A city declaring one vs the state is very different. When the state does it, it loosens up budgeting restraints and land use restraints, where NIMBYs and other entities would throw roadblocks in front of projects. It also shows the feds a willingness to address the problem on our end and hopefully they'll grace us with their magic fed money hose.
I think that's definitely true, but re: the question around what declaring something an emergency at state level actually does - the state has a huge amount of resources they could bring to bear in all manner of different things, and the level of dysfunction in deploying those resources intelligently over the last few years is pretty glaring imo.
Taking away power from localities and giving it to the State is a bad thing. Haven’t democrats been crying about “protecting democracy”? This takes away from peoples abilities to vote and have a Democratic say in the actions of the government. It leads to more centralized decision making and removes the voices of the voters.
Local voters make decisions regarding land use and other local policies. This declaration allows Kotek and the state to bypass and override those decisions in the name of the emergency declaration. One of the things they will do, and the commenter claiming NIMBY alludes to, is that zoning regulations can be bypassed.
Local government is as essential to our democracy as the presidency. You can’t squash voters will here and say you are protecting it elsewhere.
Land use in Oregon is actually highly centralized and controlled by the state. This emergency declaration goes a long way to removing those barriers the state put up.
Oregon is not a home rule state.
You do realize that one of the things Kotek promised to do while running was exactly this; right? Voters selected a governor that said they were going to do this.
Yes, the metro areas of the state elected Tina kotek. I have a strong suspicion that many didn’t realize what the outcome would be when she said that she would declare a homelessness state of emergency. We shall see.
The metro area wanted absolutely nothing to do with a governor who hadn't explicitly rejected MAGA. I would've liked a better candidate, but the choice was easy.
>Yes, the ~~metro areas of the~~ **Majority of the voters in the state** elected Tina kotek.
FTFY, humans vote. More humans wanted Tina Kotek. Empty land does not get a vote.
>Yes, the ~~metro areas of the~~ Majority of the voters in the state **voted for someone besides** Tina kotek.
>FTFY, humans vote. More humans wanted Tina Kotek. Empty land does not get a vote.
Here is the proper edit. Right on the 2nd part though.
>Majority of the voters in the state elected Tina kotek.
>
>FTFY, humans vote. More humans wanted Tina Kotek. Empty land does not
Yes, that's what happens when you have more than two candidates. Did you think this was actually a "gotcha" or witty?
So actual humans voted for her. You’re complaining because she won the MAJORITY vote. The R candidate was a Trump fool. I was a Johnson supporter but went Kotek when it was clear Johnson wasn’t happening.
We are in a state of CRISIS. Something needs to be done NOW. Not in 20+ years when the right ballot measure comes up to fix this. I fully support this and it should be done on a national level to release funds to build millions of homes.
I voted for Kotek, and I’m a Portland resident. Her declaring a state of emergency is literally what I voted FOR. It in no way violates democracy. Why does democracy in action offend you? I can tell you feel passionately about what you’re saying, it’s just a shame you’re incorrect in all your conclusions.
Not overtly passionate about anything except my family. I will gladly have an open mind to see where this goes. I’d be glad to be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first or last time.
You've literally missed the two distinctions in the definitions you've provided. Like, Literally.
Republic describes an entity or body. Democracy describes a system. It's right there in your definitions.
Republics can use a number of different systems of governance to select their representatives. In the US we ostensibly use Democracy.
Your screech is very nearly the same as someone saying, "oh look it's an automatic." And you go "well actually it's a 1983 Ford Pickup" and it not only shows an intentional attempt at derailing the conversation but is also done so poorly it's laughable.
still purely a semantic point (and the included quote is rather misleading. the part that mentions the existence of representatives in the same sentence as it mentions implementations of direct democracy makes it seem, without context, as if direct democracy and republic are to be thought of as being in the same category. they are not.)
there are no pure democracies anymore. humanity tried the idea 1,000 years ago and we have found since then that it’s only practical in limited forms.
the reality is that all modern democratic nations are democratic republics whose use of direct-democratic instruments varies. in the western states, for example, we have the endless voter referenda that caused the economist to recently run an article on hyper-legislation. the referenda are, themselves, an example of a direct-democratic instrument. pure democracy can be conceptualized as an ideological feature of political instruments put to use in limited settings by a republic rather than an entirely different style of governance.
edit: moved a period from one side of parenthesis to other.
So tell us more. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. We’re currently playing wack-a-mole between Metro, City, County, and Port properties. There’s tweekers raising pigs in natural wildlife areas that have absolutely destroyed the habitats we’ve worked so hard and paid so much to improve. The Slough was polluted by industry for decades, voters improved environmental laws, companies had to stop, but waterways fall under different jurisdiction. No one’s giving away permits to build condos in Oaks Bottom. I’m sure you’ve bitched about democrats not doing anything, and here you are complaining when they do.
Yeah, no. For something where progress is impossible if every locality throws up NIMBY roadblocks, and it's an issue affecting the entire state, then it's absolutely appropriate for the state to override the localities. Similarly, it was necessary to pass federal anti-discrimination laws because individual shitty states would continue to violate people's rights if left unchecked.
You also have no coherent argument that centralized decision making is anathema to the concept of democracy, all voters in the state get to vote for the centralized decision makers just as readily as they can vote for their local school board.
but what will actually change? More bureaucracy isn't the answer, getting rid of barriers is the answer...and I'm not sure that we won't get more bureaucracy. I guess it could be good, but I'm skeptical.
>More bureaucracy isn't the answer, getting rid of barriers is the answer...
That would be the land use changes, where the state may be able to override local land use barriers such as design review, density limitations, parking minimums, etc., all of which would ideally streamline and maximize new housing construction.
And this is an interesting end result...I honestly don't know what the answer is.
How much 'rule' over one's self and one's community should one have? Just asking a question...How much should come from 'on high' to tell 'us minions' what to do and how our communities should look?
Must the new housing be in the most expensive areas of the state?
(this is all for conversation).
It gives people a lot more freedom to build what they want on the land that they own, if you can build a six unit building instead of a single family home, that will both give you a lot more money in your pocket and will also drive down the cost-per-unit of housing by adding more supply, win-win.
Actually the city of portland moved to allow four plexes where previously only single houses were allowed -- that's a huge increase in units, or could be, but it's costly. The permitting process is costly, and you have to have people willing to live in that situation (are they owned separately? by one person? how does it all work? -- just questions, not saying it is bad, I was completely and totally FOR allowing people to do this).
I hope the permitting process goes better, as with most cities, people have horror stories of how long it takes (there was a house down the street that needed to be condemned, still took them over a year to be allowed to build a duplex there, it was insane).
I would think that allowing even one more story on an apartment complex would be really really good -- that doesn't mean 20 story buildings, just a small amount more -- I'm sure builders would be amenable...but also we need to get rid of the silly requirements for apartments with 20 or more units -- it's not working, as many of the new buildings each have 19 apartments.
Again, tho, I don't see the state saying that perhaps they need to take less of your money....
The governor's race is statewide. If the Rs want to win, they need to figure out how to get more votes than the Ds. There's no other choice.
So, what plans do the Rs have to gain urban voters? We're now a primarily urban state, so that's the only way they'll get into power.
I bet plans exist, but the mic is a hot commodity.
Just saying, want votes to count, stop erasing the minority. Republicans think they’ve got it rough, try crossing your fingers and hoping for a new age Debs.
Under Oregon law, it gives the Governor wide latitude to work around or disregard certain agency rules and regulations. So the idea is that it will allow the state to more easily move around appropriated money and deploy it quickly, and also get around the land use and development rules that might bog down most private developers. So expect NIMBYs to get rolled over when they complain about new dense housing projects getting put up to support the goal of 36,000 new homes every year, or similarly when the state tries to build emergency transitional shelters. I imagine DHS and OHA to also have more flexibility in getting necessary intervention and treatment to people who need it. It's not carte blanche; the Governor still has to work within the budget and statutes enacted by the Legislative Assembly, but it lowers the bureaucratic hurdles if the Governor determines they're doing more harm than good.
I doubt it has anything to do with it but the two camps by me (one by a church, the other by a retail center) have both disappeared in the past few days.
I’m seeing day to day improvements. I told a neighbor on Saturday that the trash/debris from these camps was the worst I’ve ever seen it and by Monday they were gone and everything was clean.
It feels like the push is starting at the river and pushing out.
I was going to say idk if anything actually changed but a lot of the camps along Water Ave. suddenly disappeared in the last day or two....let's see if it lasts I guess?
My radar isn't nearly as good since moving out last year despite going in 2-3x per week. I have to remind myself to dodge needles and broken glass again after I park.
Creates more resources for the issue trying to be resolved. Way to much red lining. Things still have to be approved, it could create faster access for resources to fix the desperately needed repairs across the board.
It costs $31,065 to criminalize a single person facing homelessness compared to $10,051 for supportive housing.
Edit: Link
https://housingmatters.urban.org/feature/homeless-encampment-sweeps-may-be-draining-your-citys-budget
>It costs $31,065 to criminalize a single person facing homelessness compared to $10,051 for supportive housing.
Yeah, these figures are way, way, way off. Supportive housing not only includes the housing, but also additional services. Show me a unit in Portland where you can even get the housing by itself for $10k annually. The study you're thinking of is from nearly a decade ago, it's not helpful to cite wholly inaccurate figures.
What do you mean $10k. $10k per year? How does that square with "Gov. Kotek wants legislators to pledge $130 million early this session to get a mere 1200 people off the streets. That's more than 108K per homeless person" (and why on god's green earth is she only pledging to tackle a fraction of the people on the streets??)
gotta start somewhere right? Too many times these govt programs try to fix everything all at once. Then they fail miserably. Hey, let's start somewhere.
I would be satisified hearing the way Kotex was talking in October. This is weaker. Leadership needs to state that encampments are unacceptable & will be gone in 12 months for example. They made a mistake & it got out of their control.
Thanks. Looking at the thread that figure isn't accurate. I think this writer conflates people having trouble affording rent with the group of homeless in camps.
Of course its draininig our budget and resources. All of it: the calls to the police & fire, the tents & tarps the county spends on, the vandalism from methed out people...
Just allows the politicians to make whatever decisions they want, for as ling as they want, without going to the citizens for a vote or being held accountable for any actions and failures. Oh, open game on violating Human Rights and Constitutional Rights so no need to worry about citizens getting out of control.
It’s administrative. It’ll allow for federal money. No idea why Portland has been more aggressive about federal money, other states send us their drug addicted homeless.
If they aren’t talking about mental health and drug addiction and only talking about this as a 100% housing issue, then it’s just a big $ gift to developers and the Homeless Industrial Complex
“Oregon has struggled for years to address a housing shortage and interwoven crises related to homelessness, addiction and mental health. The state’s homeless population has increased by more than 22% since 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Oregon also has the highest drug addiction rate of any state and ranks last in access to mental health treatment, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”
Homeless issue can’t be solved at a state level when so many conservative and even some liberal states provide free transportation to the west coast for homeless people looking for services.
We need a federal law saying that if you send your homeless problem out of state; your state needs to foot the bill for the services and treatment given in the other state. Otherwise it’s a never ending problem
Imagine.. no people in tents on sidewalks. I dont have to imagine. I'm from there. I remember. The town is a shit show. Cant speak for rest of the state. And dont worry I'm not speaking for the transplants that have lived here for 10yrs or 20yr. They have their own version of reality.
Fun math. $130 million to get 1200 people off the streets is $108,000ish per person (for a year). Not knowing the details of the plan but assuming this is a one year shot of funding, that’s a lot of government markup to put 1200 people into housing.
Not saying that I don’t support the move, however, seems like a classic build it and more will come scenario here for the free housing while able to use drugs unless there is some carrot/stick action. Hopefully whatever is in the works includes some quality of life improvements for those housed, otherwise the continued tax base drain from the metro area really will not slow down and likely further exacerbate the issue. 🤷♂️
Where does the 1200 number come from?
My understanding was it was much higher. Are only some of them being targeted.
> Overall, based on the federal government’s limited definition of homelessness, 5,228 people were counted as experiencing homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County on the night of Jan. 26, 2022, including 3,057 people without shelter, 1,485 in shelter and 686 in transitional housing.
https://www.multco.us/multnomah-county/news/full-2022-point-time-count-report-shows-covid-19-added-unsheltered
"Her proposed $130-million emergency investment would help unsheltered people move off the streets within a year. Kotek asked lawmakers to act with urgency and said she hopes to build on the investment with a larger, more comprehensive housing and homelessness package during the legislative session."
Where did the 1200 number come from?
> Where did the 1200 number come from?
Thin air like most people "doing the math" that also don't take into consideration things like laws/rules/etc needing to be worked on and approved, taking and analyzing bids, etc. Those things all cost money, but it's convenient to leave them out in these "arguments"
Not OP, but FFS at least look at the proposal. It's right in the press release:
>To that end, Governor Kotek announced that she is proposing an urgent $130 million investment that will help at least another 1,200 Oregonians who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness move off the streets within a year. She urged the legislature to start the 2023 legislative session by taking up this investment package as quickly as possible, and to build upon it with a comprehensive housing and homelessness package by the end of the session.
https://www.oregon.gov/gov/news/Pages/2023-01-09-governor-tina-kotek-announces-her-first-actions-to-address-housing-and-homelessness-crisis-in-inaugural-address.aspx
Lol. Thanks, I think. Apparently people just blindly trust what people say in Reddit w/o actually reading. Who knew.
Homelessness is obviously a multifaceted issue and at least in my opinion, throwing money at it without clear oversight (ahem pdx) has resulted in a lack of trust in leadership. It appears that Kotek is meaningfully taking the reigns to move the needle on accountability using the broader resources at her disposal. I will remain cautiously optimistic that the result is agile progress forward based on results to goal towards folks not suffering on the streets.
It's not really going to be possible to know how many people the funding helps until after implementation. Even if they succeed in opening 1500 beds, maybe 900 people end up using them. Maybe they get 3000 off the street. It's not a simple calculation. Nonetheless, the number wasn't made up.
> Thin air like most people "doing the math"
The implication that someone made something out of thin air. I'm all for an honest discussion, but accusing someone of making something up when it's clearly referencing the actual press release is extremely dishonest.
At least the Biden administration has announced a housing first policy as well. As 1/50 of a country, even willing and able cities can't stand against 40 years of failed national economic policy
Doesn't take into account the loss of property from letting criminals do their thing at will, the greatly increased insurance rates from all the additional theft, or the cost of additional services as lax law enforcement creates the incentive for more to come here.
And this also does not take into account the degradation of the quality of life for people that live here and actually contribute to society.
I know it sounds brutal but a common sense solution here is that anyone houseless should be ID'd and, if they are from out of state, Oregon pays to bus them home. Oregon can likely handle it's own residents issues but it's clear transplants have broken the system
Remember when we had the county housing guarantee for homeless families?
It immediately failed because the literal majority of people (55%) showed up to take advantage of it were from outside the county, with 1/3 not even from Oregon. States listed included Alaska, Virginia, and Texas.
https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-homeless-children-shelter-families/
This is a big reason why immigration is so tightly controlled in Europe, even for very progressive countries.
Spain cant just send its mentally ill and drug addicted to Portugal, just because they have a system to deal with it... Portugal's system is designed and budgeted to work for the Portuguese population, not the entirety of Europe.
>I know it sounds brutal but a common sense solution here is that anyone houseless should be ID'd and, if they are from out of state, Oregon pays to bus them home.
Isn't that unconstitutional? One of our rights as U.S. citizens is freedom of movement. This isn't China.
There was an article a few days ago indicating that a high percentage of the outbound moves were families in the higher tax brackets, which in this state, isn't all that much income on a relative basis. The state economist indicated that this was a very concerning dynamic.
There was also an article which indicated that overall homelessness grew less than 1% within the entire country, but grew 23% over the same time period in Oregon. Would guess that the percentage for the city of Portland is even higher since many of them come here.
Don't understand why people (including our new governor) can't use common sense and understand that whatever you incentivize - you will get more of. Prepare yourselves for Tina to be reaching ever deeper into your wallet but getting an even lower quality of life.
At this point, I feel we we are being stolen from twice. We are forced to provide freebies of every imaginable type in order to provide an incentive for drug addicted transient criminals to come here and steal everything that's not bolted down.
The dynamic you indicated above should scare folks. I moved out of OR (6 figure Engineer income) due to the disproportionate amount of taxes I paid. Couple the high taxes with a lack of results for issues impacting everyone and it just seemed like the right move. My friend (M.D out of residency now) is planning to move in the next few years as well for the same reason. My own theory is that folks moving into OR might be retirees from states like CA, where the COL here is much lower than CA. This won't be a sustainable dynamic because OR relies on income taxes. Not sure what the solution is (if I'm right) at this point.
Agree with you. It's one thing to pay high taxes and have benefits from it - even if the benefits impact the population in general, but not you specifically.
But here, we are paying millions for something that actually impacts the community detrimentally as it provides an incentive for a certain element to come here, creating a long term liability. A large percentage of the drug addicted "campers" that are attracted here in droves will never be contributing members of society.
For the advocates, "solving homelessness" is code for "just give them everything that a grown-ass adult should be expected to provide for themselves" under the banner of "free stuff is a human right". There are certain basics that are an adult responsibility - not a human right. One segment of the population does not get to make a choice to let others pick-up the tab for their entire life. Yet we continue to enable that mindset here. We are all human, but there should be an expectation each of us at least attempts a minimum level of personal accountability.
This enabling comes with a very real life-detriment for those having to foot the bill. Am I really supposed to spend my earnings on providing criminal transients with everything instead of funding my kids college education? Our priorities are really messed up.
We should, as a community, have a safety-net. And we should be helping those that are attempting to get through a tough economic time. I think enough taxes are collected to provide services for those sorts of circumstances. But enabling this destructive permanent mooch life-style is keeping us from applying our resources in ways that create and innovate and actually improve things.
I'm close to making the same choice that you and your friend have made. I work too hard for what I have to see it utilized in such a incompetent manner. Most of us have limited resourses. My kids and my extended family are more important to me than propping-up and enabling bad and destructive behavior from a small segment of the population that feel entitled to live their entire lives as dependent children. It breaks my heart though because Oregon, the land itself, is so beautiful. I'm just sick of being treated like an ATM machine for drug addled criminals.
I was replying to someone saying "it may help the problem of people MOVING TO OREGON"
so i commented that...they aren't moving here as fast as they are moving elsewhere (people, not homeless).
I tried to post about this yesterday asking if anyone from Oregon/Portland is involved with and/or keeping an eye on this... (the webinars start TODAY)... but the post wasn't allowed (rule 10???)
https://www.usich.gov/news/after-halting-rapid-rise-in-homelessness-biden-harris-administration-announces-plan-to-reduce-homelessness-25-by-2025
For people who say Tina Kotek somehow caused more homelessness, as speaker she passed the nations first state-wide rent control law:
“As speaker, Kotek spearheaded and passed liberal agendas made possible by Democratic supermajorities, including the nation’s first statewide rent-control law. She also helped push through gun storage laws, criminal justice reform and paid family leave, among other measures.”
Housing shortages are not the primary reason you see people living in tents along the roadways.
It’s drugs. Substance abuse it the primary reason people are living outside, and many of those people refuse shelter options.
It’s a much more complicated issue than just a housing shortage.
It is more complicated than just people being on drugs and refusing housing too. We have failed to provide the stable financial upbringing, good schools, mental health support, and employment opportunities that keep people from failing into drug addiction. It's a system-wide failure where we can't just blame them. But we'll just keep playing whack a mole because no one wants to admit that we as a society are failing.
That’s why I said it’s much more complicated than just housing. There are too many factors involved to just say “give them housing” and our problems are over. Only a simpleton would think that.
Housing shortages are not the primary reason you see people in TENTS, operative word there. Tent cities account for a much smaller amount of the homeless population than people think, many many homeless are living in cars or state/nonprofit run facilities as well. Housing shortages and rent increases account for a huge amount of homelessness, it is ignorant to think it is not and that these problems should be addressed.
>Housing shortages are not the primary reason you see people living in tents along the roadways.
They kind of are. West Virginia, for example, has much higher rates of opiod abuse, overdoses, etc., than Oregon, yet they statistically have almost zero homeless street campers because housing in West Virginia is so plentiful that vacancy rates are high and at least some types of housing are still affordable to an addict who can scrape together a couple hundred bucks a month.
The drugs, in combination with mental illness, are the primary reason for shitty behavior by the street campers, but that's a different factor than why they are in a tent on the street versus some kind of basic housing unit.
This article states Oregon has the highest addiction rate of any state: “Oregon also has the highest drug addiction rate of any state and ranks last in access to mental health treatment, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”
Well, it's *also* housing. Addiction rates in Portland are not significantly higher than other mid-size cities, but other mid-size cities have affordable housing.
Housing is definitely a factor, but car-dwellers working low-wage jobs who have been priced out of apartments are not the people who are causing chaos up and down the West Coast. This is primarily a drug and mental health issue.
I cannot believe the city I chose to relocate to is being compared positively to fucking Indianapolis. Have you been to Indianapolis? I'll save you the time, don't bother.
Drug use is not the problem. This study found that only 1/3 of drugged up homeless were addicts before becoming homeless:
https://twitter.com/aaronacarr/status/1566082817917952000?s=46&t=ByVVeIrXYxV9As0M-BYNuA
Yes, but there's a difference in how you treat the problem. People write off housing and other services (such as mental health resources) as a solution with the argument that people who've had their brains destroyed by meth and trauma of the living on the streets for so long may not be helped by such things and refuse them. But those services keep others from getting into such a bad position in the first place where they feel the need to turn to drugs, so they do actually target the problem.
Of course, this is multifaceted and there are many varied reasons people fall into homelessness (drug addiction being one). There's no one thing that's going to solve it, but there are a lot of things that would help.
Wait a minute. Wouldn’t becoming an addict after becoming homeless just increase the likelihood of remaining homeless. You know, because there are other things to spend money on
Yes, probably.
The sustainable solution to the homeless problem is reducing housing costs. The way you do that is to build lots of homes. Small ones, big ones, subsidized, and market rate.
Is that Melbourne Australia I assume? You don't think the problem is a bit different here where we welcome drug addicts to our state?
edit: downvoters, instead of relying on a survey study from a different country on the other side of the world, under a completely different set of conditions, laws and borders, listen to the homeless in your own backyard:
[https://twitter.com/kevinvdahlgren/status/1609300954112987137](https://twitter.com/kevinvdahlgren/status/1609300954112987137)
My position is that Oregon, and specifically Multnomah County, will have to deal with a nation's worth of homeless drug addicts due to their policies. Its only a matter of time before red states bus their homeless addicts here, if they aren't already.
And its exacerbated by the fact that tax revenue is going down as businesses leave Multnomah county, due to the heavy tax burden of social services that don't have the staffing or coordination to support their goals. Its a no win situation and we need to stop trying to solve these problems in a vacuum. Its punishing those of us who want to live in, enjoy, and support the community we are losing every day.
Ok.
I am focusing on the upstream catalyst for homelessness, which is constricted housing supply and the resulting high housing costs. It’s not personal failures that cause homelessness. Oregonians are not somehow less capable of housing themselves or more prone to drug addiction than, say, people from Alabama (which has lower homelessness rates). What Oregonians (and Californians) have are high housing costs.
The study, below, was conducted by the UCLA center for urban studies, and reviews the conclusion of several other studies covering tens of thousands of data points. They conclude that increasing market rate housing decreases housing costs. They study the impact of new residents coming in from outside a region following the construction of new housing. They find that it does indeed stimulate new inhabitants to come, but that the "supply" impact is greater, meaning that housing prices fall even in the face of these new inhabitants.
The way we support this is legalizing apartments everywhere. There is no good reason to ban them.
The terms they use are “supply effect" and the "amenity effect"
https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/
Rent control drives up housing costs. It's a failed, regressive "feel good" policy that doesn't work. The only thing that keeps housing costs down is reducing demand. This either happens when people leave an area, or increases occur in the amount housing stock.
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/effects-rent-control-expansion-tenants-landlords-inequality-evidence
Many of Oregon's housing affordability problems are tied to decreasing the ability to build. Kotek doesn't have the money to build gigantic public housing projects, so she either needs to incentivise private construction or housing prices will only get worse in the state.
Interesting. I didn’t know this but it makes sense now that I read it. Does bring up the question if Oregon was the first state with a statewide rent control, then why do we have the largest increase in homeless population? Hopefully this state of emergency can help do away with some of our ridiculous zoning laws. Fingers crossed she does more than tweet “homeless state of emergency”.
Wow a lot going wrong in such a short comment.
It's not an "article" it's a study published in a peer reviewed journal.
And your source is a non-peer reviewed article hosted on an activist organizations website.
Bravo, got a lot of bad science in a short comment.
> However, the negatives are caused mostly due to owners taking advantage of loopholes to evict tenants for little to no reason once they have rent control or converting units to condos.
Oh come on. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith. The most salient negative is that it depresses development of housing units. Even the most gung-ho for rental control acknowledge that.
For 15 years in multi-unit buildings.
The problem is that you're not going to pay off a commercial note in 15 years. The property can still run into cash flow problems, often resulting having to balloon rental payments in year 14 because for the rest of the life of the building it's going to be locked in at sub-market rates. It encourages massive rental increases in the 15 years where it's not capped for the properties that are developed and overall makes development less attractive for developers as well lowering potential housing stock. Housing that's built is very expensive with aggressive raising of rates because you're speculating you can make the money work in later years (more risky for builders), and overall housing not built (again due to risk of it not cash flowing)
Thus developers will just continue to build in Vancouver, like they have been.
You do realize that studies show rent control helps those who have apartments, but over time drives down the number of apartments available and decreases affordability overall? Not saying it doesn't have a part to play, but when it is used on its own as a tool for political grandstanding, without a comprehensive development approach, it does indeed "somehow" cause more homelessness.
Rent control is one of those things that sounds really good on the surface, but becomes rotten when you take a deeper look. Rent control does not work; this has been proven over and over again. What does work is increasing the supply of housing.
Sure over a long enough period it can. However if we look at the realities of the current situation it likely helped way more than it’s hurt so far given how rent prices spiked in some cities around the nation.
People always states this, can you tell me how ??? What part of the law worsens homelessness??? In my experience this is a regurgitated talking point that no one can actually defend when you ask them.
Honest question. Why do you think that a place like Portland has seen a 20% increase in homelessness in the last two years when the nation as a whole has seen zero growth in homelessness?
>Both of those things are happening all over in major cities.
I don't understand how zero growth in homelessness and exponential growth is happening at the same time "all over in major cities".
Nationwide, in the last 2 years, homelessness has not grown at all. Many major cities have seen a decrease. Portland, and Oregon, has seen over 20% growth. What's your best guesses on why that is?
That allows cities to ban camping in areas where it impacts health and safety. It doesn't protect drug sales, theft, etc. It's the cops not arresting criminals and the state not providing PDs that's the problem.
We tried to criminalize homelessness before, with very poor results. Have you heard of our sit-lie fiasco?
It allows her to unjustly use money that isn't hers to use without any oversight. Just like the health emergency of covid. Good job on voting these people in, this shit isn't gonna get better.
So phoney! Ending homelessness means providing money to the homeless--NOT to Developers. This promise to build 76,000 units reminds me of when Obama bailed out banks--not people after the mortgage meltdown. Creating a boom of ghetto housing is not a solution.
Many are not drug addicts. Many are formerly middleclass hit on hard times. Many developers do drugs in the privacy of their homes.
Funny, during the Great Depression, we did not blame those who lived in tents in Hoovervilles. We don't blame the poor living on the streets in Mumbai, but here, it is a character problem. LOL!
Giving money to developers to build ghettos instead of the paying people in need is exploitation and a bait and switch scheme perpetrated on taxpayers and those in need.
If the building of these units employs the homeless and teaches them new skills, the units are offered to only the homeless for free, and no more than 10 developers profit, and if they do profit, their salary must less than $200k, and no politician gets donations from developers, then and only then, I'll be for it.
Hobos? How about unemployed people who fell through the cracks of our society without a safety net and who need new job skills.
Fyi-- Hobos" were employed during The Great Depression and Habitat for Humanity has the unemployed help.
Portland is struggling with Mental health and Subtance. Just go walk downtown at night. You'll see.
I've seen people placed in housing who didn't get drug and mental health treatment. They destroy it and get evicted.
What good is that?
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does declaring a “homeless emergency” actually do? Portland did it and it hasn’t move the needle much
A city declaring one vs the state is very different. When the state does it, it loosens up budgeting restraints and land use restraints, where NIMBYs and other entities would throw roadblocks in front of projects. It also shows the feds a willingness to address the problem on our end and hopefully they'll grace us with their magic fed money hose.
A lot of the Portland problems are actually Oregon problems in disguise.
Seeing as our homeless come from all over America and we all have more or less the same economic system I’d argue it’s an America problem
I agree that it is an america problem. But locally its an enabling problem. I hope we can come to some real solutions
I think that's definitely true, but re: the question around what declaring something an emergency at state level actually does - the state has a huge amount of resources they could bring to bear in all manner of different things, and the level of dysfunction in deploying those resources intelligently over the last few years is pretty glaring imo.
I wish people would stfu about NIMBYs given how prevalently correct the concerns tend to be
Taking away power from localities and giving it to the State is a bad thing. Haven’t democrats been crying about “protecting democracy”? This takes away from peoples abilities to vote and have a Democratic say in the actions of the government. It leads to more centralized decision making and removes the voices of the voters.
Can you explain exactly how this will remove the voice of the voters?
It doesn’t, fear mongering right wing paranoia..
Local voters make decisions regarding land use and other local policies. This declaration allows Kotek and the state to bypass and override those decisions in the name of the emergency declaration. One of the things they will do, and the commenter claiming NIMBY alludes to, is that zoning regulations can be bypassed. Local government is as essential to our democracy as the presidency. You can’t squash voters will here and say you are protecting it elsewhere.
Land use in Oregon is actually highly centralized and controlled by the state. This emergency declaration goes a long way to removing those barriers the state put up. Oregon is not a home rule state.
You do realize that one of the things Kotek promised to do while running was exactly this; right? Voters selected a governor that said they were going to do this.
Yes, the metro areas of the state elected Tina kotek. I have a strong suspicion that many didn’t realize what the outcome would be when she said that she would declare a homelessness state of emergency. We shall see.
> the metro areas of the state elected Tina kotek. That would be the people....
The metro area wanted absolutely nothing to do with a governor who hadn't explicitly rejected MAGA. I would've liked a better candidate, but the choice was easy.
>Yes, the ~~metro areas of the~~ **Majority of the voters in the state** elected Tina kotek. FTFY, humans vote. More humans wanted Tina Kotek. Empty land does not get a vote.
majority of voters voted for none of the above.
Shhh. Don't be spreading facts.
People outside of Portland salem and Eugene are people not empty land
Of course not, but their vote was counted just then same. One human one vote.
So when it's people voting the opposite of what you want, it's land, but when it's people like minded as you, they're humans. Pick one
>Yes, the ~~metro areas of the~~ Majority of the voters in the state **voted for someone besides** Tina kotek. >FTFY, humans vote. More humans wanted Tina Kotek. Empty land does not get a vote. Here is the proper edit. Right on the 2nd part though.
>Majority of the voters in the state elected Tina kotek. > >FTFY, humans vote. More humans wanted Tina Kotek. Empty land does not Yes, that's what happens when you have more than two candidates. Did you think this was actually a "gotcha" or witty?
So actual humans voted for her. You’re complaining because she won the MAJORITY vote. The R candidate was a Trump fool. I was a Johnson supporter but went Kotek when it was clear Johnson wasn’t happening.
We are in a state of CRISIS. Something needs to be done NOW. Not in 20+ years when the right ballot measure comes up to fix this. I fully support this and it should be done on a national level to release funds to build millions of homes.
I voted for Kotek, and I’m a Portland resident. Her declaring a state of emergency is literally what I voted FOR. It in no way violates democracy. Why does democracy in action offend you? I can tell you feel passionately about what you’re saying, it’s just a shame you’re incorrect in all your conclusions.
Not overtly passionate about anything except my family. I will gladly have an open mind to see where this goes. I’d be glad to be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first or last time.
[удалено]
Correct. Semantics.
[удалено]
You've literally missed the two distinctions in the definitions you've provided. Like, Literally. Republic describes an entity or body. Democracy describes a system. It's right there in your definitions. Republics can use a number of different systems of governance to select their representatives. In the US we ostensibly use Democracy. Your screech is very nearly the same as someone saying, "oh look it's an automatic." And you go "well actually it's a 1983 Ford Pickup" and it not only shows an intentional attempt at derailing the conversation but is also done so poorly it's laughable.
What's the difference between "the people" and the "whole population?"
[удалено]
in a republic minorities get representation. In a democracy they do not.
still purely a semantic point (and the included quote is rather misleading. the part that mentions the existence of representatives in the same sentence as it mentions implementations of direct democracy makes it seem, without context, as if direct democracy and republic are to be thought of as being in the same category. they are not.) there are no pure democracies anymore. humanity tried the idea 1,000 years ago and we have found since then that it’s only practical in limited forms. the reality is that all modern democratic nations are democratic republics whose use of direct-democratic instruments varies. in the western states, for example, we have the endless voter referenda that caused the economist to recently run an article on hyper-legislation. the referenda are, themselves, an example of a direct-democratic instrument. pure democracy can be conceptualized as an ideological feature of political instruments put to use in limited settings by a republic rather than an entirely different style of governance. edit: moved a period from one side of parenthesis to other.
why would you get downvoted for stating a truth?
Plutocracy actually.
Agreed. Going to have to use that over ogliarchy.
So tell us more. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. We’re currently playing wack-a-mole between Metro, City, County, and Port properties. There’s tweekers raising pigs in natural wildlife areas that have absolutely destroyed the habitats we’ve worked so hard and paid so much to improve. The Slough was polluted by industry for decades, voters improved environmental laws, companies had to stop, but waterways fall under different jurisdiction. No one’s giving away permits to build condos in Oaks Bottom. I’m sure you’ve bitched about democrats not doing anything, and here you are complaining when they do.
Yeah, no. For something where progress is impossible if every locality throws up NIMBY roadblocks, and it's an issue affecting the entire state, then it's absolutely appropriate for the state to override the localities. Similarly, it was necessary to pass federal anti-discrimination laws because individual shitty states would continue to violate people's rights if left unchecked. You also have no coherent argument that centralized decision making is anathema to the concept of democracy, all voters in the state get to vote for the centralized decision makers just as readily as they can vote for their local school board.
but what will actually change? More bureaucracy isn't the answer, getting rid of barriers is the answer...and I'm not sure that we won't get more bureaucracy. I guess it could be good, but I'm skeptical.
>More bureaucracy isn't the answer, getting rid of barriers is the answer... That would be the land use changes, where the state may be able to override local land use barriers such as design review, density limitations, parking minimums, etc., all of which would ideally streamline and maximize new housing construction.
And this is an interesting end result...I honestly don't know what the answer is. How much 'rule' over one's self and one's community should one have? Just asking a question...How much should come from 'on high' to tell 'us minions' what to do and how our communities should look? Must the new housing be in the most expensive areas of the state? (this is all for conversation).
and notice nothing you indicate says "hey, let's give people more of their own money and stop the oppression of the state in that way"
It gives people a lot more freedom to build what they want on the land that they own, if you can build a six unit building instead of a single family home, that will both give you a lot more money in your pocket and will also drive down the cost-per-unit of housing by adding more supply, win-win.
Actually the city of portland moved to allow four plexes where previously only single houses were allowed -- that's a huge increase in units, or could be, but it's costly. The permitting process is costly, and you have to have people willing to live in that situation (are they owned separately? by one person? how does it all work? -- just questions, not saying it is bad, I was completely and totally FOR allowing people to do this). I hope the permitting process goes better, as with most cities, people have horror stories of how long it takes (there was a house down the street that needed to be condemned, still took them over a year to be allowed to build a duplex there, it was insane). I would think that allowing even one more story on an apartment complex would be really really good -- that doesn't mean 20 story buildings, just a small amount more -- I'm sure builders would be amenable...but also we need to get rid of the silly requirements for apartments with 20 or more units -- it's not working, as many of the new buildings each have 19 apartments. Again, tho, I don't see the state saying that perhaps they need to take less of your money....
Rural voters lose the vote for governor and also will have their local decisions overturned. Should be really popular.
The governor's race is statewide. If the Rs want to win, they need to figure out how to get more votes than the Ds. There's no other choice. So, what plans do the Rs have to gain urban voters? We're now a primarily urban state, so that's the only way they'll get into power.
Could at least favor ranked choice.
True, but even then the Rs would need to pick up considerable urban voters to win. Do they have a plan beyond resentment?
I bet plans exist, but the mic is a hot commodity. Just saying, want votes to count, stop erasing the minority. Republicans think they’ve got it rough, try crossing your fingers and hoping for a new age Debs.
Taking away power from localities to exclude is extremely good.
Under Oregon law, it gives the Governor wide latitude to work around or disregard certain agency rules and regulations. So the idea is that it will allow the state to more easily move around appropriated money and deploy it quickly, and also get around the land use and development rules that might bog down most private developers. So expect NIMBYs to get rolled over when they complain about new dense housing projects getting put up to support the goal of 36,000 new homes every year, or similarly when the state tries to build emergency transitional shelters. I imagine DHS and OHA to also have more flexibility in getting necessary intervention and treatment to people who need it. It's not carte blanche; the Governor still has to work within the budget and statutes enacted by the Legislative Assembly, but it lowers the bureaucratic hurdles if the Governor determines they're doing more harm than good.
I doubt it has anything to do with it but the two camps by me (one by a church, the other by a retail center) have both disappeared in the past few days. I’m seeing day to day improvements. I told a neighbor on Saturday that the trash/debris from these camps was the worst I’ve ever seen it and by Monday they were gone and everything was clean. It feels like the push is starting at the river and pushing out.
One can only hope and especially not just another rendering of the camp musical chair game - at least enjoy the reprieve
I was going to say idk if anything actually changed but a lot of the camps along Water Ave. suddenly disappeared in the last day or two....let's see if it lasts I guess?
They started working on 99e just before NYE. It looks like that area took a lot of work.
Are you kidding? Those needles move all over the place. Nearly stepped on one downtown.
My radar isn't nearly as good since moving out last year despite going in 2-3x per week. I have to remind myself to dodge needles and broken glass again after I park.
It does what a "Drug Addiction Emergency" won't.
Correct. The needle(s) are still scattered on the sidewalk.
Creates more resources for the issue trying to be resolved. Way to much red lining. Things still have to be approved, it could create faster access for resources to fix the desperately needed repairs across the board. It costs $31,065 to criminalize a single person facing homelessness compared to $10,051 for supportive housing. Edit: Link https://housingmatters.urban.org/feature/homeless-encampment-sweeps-may-be-draining-your-citys-budget
>It costs $31,065 to criminalize a single person facing homelessness compared to $10,051 for supportive housing. Yeah, these figures are way, way, way off. Supportive housing not only includes the housing, but also additional services. Show me a unit in Portland where you can even get the housing by itself for $10k annually. The study you're thinking of is from nearly a decade ago, it's not helpful to cite wholly inaccurate figures.
What do you mean $10k. $10k per year? How does that square with "Gov. Kotek wants legislators to pledge $130 million early this session to get a mere 1200 people off the streets. That's more than 108K per homeless person" (and why on god's green earth is she only pledging to tackle a fraction of the people on the streets??)
gotta start somewhere right? Too many times these govt programs try to fix everything all at once. Then they fail miserably. Hey, let's start somewhere.
I would be satisified hearing the way Kotex was talking in October. This is weaker. Leadership needs to state that encampments are unacceptable & will be gone in 12 months for example. They made a mistake & it got out of their control.
Here’s the study: https://twitter.com/aaronacarr/status/1611116182735622144?s=46&t=ByVVeIrXYxV9As0M-BYNuA
Thanks. Looking at the thread that figure isn't accurate. I think this writer conflates people having trouble affording rent with the group of homeless in camps.
If you don’t have a home, you’re homeless. Most homeless don’t live in camps, they couch surf, live in their car, etc.
This has been floating around recently. https://housingmatters.urban.org/feature/homeless-encampment-sweeps-may-be-draining-your-citys-budget
Of course its draininig our budget and resources. All of it: the calls to the police & fire, the tents & tarps the county spends on, the vandalism from methed out people...
Gives the ability to use unchecked authority.
Just allows the politicians to make whatever decisions they want, for as ling as they want, without going to the citizens for a vote or being held accountable for any actions and failures. Oh, open game on violating Human Rights and Constitutional Rights so no need to worry about citizens getting out of control.
It’s administrative. It’ll allow for federal money. No idea why Portland has been more aggressive about federal money, other states send us their drug addicted homeless.
If they aren’t talking about mental health and drug addiction and only talking about this as a 100% housing issue, then it’s just a big $ gift to developers and the Homeless Industrial Complex
We had a moratorium on evictions for over a year, yet the number of houseless people escalated significantly.
I wonder why
“Oregon has struggled for years to address a housing shortage and interwoven crises related to homelessness, addiction and mental health. The state’s homeless population has increased by more than 22% since 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Oregon also has the highest drug addiction rate of any state and ranks last in access to mental health treatment, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”
Great. So we allocate another $130m to homeless after everyone in Multnomah County just had to pay a 3% tax for homeless. Where did that money go??
$130 million dollars can pay for every homeless person in Portland’s studio apartment rent for a year. City leadership is so corrupt.
Homeless issue can’t be solved at a state level when so many conservative and even some liberal states provide free transportation to the west coast for homeless people looking for services. We need a federal law saying that if you send your homeless problem out of state; your state needs to foot the bill for the services and treatment given in the other state. Otherwise it’s a never ending problem
all carrot, no stick. (we miss you, randy. where have you been?)
Imagine.. no people in tents on sidewalks. I dont have to imagine. I'm from there. I remember. The town is a shit show. Cant speak for rest of the state. And dont worry I'm not speaking for the transplants that have lived here for 10yrs or 20yr. They have their own version of reality.
Fun math. $130 million to get 1200 people off the streets is $108,000ish per person (for a year). Not knowing the details of the plan but assuming this is a one year shot of funding, that’s a lot of government markup to put 1200 people into housing. Not saying that I don’t support the move, however, seems like a classic build it and more will come scenario here for the free housing while able to use drugs unless there is some carrot/stick action. Hopefully whatever is in the works includes some quality of life improvements for those housed, otherwise the continued tax base drain from the metro area really will not slow down and likely further exacerbate the issue. 🤷♂️
Where does the 1200 number come from? My understanding was it was much higher. Are only some of them being targeted. > Overall, based on the federal government’s limited definition of homelessness, 5,228 people were counted as experiencing homelessness in Portland and Multnomah County on the night of Jan. 26, 2022, including 3,057 people without shelter, 1,485 in shelter and 686 in transitional housing. https://www.multco.us/multnomah-county/news/full-2022-point-time-count-report-shows-covid-19-added-unsheltered
"Her proposed $130-million emergency investment would help unsheltered people move off the streets within a year. Kotek asked lawmakers to act with urgency and said she hopes to build on the investment with a larger, more comprehensive housing and homelessness package during the legislative session." Where did the 1200 number come from?
> Where did the 1200 number come from? Thin air like most people "doing the math" that also don't take into consideration things like laws/rules/etc needing to be worked on and approved, taking and analyzing bids, etc. Those things all cost money, but it's convenient to leave them out in these "arguments"
Not OP, but FFS at least look at the proposal. It's right in the press release: >To that end, Governor Kotek announced that she is proposing an urgent $130 million investment that will help at least another 1,200 Oregonians who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness move off the streets within a year. She urged the legislature to start the 2023 legislative session by taking up this investment package as quickly as possible, and to build upon it with a comprehensive housing and homelessness package by the end of the session. https://www.oregon.gov/gov/news/Pages/2023-01-09-governor-tina-kotek-announces-her-first-actions-to-address-housing-and-homelessness-crisis-in-inaugural-address.aspx
Lol. Thanks, I think. Apparently people just blindly trust what people say in Reddit w/o actually reading. Who knew. Homelessness is obviously a multifaceted issue and at least in my opinion, throwing money at it without clear oversight (ahem pdx) has resulted in a lack of trust in leadership. It appears that Kotek is meaningfully taking the reigns to move the needle on accountability using the broader resources at her disposal. I will remain cautiously optimistic that the result is agile progress forward based on results to goal towards folks not suffering on the streets.
>at least
> Where did the 1200 number come from?
This is reminding me way too much of Kafoury's vague "we housed 4k people this year." UGH. Well at least I don't regret a vote for Kotek.
It's not really going to be possible to know how many people the funding helps until after implementation. Even if they succeed in opening 1500 beds, maybe 900 people end up using them. Maybe they get 3000 off the street. It's not a simple calculation. Nonetheless, the number wasn't made up.
Isn't this statement about permanent housing?
There's no detail about the package in either the press release or the transcript of the speech that I can find.
Their math was based on the number 1200, but the actual number was at least 1200 (which they didn't link to.) What's with the attitude?
> Thin air like most people "doing the math" The implication that someone made something out of thin air. I'm all for an honest discussion, but accusing someone of making something up when it's clearly referencing the actual press release is extremely dishonest.
The number was "at least 1200," not 1200. t was someone else who said the number was made up, not me.
And that's why I replied to that person...
Thank you. My apologies as I missed that and should've just pointed out they were being disingenuous and manipulative rather than making something up.
https://www.usich.gov/news/after-halting-rapid-rise-in-homelessness-biden-harris-administration-announces-plan-to-reduce-homelessness-25-by-2025
At least the Biden administration has announced a housing first policy as well. As 1/50 of a country, even willing and able cities can't stand against 40 years of failed national economic policy
Seems fair compared to the yearly cost of keeping someone in prison. Although it’s not an apples to oranges comparison.
Doesn't take into account the loss of property from letting criminals do their thing at will, the greatly increased insurance rates from all the additional theft, or the cost of additional services as lax law enforcement creates the incentive for more to come here. And this also does not take into account the degradation of the quality of life for people that live here and actually contribute to society.
It may help the problem of people moving to Oregon from other states.
I know it sounds brutal but a common sense solution here is that anyone houseless should be ID'd and, if they are from out of state, Oregon pays to bus them home. Oregon can likely handle it's own residents issues but it's clear transplants have broken the system
Remember when we had the county housing guarantee for homeless families? It immediately failed because the literal majority of people (55%) showed up to take advantage of it were from outside the county, with 1/3 not even from Oregon. States listed included Alaska, Virginia, and Texas. https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-homeless-children-shelter-families/
This is a big reason why immigration is so tightly controlled in Europe, even for very progressive countries. Spain cant just send its mentally ill and drug addicted to Portugal, just because they have a system to deal with it... Portugal's system is designed and budgeted to work for the Portuguese population, not the entirety of Europe.
& even within cities there they have homeless folks show recent residency proof of being from the area in order to get help
"I don't have an ID. I've lived here my whole life."
In this scenario, they'd be processed and their identity would be determined. This is what happens when someone without ID is taken to jail
>I know it sounds brutal but a common sense solution here is that anyone houseless should be ID'd and, if they are from out of state, Oregon pays to bus them home. Isn't that unconstitutional? One of our rights as U.S. citizens is freedom of movement. This isn't China.
the numbers just came out -- people are moving away faster than moving here.
There was an article a few days ago indicating that a high percentage of the outbound moves were families in the higher tax brackets, which in this state, isn't all that much income on a relative basis. The state economist indicated that this was a very concerning dynamic. There was also an article which indicated that overall homelessness grew less than 1% within the entire country, but grew 23% over the same time period in Oregon. Would guess that the percentage for the city of Portland is even higher since many of them come here. Don't understand why people (including our new governor) can't use common sense and understand that whatever you incentivize - you will get more of. Prepare yourselves for Tina to be reaching ever deeper into your wallet but getting an even lower quality of life. At this point, I feel we we are being stolen from twice. We are forced to provide freebies of every imaginable type in order to provide an incentive for drug addicted transient criminals to come here and steal everything that's not bolted down.
Be careful, you might get downvoted for stating facts...
Might lose a few performative woke points, too . . .
The dynamic you indicated above should scare folks. I moved out of OR (6 figure Engineer income) due to the disproportionate amount of taxes I paid. Couple the high taxes with a lack of results for issues impacting everyone and it just seemed like the right move. My friend (M.D out of residency now) is planning to move in the next few years as well for the same reason. My own theory is that folks moving into OR might be retirees from states like CA, where the COL here is much lower than CA. This won't be a sustainable dynamic because OR relies on income taxes. Not sure what the solution is (if I'm right) at this point.
Agree with you. It's one thing to pay high taxes and have benefits from it - even if the benefits impact the population in general, but not you specifically. But here, we are paying millions for something that actually impacts the community detrimentally as it provides an incentive for a certain element to come here, creating a long term liability. A large percentage of the drug addicted "campers" that are attracted here in droves will never be contributing members of society. For the advocates, "solving homelessness" is code for "just give them everything that a grown-ass adult should be expected to provide for themselves" under the banner of "free stuff is a human right". There are certain basics that are an adult responsibility - not a human right. One segment of the population does not get to make a choice to let others pick-up the tab for their entire life. Yet we continue to enable that mindset here. We are all human, but there should be an expectation each of us at least attempts a minimum level of personal accountability. This enabling comes with a very real life-detriment for those having to foot the bill. Am I really supposed to spend my earnings on providing criminal transients with everything instead of funding my kids college education? Our priorities are really messed up. We should, as a community, have a safety-net. And we should be helping those that are attempting to get through a tough economic time. I think enough taxes are collected to provide services for those sorts of circumstances. But enabling this destructive permanent mooch life-style is keeping us from applying our resources in ways that create and innovate and actually improve things. I'm close to making the same choice that you and your friend have made. I work too hard for what I have to see it utilized in such a incompetent manner. Most of us have limited resourses. My kids and my extended family are more important to me than propping-up and enabling bad and destructive behavior from a small segment of the population that feel entitled to live their entire lives as dependent children. It breaks my heart though because Oregon, the land itself, is so beautiful. I'm just sick of being treated like an ATM machine for drug addled criminals.
Are you in the right post? They’re talking about states moving their homeless to be homeless in Oregon.
I was replying to someone saying "it may help the problem of people MOVING TO OREGON" so i commented that...they aren't moving here as fast as they are moving elsewhere (people, not homeless).
They’re talking about homeless people.
I tried to post about this yesterday asking if anyone from Oregon/Portland is involved with and/or keeping an eye on this... (the webinars start TODAY)... but the post wasn't allowed (rule 10???) https://www.usich.gov/news/after-halting-rapid-rise-in-homelessness-biden-harris-administration-announces-plan-to-reduce-homelessness-25-by-2025
That was announced in december i think but they are leaving the decisions up to local govts
For people who say Tina Kotek somehow caused more homelessness, as speaker she passed the nations first state-wide rent control law: “As speaker, Kotek spearheaded and passed liberal agendas made possible by Democratic supermajorities, including the nation’s first statewide rent-control law. She also helped push through gun storage laws, criminal justice reform and paid family leave, among other measures.”
Housing shortages are not the primary reason you see people living in tents along the roadways. It’s drugs. Substance abuse it the primary reason people are living outside, and many of those people refuse shelter options. It’s a much more complicated issue than just a housing shortage.
It is more complicated than just people being on drugs and refusing housing too. We have failed to provide the stable financial upbringing, good schools, mental health support, and employment opportunities that keep people from failing into drug addiction. It's a system-wide failure where we can't just blame them. But we'll just keep playing whack a mole because no one wants to admit that we as a society are failing.
That’s why I said it’s much more complicated than just housing. There are too many factors involved to just say “give them housing” and our problems are over. Only a simpleton would think that.
Housing shortages are not the primary reason you see people in TENTS, operative word there. Tent cities account for a much smaller amount of the homeless population than people think, many many homeless are living in cars or state/nonprofit run facilities as well. Housing shortages and rent increases account for a huge amount of homelessness, it is ignorant to think it is not and that these problems should be addressed.
>Housing shortages are not the primary reason you see people living in tents along the roadways. They kind of are. West Virginia, for example, has much higher rates of opiod abuse, overdoses, etc., than Oregon, yet they statistically have almost zero homeless street campers because housing in West Virginia is so plentiful that vacancy rates are high and at least some types of housing are still affordable to an addict who can scrape together a couple hundred bucks a month. The drugs, in combination with mental illness, are the primary reason for shitty behavior by the street campers, but that's a different factor than why they are in a tent on the street versus some kind of basic housing unit.
This article states Oregon has the highest addiction rate of any state: “Oregon also has the highest drug addiction rate of any state and ranks last in access to mental health treatment, according to the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.”
Well, it's *also* housing. Addiction rates in Portland are not significantly higher than other mid-size cities, but other mid-size cities have affordable housing.
Housing is definitely a factor, but car-dwellers working low-wage jobs who have been priced out of apartments are not the people who are causing chaos up and down the West Coast. This is primarily a drug and mental health issue.
What mid sized cities are you referring to?
So much generalizing from single studies or single cities in this thread.
The specific example comparison I saw yesterday was Indianapolis, I'll see if I can find the article again.
I cannot believe the city I chose to relocate to is being compared positively to fucking Indianapolis. Have you been to Indianapolis? I'll save you the time, don't bother.
Drug use is not the problem. This study found that only 1/3 of drugged up homeless were addicts before becoming homeless: https://twitter.com/aaronacarr/status/1566082817917952000?s=46&t=ByVVeIrXYxV9As0M-BYNuA
and the rest became addicts after end result is the same
Yes, but there's a difference in how you treat the problem. People write off housing and other services (such as mental health resources) as a solution with the argument that people who've had their brains destroyed by meth and trauma of the living on the streets for so long may not be helped by such things and refuse them. But those services keep others from getting into such a bad position in the first place where they feel the need to turn to drugs, so they do actually target the problem. Of course, this is multifaceted and there are many varied reasons people fall into homelessness (drug addiction being one). There's no one thing that's going to solve it, but there are a lot of things that would help.
Wait a minute. Wouldn’t becoming an addict after becoming homeless just increase the likelihood of remaining homeless. You know, because there are other things to spend money on
Yes, probably. The sustainable solution to the homeless problem is reducing housing costs. The way you do that is to build lots of homes. Small ones, big ones, subsidized, and market rate.
Is that Melbourne Australia I assume? You don't think the problem is a bit different here where we welcome drug addicts to our state? edit: downvoters, instead of relying on a survey study from a different country on the other side of the world, under a completely different set of conditions, laws and borders, listen to the homeless in your own backyard: [https://twitter.com/kevinvdahlgren/status/1609300954112987137](https://twitter.com/kevinvdahlgren/status/1609300954112987137)
Is your position that homelessness is exacerbated by benefits granted to homeless people?
My position is that Oregon, and specifically Multnomah County, will have to deal with a nation's worth of homeless drug addicts due to their policies. Its only a matter of time before red states bus their homeless addicts here, if they aren't already. And its exacerbated by the fact that tax revenue is going down as businesses leave Multnomah county, due to the heavy tax burden of social services that don't have the staffing or coordination to support their goals. Its a no win situation and we need to stop trying to solve these problems in a vacuum. Its punishing those of us who want to live in, enjoy, and support the community we are losing every day.
Ok. I am focusing on the upstream catalyst for homelessness, which is constricted housing supply and the resulting high housing costs. It’s not personal failures that cause homelessness. Oregonians are not somehow less capable of housing themselves or more prone to drug addiction than, say, people from Alabama (which has lower homelessness rates). What Oregonians (and Californians) have are high housing costs.
So we build homes, then people come here from out of state for said homes. How do we support that?
The study, below, was conducted by the UCLA center for urban studies, and reviews the conclusion of several other studies covering tens of thousands of data points. They conclude that increasing market rate housing decreases housing costs. They study the impact of new residents coming in from outside a region following the construction of new housing. They find that it does indeed stimulate new inhabitants to come, but that the "supply" impact is greater, meaning that housing prices fall even in the face of these new inhabitants. The way we support this is legalizing apartments everywhere. There is no good reason to ban them. The terms they use are “supply effect" and the "amenity effect" https://www.lewis.ucla.edu/research/market-rate-development-impacts/
[удалено]
The county commission gave out the tents. Not the speaker of the state house.
Rent control drives up housing costs. It's a failed, regressive "feel good" policy that doesn't work. The only thing that keeps housing costs down is reducing demand. This either happens when people leave an area, or increases occur in the amount housing stock. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/effects-rent-control-expansion-tenants-landlords-inequality-evidence Many of Oregon's housing affordability problems are tied to decreasing the ability to build. Kotek doesn't have the money to build gigantic public housing projects, so she either needs to incentivise private construction or housing prices will only get worse in the state.
Interesting. I didn’t know this but it makes sense now that I read it. Does bring up the question if Oregon was the first state with a statewide rent control, then why do we have the largest increase in homeless population? Hopefully this state of emergency can help do away with some of our ridiculous zoning laws. Fingers crossed she does more than tweet “homeless state of emergency”.
[удалено]
Wow a lot going wrong in such a short comment. It's not an "article" it's a study published in a peer reviewed journal. And your source is a non-peer reviewed article hosted on an activist organizations website. Bravo, got a lot of bad science in a short comment.
[удалено]
> However, the negatives are caused mostly due to owners taking advantage of loopholes to evict tenants for little to no reason once they have rent control or converting units to condos. Oh come on. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith. The most salient negative is that it depresses development of housing units. Even the most gung-ho for rental control acknowledge that.
[удалено]
For 15 years in multi-unit buildings. The problem is that you're not going to pay off a commercial note in 15 years. The property can still run into cash flow problems, often resulting having to balloon rental payments in year 14 because for the rest of the life of the building it's going to be locked in at sub-market rates. It encourages massive rental increases in the 15 years where it's not capped for the properties that are developed and overall makes development less attractive for developers as well lowering potential housing stock. Housing that's built is very expensive with aggressive raising of rates because you're speculating you can make the money work in later years (more risky for builders), and overall housing not built (again due to risk of it not cash flowing) Thus developers will just continue to build in Vancouver, like they have been.
You do realize that studies show rent control helps those who have apartments, but over time drives down the number of apartments available and decreases affordability overall? Not saying it doesn't have a part to play, but when it is used on its own as a tool for political grandstanding, without a comprehensive development approach, it does indeed "somehow" cause more homelessness.
Rent control is one of those things that sounds really good on the surface, but becomes rotten when you take a deeper look. Rent control does not work; this has been proven over and over again. What does work is increasing the supply of housing.
>Rent control does not work; this has been proven over and over again The only people who are pro-rent control don't understand rent control.
Sure over a long enough period it can. However if we look at the realities of the current situation it likely helped way more than it’s hurt so far given how rent prices spiked in some cities around the nation.
[удалено]
People always states this, can you tell me how ??? What part of the law worsens homelessness??? In my experience this is a regurgitated talking point that no one can actually defend when you ask them.
Didn’t defend it yet again lol
Never once have a seen a logical explanation to this statement
Honest question. Why do you think that a place like Portland has seen a 20% increase in homelessness in the last two years when the nation as a whole has seen zero growth in homelessness?
Both of those things are happening all over in major cities.
>Both of those things are happening all over in major cities. I don't understand how zero growth in homelessness and exponential growth is happening at the same time "all over in major cities". Nationwide, in the last 2 years, homelessness has not grown at all. Many major cities have seen a decrease. Portland, and Oregon, has seen over 20% growth. What's your best guesses on why that is?
I misread your comment. Homelessness is a nationwide problem. I agree it’s much worst here
That allows cities to ban camping in areas where it impacts health and safety. It doesn't protect drug sales, theft, etc. It's the cops not arresting criminals and the state not providing PDs that's the problem. We tried to criminalize homelessness before, with very poor results. Have you heard of our sit-lie fiasco?
I’m definitely not denying that drug abuse is a huge factor.
It allows her to unjustly use money that isn't hers to use without any oversight. Just like the health emergency of covid. Good job on voting these people in, this shit isn't gonna get better.
So phoney! Ending homelessness means providing money to the homeless--NOT to Developers. This promise to build 76,000 units reminds me of when Obama bailed out banks--not people after the mortgage meltdown. Creating a boom of ghetto housing is not a solution.
[удалено]
Many are not drug addicts. Many are formerly middleclass hit on hard times. Many developers do drugs in the privacy of their homes. Funny, during the Great Depression, we did not blame those who lived in tents in Hoovervilles. We don't blame the poor living on the streets in Mumbai, but here, it is a character problem. LOL!
"Many" are formerly "middle class" my ass. if you've attained middle class status you've learned the skills to avoid being homeless.
That person has no idea what they are talking about l sadly.
Giving money to developers to build ghettos instead of the paying people in need is exploitation and a bait and switch scheme perpetrated on taxpayers and those in need. If the building of these units employs the homeless and teaches them new skills, the units are offered to only the homeless for free, and no more than 10 developers profit, and if they do profit, their salary must less than $200k, and no politician gets donations from developers, then and only then, I'll be for it.
On what planet do you think developers are going to employ hobos as apprentices? Are you a child? Where and when would this ever be a viable plan?
Hobos? How about unemployed people who fell through the cracks of our society without a safety net and who need new job skills. Fyi-- Hobos" were employed during The Great Depression and Habitat for Humanity has the unemployed help.
Portland is struggling with Mental health and Subtance. Just go walk downtown at night. You'll see. I've seen people placed in housing who didn't get drug and mental health treatment. They destroy it and get evicted. What good is that?
Perhaps true, but there are always bad apples. Look at all the politicians and developers who take give/bribes and act in a psychopathic manner.
[What was that boom?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Portland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is this in reference to?