless, they need help. But they don’t get to destroy the city along the way.

 

Yeah....not ok with me. Free apartments for anyone who wants to not work and be addicted to drugs seems like maybe it’s not fair or going to fly with the neighbor who works and pays rent each month? How does that work?

 

So you would rather spend double or more to have a higher number of them homeless and making our public spaces the way they are now? This is the choice we have. The courts say we are not allowed to prosecute them for being homeless. What is the alternative?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...barring-prosecution-of-homeless-idUSKBN1YK1EA

 

Yes. This is it. Obviously you don't move a violent felon next to a grade school. These people have identities. The police know about their history. The best place for them can be determined during the housing process.

 

You can't force them to be there and most will definitely not want to be there.

 

sigh.. you are completely missing the point and the bigger picture....

 

very close to my opinion. Its like a work release program of sorts.

no way man. Not wiping them out. I totally have empathy. Just not sympathy.

Im talking tough love. Work it off. There are for hire signs everywhere.

if they arent willing to go to work to be a contributing member when the government puts a roof over thier head, finds the work for them and provides transportation(bus fare compensation, etc) then they should be confined to the roof over thier heads and not allowed to travel around the city destroying it.

now of course, like ive said (and rarely acknowledged) that its not a simple issue. its a complex, multifaceted issue.
I just read in this report:
https://www.streetroots.org/news/20...p-addiction-homelessness-housing-and-recovery

this:

“More than 90 people died homeless on the streets of Multnomah County in 2019 alone. In more than half of the cases, drug or alcohol toxicity caused or contributed to their death.

Nearly half of the people living unsheltered on Portland’s streets last year reported living with substance abuse issues, either alcohol or drugs. One in four people sleeping outside reported having both a mental illness and substance use disorder.”

Giving them a roof isnt going to solve shit if the root of the problem isnt first addressed.
The roofs over thier heads should be mental help/recovery institutions and drug rehab facilities. they should not just get free rent in apartments and hotels.

And so @Phatguysrule when you ask how it would enable, this is what i speak of.

Just giving them a roof would enable them to continue thier self destructive habits and addictions.

And these people cant be helped until they decide they have a problem and genuinely need help. until they come to that step in recovery, no amount of giving is going to do anything but enable. I know this. I live with an alcoholic and im seriously struggling with his repetitively bad behavior and how ive enabled him.

To give them free rent, to me, is putting the cart before the horse.

and we arent even touching upon the percent of homeless that are basically anarchists and want no part of our current society and sleep during the day and set fires at night.

Unfortunately( and i do think portland is a bit more of an anomaly and not all cities’ homeless are like the ones here) there is a decent percent of people here who do not want to participate or contribute and they are here because this is one of a few ground zero points for anarchists and extremists who will push for change through force and destruction.

@UncleCliffy'sDaddy and @Hoopguru nailed it when they said unfortunately there is a percent of people that will not participate in a productive, society contributing, life.

For the percent of the homeless that are mentally stable and truly stricken with a financial dilemma forcing them on the streets,
Im all housing them, finding work for them that will meet a modest but livable lifestyle and having them start paying rent as a rent to own type deal.

But they have to work.

Part of our increasing inflAtion issues are because people wont work. People are making more on unemployment and stimulus payments that they wont work.

If that isn't a sign that when given a choice these people will be lazy, i don't know what is, but its clearly an enabling problem.

in conclusion, like a few others have said, there is no easy answer and thats why i push back at the narrative that it is simple to house them and the problem will go away or whatever symantics want to be used here.

The reality is, until they want help, they will just continue to destroy the housing given to them And in short time it will be a condemned type of building and they will be on the streets again. Or complaining that the city neglects them because their place is run down.

Ive lived too close to addicts to think that one can just give them things and they will turn things around. No. They will use it up and ask for more. And more and more.

im tired of paying for it in my personal life and im damn sure not gonna vote to pay for it for strangers through taxes. Not without a clear agenda and end game lined out that they agree to contractually that includes them not sitting aRound under that roof, but getting out and working to help our economy get back on track, or get the help needed to get back on track themselves.

 

I have not seen one report that addresses and equates the addiction problem of many of the homeless in Portland and the odds of them destroying what is given to them and the costs of cLeaning that destruction up and rebuilding again.

Until i see that factored into the costs of the surveys, i have nothing to prove.

Show me a report that factors the behaviors of addicts into the equation and ill gladly reevaluate my stance.

 

Every report I sent you the last time we discussed this showed that it was cheaper to house them then allow them to be homeless (including addicts). That's including damage caused while homeless and while homed.

You are choosing to pay more to keep them homeless. You are choosing to have damaged cities and parks by keeping them homeless.

They are certainly going to keep doing drugs if they stay homeless.

You can't put them somewhere they don't want to be just because they are homeless. That's the law.

So forcing them to work is not an option.

 

I think it would be impossible to provide enough or build enough because so many would want it. I mean, if it was a basic studio, small, people would grab it. Who wouldn’t?

 

I apologize for getting too aggravated and going personal.

This reminds me of a friend of mine who is an emotional terrorist. He loves to say things/ pick old wounds/ have a take etc that he knows will illicit an intense reaction from friends or family. He gets attention that way. And then when people do react, he gets to play the victim and say “why is everyone always mad at me?”

I should know better.