Rumor What's going on in Portland?

Another beautiful evening here in the City of Roses. The FAMS tonight did the waterfront loop. Absolutely gorgeous evening.

 

Where's all the smoke and ruin? How did you edit out all the homeless camps?

 

wrong side of the river.....lol couldn't resist

 

What data is not made public? If there is not data made to the public then how do we know what costs what and what may have a percent increase based on inability to solve that portion of the many faceted problem? I see this as backing my claim that there are X factors that will skew the numbers that aren't quantifiable by some numbers.
You are asserting your stance based off reports that dont provide the full picture. For example... If unquantifiable costs equate to 3% of the financial costs but that goes up by 50% due to not being solved, the total increase on the budget is not that big of a hit. However if that unquantifiable factor is 35%$ of the financial cost and it increases by 50% by not being solved, that is a huge hit on the total financial costs.

The end result is we just disagree on philosophies of how to handle those who do not want to be a productive part of our society/economy.

Saying you are addressing the problem of homeless without segregating the homelesss into several categories is painting with a broad brush. Sorry if you disagree, but one cant discuss the homeless without discussing separately what drives different people to be homeless. It isn't just one answer. And in this city the bulk of it is addiction.
That last line that we disagree with. you are going by all available quantifiable evidence on paper. i'm going with street sense and putting an estimation on a bunch of X factors that I believe will happen based on my close history with addicts and witnessing their behaviors for 30 plus years. And this increased cost I believe it will have blows everything else out of the water.

And if we want to go by all available evidence, what better evidence does one have than to look from state to state to see this is not a wide spread solution being used tr solve the homeless problems. In part because each regions has different homeless problems. Drug addicts flock to Portland because of the lenient laws increasing substantially the percent of homeless that are addicts.
I lived in Denver and upstate NY and traveled to NYC daily and the homeless are very different than the bulk of Portland's homeless. For one the other cities had a much higher rate of disabled homeless. Also the average age seemed to be much older than Portland.

Again, were gonna have to agree to disagree on several fronts with regards to Portland. I believe Portland's leniency towards drug abuse and vagrancy has contributed to Portland's homeless percentage. And it is these type of homeless causing the vast majority of the damage.

I believe the answers first come with changing some laws in the state that have contributed and enabled current behaviors we see in the city. Without the changes in laws, it will just be an endless cycle of sweep them up and put a roof over their head.. watch them get up a bit and fall right back down into the streets. All the while addicts from all over the country continue to come here to reep the benefits of the handouts that keep coming.

To me the answer isn't sustainable because it doesn't stop the cycle, and thus, the costs will be ongoing instead of one time.

Even in the SLC example it was noted in the article the rio grande project was supposed to be brief and it has been a longer project than originally predicted and the housing issues continue to arise as they spread the homeless about. Funds were cut for them. But it doesn't say why. Because to put the city in the red? over budget? Not sure, but it wasnt financially feasible or funds wouldn't have been stricken? This then comes down to a budget prioritizing philosophy or political belief. Which is a reallocation of spending to help better finances the housing programs, were they to go nation wide in all major cities.
But to say its financially [possible without a shift in spending and pulling form other are was, is not accurate from what ive read and understand.

 

Portlanders out enjoying the fine weather this morning waiting in a two block line for donuts. All had smiles in their faces though......

 

Right. You're ignoring all evidence, claiming I'm not addressing things I've already addressed (getting treatment for those who need it), and choosing to go with your gut feeling.

This is what we've been doing for years and how we got in the situation we're in now. It doesn't work.

So you're arguing for the sake of arguing to continue a policy that is proven doesn't work, and is even less effective now that the Supreme Court has refused to allow punishing people for being homeless.

It's not a Portland problem. It's not an Oregon problem. It's a problem in every city with a reasonable climate, and even in some with uncomfortable climates. The numbers show that less than 20% of our homeless are transplants. People coming to Portland to take advantage of our laws are not the problem.

So you like the way things are and you do not want them to change. Just remember that is the choice you're making when you start complaining about the state of the streets in Oregon. You want it that way.

 

18th and portland ave.



Gresham



Downtown






NE Portland



Laurelhurst park



East Side







Portland Park



Gateway park



East Side




I could post pictures and pictures and pictures of rampant trashed camps and areas of the city.

There are definitely clean areas too, but it seems its being ignored by those who are privileged enough to be able to afford to live and and/or commute to the nice areas to enjoy, not being invaded by the homeless. Must be nice to be able to afford the ability to avoid/ignore whats going on in almost every area of the city. And I didnt even get up any pics up of the East side along 205 or 92/johnsons creek trail.

 

Im not sure what your talking about. Care to quote the specific statement so I can follow you?
I didn't claim you didn't address getting treatment in my latest post. Can you show me please where you say I did?
Or can you please clarify our first sentence and what you are referring to? You said we agree on certain things and I agree we agree, so Ive stopped discussing them as you asked me to do???


On the second bolded part, what policy am I arguing for that has proven doesn't work? See you ARE painting in a broad brush, and not pointing to specifcs of your rebuttal. You keep saying its against the law to punish the homeless as if Ive said that.
I have not, so not sure what your point to that is as well? When you are able to better clarify yourself, maybe I will then be better able to understand what you are even referring to or talking about?

What specific points of contention do you have with what Ive said and Ill try to address them to the best of my ability. However, this comment I'm quoting, is saying I said something other than what I said in the statements it is quoting.

I never claimed you are not addressing anything you have already addressed.
I'm not and haven't argued any one policy, so not sure how you can say anything is proven to not work?

 

Beautiful day in your hood.

 

Some of them look like they ought to eat a few less donuts.

 

And the Portland metro area has what, about 2.3 Million people? And Portland has what, a little over 600,000?

 

What you're advocating for is the policy of making people earn their way off the street. Letting them remain homeless until they meet a given standard. That doesn't work.

They'll just remain homeless and any other solution will cost us more and be less effective than housing first.

 

Very nice. We love that place. I actually went to kindergarten there in 1977. Hope you had a great time.

 

I thought I recognized you.......

 

It is nice to live where there are no homeless camps nor will there ever be but that doesn't mean that the majority of us out here don't care about the homeless camps nor about the homeless.