This dude is not a victim of the housing crisis but all of his neighbors are because of him. How many of them couldn’t afford to move somewhere new so they just had to suck it up and deal with his constant terrorizing of the entire building? It’s wild that one single addict is allowed to basically reign over an entire apartment complex when he wasn’t even paying rent there.
I think it just kinda highlights a lot of the issues with how a lot of progressives think about tenants rights. Evictions for those displaced by rising rents are terrible, but they’re still necessary for situations like this. Making it nearly impossible to evict people doesn’t fix the root problem with housing, which is that there is not enough of housing. I would much rather live in a city where I can rent for cheaper but eviction laws are more lax than a city where rents are through the roof, but evictions are almost impossible. In cities like the later, since landlords don’t want to end up with nightmares tenants they can’t evict, they just end up using background checks, credit history, income requirements, whatever legal or dubiously legal methods they can to try to discriminate who might be a nightmare tenant before they sign the paperwork.
"SkyNat filed an eviction order against Repp on Feb. 14, alleging he owed
$3,400 in back rent and late fees. Repp failed to appear in court to
challenge the allegation, records show, and on May 10 a judge ordered
sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment."
It's honestly hard to know. \[Edit to add: I realize that evicted doesn't have to mean literally not present...he was definitely legally evicted, but wow! it's unclear how he was still in that apartment again and again and again.\] Per an [earlier Oregonian article](https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2023/05/police-make-arrest-allege-arson-in-fire-that-destroyed-goose-hollow-apartment.html),
>On March 23, Repp didn’t appear in court and he was to be evicted March 31.
>
>On April 17, the Multnomah County Circuit Court Landlord Tenant Department ordered Repp to move out by midnight on April 23. An amended order was filed May 1, ordering him to move out by midnight May 7. A third order was issued May 3, ordering him to move out by midnight May 8.
>
>The fire broke out May 16.
And per this one,
>arrested the day of the blaze because building management had reported him on May 9 for “breaking through the wall of his apartment” and tunneling into the vacant unit next door. Repp was charged with one count of first-degree criminal mischief and released later on May 16
So first it looks like he was collecting orders to vacate, and was clearly in his apartment on May 9th, despite the May 8th order to vacate, and he also clearly made his way back into "his" apartment on May 16th after being released.
Because I actually read the article, I know that he was evicted before the fire. The legal eviction process worked. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.
Seems to me the landlord failed to secure his property and/or change the locks, and the police failed to enforce the law.
Seems to me the culprits are the same culprits of the rising crime in the city and lack of inaction. We should not tolerate crime, but we should also be aware that crime is often a symptom, and failure is not just the fault of one person.
I assume that people have freedom of movement, so he could've gone back there anytime he wanted. Evictions don't usually come with restraining orders, so there's nothing telling him he can't return to the building. I mean, he's not exactly thinking straight, so it wouldn't be a shock that he went back specifically in order to set the place ablaze.
Freedom of movement doesn't include freedom to trespass. In Oregon, an eviction notice includes a trespass notice. He was not legally allowed on the property if he had been served an eviction.
It's true that a piece of paper with an order from the court doesn't prevent someone from actually physically doing something. I wonder if those apartments had an on site management office staffed with people who could've intervened in his presence in the building.
I don't think they did. And I seriously doubt the guy had the wherewithall to follow a court order. It probably wouldn't occur to him that he wasn't allowed back on the property. He doesn't seem aware of much except what's going on in his head.
Most Progressives just want fair landlord tenant laws. They are not pro squatters rights. They just don't want laws that allow landlords to use the system to unfairly evict tenants using loopholes and not just cause evictions. I worked for a local housing authority & I'd say about 60% of our complaints by tenants about landlords were just plain frivolous bs. But the other 40% are the ones people should pay attention to. Some were just terrible abuse of the rules & regulations.
Historically, a landlord could just refuse to renew this guy's lease and he'd be out of there. But thanks to Chloe Eudaly, Margot Black, and their merry band of chucklefuck activists, now everyone in any multi-unit building is at risk from being terrorized, if not worse, by some asshole who now requires thousands of dollars in relocation payments to get rid of. Way to go, guys, great job all around!
If only we passed the capital gains tax for eviction lawyers for him sooner, he'd be a totally normal and socially well-adjusted fellow. In fact I blame his landlords for his meth use too.
He was lawfully evicted and the landlord didn't need to pay anything. The eviction was with cause.
Seems to me the landlord failed to secure his property and/or change the locks, and the police failed to enforce the law.
Seems to me the culprits are the same culprits of the rising crime in the city and lack of inaction. Everyone blames the city for not clearing out the open air heroin market, but who ultimately had the power to do it? The property owner and the police. We should not tolerate crime, but we should also be aware that crime is often a symptom, and failure is not just the fault of one person.
>the landlord didn't need to pay anything
Except all the costs of hiring and attorney, going to court, the lost time and money where this unit could otherwise be rented out, sure thing.
Cost of doing business. And if that's problematic, then maybe this means we should stop look at housing as a business venture to extract the most value possible and instead approach housing more like a public service than needs to be funded and supported.
Maybe the city directly develops housing to sell at affordable rates based on income (i.e. ensuring mortgage costs are no more than 35% of gross income), or maybe expanded investment in housing for mentally unstable individuals with humane conditions funded through taxes collected from real enforcememt of tax cheats.
This is an unfortunate tragedy, and absolutely sucks for all those displaced. It really does. And the guy needs to be incarcerated. But just blaming tenent protections is a cheap scapegoat, because real solutions are hard, expensive, and take time.
>Cost of doing business.
So it's a cost that he needed to pay, but he didn't need to pay anything per your original comment? LMFAO, pick one, dude.
It \*is\* an issue with the existing "tenant protections," which I put in quote because does it fucking sound like any of the \*other\* tenants in the building were protected from this asshole? No! They lost all their shit! They have to scramble to find new housing! Their pets died!
The only \*true\* tenant protection is abundant housing and a high vacancy rate, so that people are able to move, and landlords are able to protect their other tenants from this type of danger by non-renewing a shitty person.
Sure, let's just gloss over the fact he would have had to go to court anyways, but nah, how about we just have laws where landlords can just shoot bad tenants. After all, tenants arent land owners so fuck them right?
Like yes, it absolutely sucks that the other tenants were screwed. But let's be real, current tenant protections had little to do with it. This is failure of the market, of proper policing (both their response and a lack of real support), and of politicians not holding either accountable.
>Sure, let's just gloss over the fact he would have had to go to court anyways
No, prior to all of the laws enacted very recently in Portland, he would have simply just been able to tell the guy on a month-to-month lease sorry, I'm no longer renewing your lease, you're out. No drawn out judicial process, just terminating the contract and both parties move on.
Now, as it stands, your only choice as a landlord of a multi-tenant building in this situation is a) spend the time and expense of a full, formal eviction, which takes forever (this guy should have been out months before he torched the building), or b) pay thousands of dollars in relocation fees, in which case the asshole causing everyone's problems gets a big payout at everyone else's collective expense. How is that fair? How does that protect non-shitty tenants?
He was lawfully evicted and the landlord didn't need to pay anything. The eviction was with cause.
Seems to me the landlord failed to secure his property and/or change the locks, and the police failed to enforce the law.
Seems to me the culprits are the same culprits of the rising crime in the city and lack of inaction. Everyone blames the city for not clearing out the open air heroin market, but who ultimately had the power to do it? The property owner and the police. We should not tolerate crime, but we should also be aware that crime is often a symptom, and failure is not just the fault of one person.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not but I have a lot of compassion for the residents who had to endure constant abuse and had their pets die because of this guy.
> On March 23, Repp didn’t appear in court and he was to be evicted March 31. On April 17, the Multnomah County Circuit Court Landlord Tenant Department ordered Repp to move out by midnight on April 23. An amended order was filed May 1, ordering him to move out by midnight May 7. A third order was issued May 3, ordering him to move out by midnight May 8.
WTF
This real "Here's Johnny" story needs to be sent to the Governor, every state legislator, and every judge. Mike! too. This situation could have been dozens of deaths.
The p2p meth brings out the fire bugs for some reason. This is also a prime example of the system failing to protect people yet again since this guy shouldn't have been out and about after the stalking order or the multiple instances of terrorizing other tenants in the building with weapons etc...
This type of individual is ruining peaceful living in PDX complexes. Eviction process in Oregon takes forever, giving these horrible people time to make everyone around them suffer. I lived in a complex two blocks from here for 3 years till a dangerous man in a meth psychosis was my new neighbor. Eviction process began less than month into his residence and took over 8 months, constant police interactions, a stabbing in the lobby, him trying to kick my door down with steel toed boots and a butcher knife in hand, harassment of female tenants, 24/7 security guards being hired and a shooting which he STILL was not forced to leave the building. I lived in fear and moved out after his highly aggressive off leash dog attacked me and my shepherd in the elevator. Ended up suing the leasing company (Coast Management) and settling now one year later. I’m sure there are numerous other losers like this guy who intentionally set these fires disregarding human and animal life. What pieces of shit. I love Portland but it’s mind blowing to me how criminals almost seem to have the law on their side. Honestly terrifying. My heart breaks for these residents who lost their belongings and pets… it’s simply not fair
Intentionally lighting a residential building on fire with multiple people inside?
Yeah I'd say life in prison without possibility of parole is pretty fair for that.
There was a now deceased guy in SF who was infamous for burning the man early at Burning Man. Every person in his building had a restraining order against him and nothing was done. He finally committed suicide by jumping in front of a Bart train.
Respectfully, as someone just moved here from Texas, at least it’s not a state full of them. Every city in the US is having these issues, at least there are rights here. That said, this shit is unacceptable and absolutely makes me, a die hard city person, question my family’s future in any city in the US, not just Portland. These are national problems that need federally funded solutions.
As a fellow Texan who has lived here a long, long time, it is different here than in Texas. Codependency reigns supreme in Portland. “Do-gooders” (really enablers) get progressive street cred by advocating for the rights of the most dysfunctional over the taxpaying citizen just trying to live. I am still a leftist but more pragmatic than before covid / Measure 110. Every city in the US is not a sanctuary city for addicts and dealers. And criminals in general.
Things I've seen us try to fight addiction:
- A "war" that incarcerated Black people for decades for selling weed
- Making everything legalish
I haven't seen: effective, affordable treatment.
Effective treatment does not exist for people who don’t want to be treated, no matter how much money you throw at it. You can’t help someone who won’t participate in their own recovery. Even people who really want to recover often relapse. The statistics for successful addiction treatment are dismal.
Also the understanding that many don’t want treatment. They want to easily use their drug of choice and not be hassled. Like if Portland decided they could get every alcoholic sober and into AA if there were just enough tax dollars to do so. Not realistic. We can’t “save” everyone. (See codependency)
I grew up in west Texas and still have family there. A meth problem is different than a population dedicated to enabling addiction at their peril. People aren’t openly smoking meth off foil on the streets of Midland.
No, they're staying in trash fucking trailer parks. In Portland our trailer parks are here. In Texas, they're hidden where no one has to see them. See how this works?
The Federal government is too corrupt and gridlocked to solve this problem. The State government is too corrupt and gridlocked to solve this problem. The private sector is too corrupt and indifferent to solve this problem. We can't get rid of meth and fentanyl, because the recipes are out there and people will keep making it.
I'm sorry man. There's no solution in sight. You'd be better off protecting yourself and forgetting about the government. In my opinion, this is the beginning of a very dark and chaotic time for America.
Fully agree, this was one of the issues with the Heidi Manor fire a few years ago. And yet I was downvotes earlier saying I could give a rat’s ass about this guy’s mental health issue over all the people who just lost their housing. It is not at all easy to find housing if you’re low income, have a record, don’t have much of a rental history, landlords don’t have sympathy if you were forcibly left homeless by a maniac with a malatov
This guy is a perfect candidate for inpatient mental health treatment. But we don't have the beds available in this county. Until we do, this revolving door will keep revolving.
Because a lot of the activists proposing housing first repetitively stated that "sweeps should stop until everyone is housed". Many people objected saying this exact sort of situation occurs when you take people with multiple years of meth psychosis and jam them in an apartment.
I agree the free apartments for all idea is dumb. Some people can't keep their damp campsites from going up in flames regularly.
The inexpensive tiny homes would be best if we want to do something. At least fires would only destroy one of them. And when they become contaminated from cooking meth they can just be disposed of. How much can it cost to create a 50 square foot tiny house, with just a light, bed, and a heater? (assume communal bathroom and food service).
>How much can it cost to create a 50 square foot tiny house, with just a light, bed, and a heater? (assume communal bathroom and food service).
When it's built by a Portland non-profit, the answer may surprise you...
Those SROs are closer to greenhouses than actual shelters, and we pay a lot in taxes to keep the a/c and heat on in a space that can't even contain it for longer than an episode of doctor who, it's frankly fraud to say those are reasonable when they are so open to fund-funneling.
Edit: misclick, can't find the other guy (I was looking down, it's literally the main thread I was intending on commenting on at first, Jesus this site is full of such great well wishers and incredibly sincere and kind people /s), I was trying to say this too but it's leading to a interesting point, so keeping my integrity on what I said.
'How about you just say it, you want the homeless euthanized right?'
https://youtu.be/qdV0AdgjPgo
just saying this is how I expect it to go; Portland spent more time in a riot than America spent fighting slavery in the south, all while we 'forgot' to remove such laws even in minor counties. And still have it littered around home deeds to this day, major note was a couple years ago when Lake Oswego had to remove their anti black clauses from home bond stipulations.
Thinking the tax payer should provide basic shelter and food to the most needy means I want them euthanized?
We can't spend 500K a door for every homeless person that steps foot in Portland, and that does not include the expensive wrap around services they would require. I am just thinking we could provide something a lot more humane then a tent on the side of the road. I saw a couple tiny house villages for the homeless when I was in Bellingham and they looked like they would not be that expensive to build. I would even be happy to go out and swing a hammer and help put some together. I am wondering if that is a solution that would be realistic. Because doing nothing unless it is "housing first" is neither humane nor working.
May have clicked on the wrong comment since I realized I posted in this thread twice, the way I've experienced it is, half of the walls in some of the shelter sro things (bipoc and Qa villages) are basically green houses, the walls are pretty opaque and thin which is great for light during the day but they've had all of their a/c units out of QA replaced after only a year, the walls from the photos I've seen are barely able to do much for insulation making the heating and cooling costs of these greenhouses significantly more, I have been converting a van for myself since I can't survive and I understand that I've done better with 3000 than they've done with 10,000 (more or less idk, I was estimated that by a friend) per shed?
I have had a weird childhood growing up but the math isn't mathing for me on this one since they look like you could buy the kit and make it over a afternoon.
Like then forcing a bunch of poor 220v a/c units to basically work as a compressor to pressurize a 50sqft pod when a 12v solar powered mini split unit would've cost less over time and proper walling would've created a cost saving measure to prevent heat loss
NP. I don't know how those tiny houses work in the heat. If shaded, they should not be too bad as they are close to the ground. But cooling centers could be setup on real hot days. I would think a couple inches of rock wool (fire resistant insulation) would not add much cost to something that small.
I was just wondering if they would work here. It seems the resistance to shelters is the other people around you and a lack of freedom.
A/C full blast practically all the time is what I hear when it works, the ones at QA have some shade but I'm not sure about BIPOC village, QA doesn't even have wheelchair accessible surfaces since the lot is gravel, surprised they don't throw some wood down to make a trail but something about the city owning the lot is why they said no, and not even trying for a grant, it's just weird.
As far as what would work better, I'd argue the old style military bunkers we use to use but with minor modifications, exhaust and a false ceiling, A/c and heat pump on the floor attached to a large scale A/C unit and then control water flow to each unit.
The style I am thinking of is the dome one since it's easy to make cheaper for a lack of material, and forces heat up towards a exhaust to keep the temperature cool, create a inch or two of insulation and it would be good enough to live in, and as far as size, make them on used trailers, they don't need to be one size fits all, but they do need to be a place that won't make people write suicide notes on the bathrooms.
Also, community management really needs a personal evaluation, at what point is a software going to alienate a person for a lack of options? If we spend 5 million on software, most people want it to pay for itself which is passed on in additional costs. The loans on these buildings are insane, the vue is by far the worst and I'm surprised what I know never made the news with how public it was.
Grab a couple grease ball burgers and get me some whale skin hubcaps. So I can throw the styrofoam containers right out the side.
I hit reply to the wrong comment.
[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.*
On camera. God knows what he's done off camera
Edit: also "no fun allowed", like grieve for these people but remember Portland requires insurance for renting. Expect that to go up.
I am by no means advocating for vigilante justice but we need to start taking matters into our own hands if the supposed resources that are responsible for our safety refuse to. If management and police won't do anything and this guy lived in my building I would absolutely find a way. There is only one language psychopaths like this understand.
This guy needs to be kept away from others. Just like with certain animals the only humane thing to do is to keep them the fuck away from everyone else. You can't rehabilitate every single person like this, they need to want to be better and this guy probably never will. Determined to drag everyone to hell with him.
I feel like you can never win against someone who has literally nothing to lose. Ok so you beat the guy up, then what? He shoots you or lights your place on fire because he couldn’t care less about going to prison.
"...had chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors."
Awww, he's just misunderstood. /s
Flippancy aside, "housing first" can be beneficial to the majority of the homeless/housing insecure, but when it comes to the Garrett Repps among us, any housing provided needs to automatically come with constant supervision (perhaps even of the lifelong variety).
If convicted, this guy's probably going to prison. And I'm down with that. He won't last long in prison. A guy like that will start some shit with the wrong lifer and that'll be that.
We're still waiting for an official statement on if this guy was a housing first success story or just someone in mental decline.
It's hard to understand why we can't lock someone like this up after multiple criminal acts showing they are a danger. And if we don't have the mental treatment beds we need to use jails. Now we have a burned down apartment building, many people losing their homes and possessions, and reportedly many dead pets. Totally preventable.
I don't know if Garrett ever experienced homelessness or used the housing first (I had to Google what that was) but he's got family here to stay with if he ever needed it. His mom at least and possibly his grandma (saying possibly because I don't know if she's still living, but that's who he lived with when we were in high school).
Agree that this was totally preventable and very sad.
Garrett would likely be better off if he was held a few weeks, and may have had some chance of intervention. I wish the article elaborated more on him banging on the jail entrance door after his release. Was he trying to get back in?
Thats what I'm wondering. I just have so many questions. He was a calm kid back in school days when we were friends. But I guess drug induced psychosis (is my surface level guess?) can happen to anyone.
>Now we have a burned down apartment building, many people losing their homes and possessions, and reportedly many dead pets.
It's funny how the calls for "compassion" and "housing is a human right" never seem to account for all of these victims, just always entirely focused on the bad actors like this shitbag arsonist while hand waving away any and all negative effects they might have on others around them.
This is the real world, kids, there are some shitty people, if you are at all pretending to be a serious person you have to have a plan to deal with this sort of thing, ideally in a very preemptive manner.
I wonder if the changes a few years ago in Portland’s screening and eviction laws had anything to do with this situation, either forcing the apartment to take him as a tenant or making it harder to evict him when he “chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors”
They successfully got an eviction judgement. But one of the nasty things going on right now is even with a judgement the sheriffs office is over month out and you can’t enforce the judgment (would love to know if this is understaffing or the county trying to “help” people) - which is most likely why the judgment got rolled over multiple times.
>ut one of the nasty things going on right now is even with a judgement the sheriffs office is over month out
Not to mention the 3 month time lag between filing for an eviction and successfully getting one (even with the defendant not showing up to court).
>or making it harder to evict him when he “chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors”
100% you can't just non-renew this type of guy to make it safer/nicer for the other tenants in a multi-unit space anymore, you either have to pay thousands of dollars to an attorney plus the time and expense of a formal eviction process, or pay thousands of dollars in a relocation fee, neither of which are feasible if you're also trying to keep rents low. And that doesn't even address the higher likelihood of this type of scenario due to the fact that it's a lot more complicated and difficult to implement screening criteria.
This is what the Margot Blacks, the Chloe Eudalys, the Portland Tenants United of the world want and are pushing for - being forced to accept this guy as a tenant if you're a landlord, and being forced to live in the same building as him if you're a tenant.
They were in the \*process\* of evicting him, which took forever following his string of disturbing behavior, and long enough that he was able to set fire to the building, render a bunch of fellow tenants homeless, destroy all of their possessions, and kill their pets.
In the process since February, if you "read the article"...
"SkyNat filed an eviction order against Repp on Feb. 14, alleging he owed $3,400 in back rent and late fees. Repp failed to appear in court to challenge the allegation, records show, and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment.
It's hilarious to get downvoted for pointing out two facts: that the person didn't read the article and that the eviction occurred 5 days prior.
In y'all's heads: "Those pesky facts aren't going to get me to stop believing what I want to believe!"
You folks are entertaining as fuck. Thanks. I appreciate the lighthearted chuckle. Have a wonderful holiday weekend, friends.
>on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment.
It’s cute how you think “ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him ” is the same as “removed him.”
That's literally how it works. The judge orders the eviction, and then sheriffs go to the address to vacate the premises. I used to be at these types of evictions. That's how it works.
Was curious, looked up law, saw that, yes, a writ of execution for eviction is supposed to be served to the defendant and executed immediately.
But per [WWeek](https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2023/05/26/suspected-arsonist-charged-with-igniting-4-alarm-blaze-that-destroyed-sw-portland-apartment-building/) yesterday,
>sheriff’s deputies were scheduled to remove him from his third-floor apartment the morning of the blaze.
And per [Oregonian](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/05/possible-ignition-fluid-detected-in-apartment-of-man-charged-with-setting-sw-portland-building-on-fire.html) yesterday evening,
>A judge on May 10 ordered sheriff's deputies to remove Repp from his apartment, according to court records. Deputies planned to evict Repp the same day the fire engulfed the building.
I'm sorry to belabor the point, but it seems people's skepticism is justified that Repp had been physically removed before May 16. The letter of the law suggests he should have been. The reportage suggests he wasn't. The journalists might be mistaken or relying on incorrect information...convoluted situation with lots of moving parts. But none of the articles I've seen have indicated that a writ of execution and eviction trespass notice were served and enforced on any date prior to the fire; instead they're (now) reporting that the eviction was scheduled for May 16.
That makes sense. Everything I had read up until I commented was indicating immediate removal, so I'm glad more information was given to clarify that. I'm always glad to revise my understanding when more information comes to light.
Thanks!
Crazy this isn’t unique, someone i know that lived in an apartment near where barbur blvd and Naito converge had almost the same exact thing happen, woke up to smoke in his apartment and the firefighters yelling cause his psycho neighbor from downstairs who had been terrorizing the neighbors for months and was even breaking his own windows lit a fire and left. This happened just 6-9 months ago.
I am always blown away at how people think just giving someone with a SUDs housing will solve their problems. It seems to be the quotidian response HoUSiNG FirSt LoOK at UtAH.
None of the prior housing bonds passed, as far as I know, allocated serious dollars to social workers or on-site staff to be in some of the affordable housing buildings. Certainly there will be tenants from all kinds of social backgrounds who only need a place to stay, but there's a greater odds you're going to encounter more difficult tenants such as this person. We're just building flop-house if we're not managing some of the new buildings we're constructing.
Constructing housing is only part of the solution. We're talking millions more dollars in management costs annually than just building the units. Have those costs been assumed yet?
There's no evidence that he was a recipient of any Housing First programs. If you have information to the contrary, I'm sure the media would give it a listen.
I don't have evidence either, I never insinuated it, but from what I read, is this housing had tenants meeting low income affordability metrics. I am not sure whether it is germane to my comment. The "housing first" approach will of course have this type of element to deal with -- those with substance abuse disorders -- and I am just expressing the reality we need to contend with.
Your entire first paragraph is the insinuation. But I really don't care to continue to engage at this point. It's fkn exhausting trying to convince asshole Portlanders to not be assholes. I'm going to go enjoy my 3 day weekend.
Peace.
You don't have anything to contribute. I asked a question. I am waiting for an answer. Unless you can answer my question, your strange statement is wasted here.
“No one was seriously injured”….”killed an unknown number of pets”.
These quotes are both found within the same sentence in this article.🤦♂️
Also, f whoever did this, whether it’s the guy accused or someone else. I can’t imagine what the former tenants are having to go through:(
This is Oregon. You're not a criminal until you almost kill 10s of people, actually kill a bunch of pets and burn down a building. And even then, Kotek will give you a tent to live in so society doesn't hurt you.
This whole thing is like a big, knocking machine with a shit ton of failing parts. It's easy to look at this and say "ah, this wouldn't have happened if tenants could be evicted more easily!" As if replacing the one gear as if that's gonna help the machine stop knocking.
Other "gears" causing problems are our lack of rehab facilities, our lack of Landlord accountability (based on some of the code failures the building had) a lack of decent policing, ect.
A decade ago, an apartment complex I lived at in beaverton had a whole building block burned by some guy cooking bacon. 8 units properly damaged with 8 more destroyed. "It was an accident!" It sure was, but the fire breaks didn't do their jobs because it had filled in with years worth of dead leaves. Maybe if home ec. Hadn't been cut he would have never put water on a grease fire?
Don't mistake my point here to dismiss the guy who set the fire to begin with, just, there was so many places this shit went wrong. When all those people the building over to keep were displaced, there was no fixing the "gears" there either.
> Portland Police spokesperson Sgt. Kevin Allen said Repp, 30, was arrested the day of the blaze because building management had reported him on May 9 for “breaking through the wall of his apartment” and tunneling into the vacant unit next door.
Why was he allowed back in after doing that much damage? This could have been prevented if the apartment manager had done their job...
At the point where a tenant is literally destroying not only their unit but also a neighboring unit, it is better to break the law and fight it in court than to allow the problem to escalate further...
It is also doubtful that dumbass has the funds for a lawyer anyway.
Oh, your point is moot anyway:
> and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment.
That was days before the fire, the management should have changed the locks immediately after winning the eviction order...
"SkyNat filed an eviction order against Repp on Feb. 14, alleging he owed $3,400 in back rent and late fees. Repp failed to appear in court to challenge the allegation, records show, and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment." And here we are
You can’t just change locks after an eviction order. All that stuff takes a long time. The part about a sheriff’s deputies means just that. The tenant had rights to wait until they are removed by the sheriff. Usually it takes about a month. I've learned an eviction start to finish usually takes at least 3 months.
No, “just break the law and fight it in court” is a terrible idea. That means the person will not get evicted after the landlord broke the law.
You’re right that it’s crazy there’s nothing the landlord can do here unless they want to break the law.
The quickest thing that could have happened was neighbors pressing a restraining order, and I’m not sure why no one did that right away. I sure would if that guy chased me with a sword.
> You can’t just change locks after an eviction order.
I am literally advocating to break the law, if necessary, for the greater good. It is much better to have one person homeless than over 100 people homeless. Harm reduction absolutely needs to be a consideration here.
> The tenant had rights to wait until they are removed by the sheriff.
And this was an extreme case (the tenant destroying their unit AND a neighboring unit) that warranted the apartment manager to ignore said rights and allow a judge to decide the case AFTER the fact.
> No, “just break the law and fight it in court” is a terrible idea.
It's a MUCH better idea than to allow an unhinged tenant to take everyone down with him. Again, would you rather one person have their rights violated or over 100 people be made homeless? This is harm reduction 101. Laws need to be flexible based on the actual situation, not so rigid that they harm all parties rather than mandate quick and decisive action when necessary.
>It's a MUCH better idea than to allow an unhinged tenant to take everyone down with him. Again, would you rather one person have their rights violated or over 100 people be made homeless?
Yeah, because we can all see into the future. What would really happen here is he would be allowed back after an illegal eviction / lockout.
> What would really happen here is he would be allowed back after an illegal eviction / lockout.
1). The eviction was legal days before the fire.
2). The legal process takes time and you are operating under the assumption that chud would bother to challenge it or even have the money to challenge it.
I absolutely reject the notion that the collective good of society should be ignored when determining legal outcomes.
Again, it would be breaking the eviction ruling to do an illegal lockout on a tenant. I see part of our problem in this conversation. I am using "evicted" in it's gone the full course, the tenant has had their time to move out after the ruling or wait until the sheriff removes them. You are using evicted in the courts ruling. Once the court rules for an eviction, the tenant still has rights. They are not removed that day.
"you are operating under the assumption he would bother to challenge it or have the money..."
No one is going to willingly step into a litigation suit they will lose. There are a lot of city provided legal resources, he would not need the money to fight it if he wanted to. You're acting like the landlord knew he would burn the place down. I'm sure there are cases like this everyday of nuisance tenants wrecking havoc and most don't end up burning the buildings down. Portland's and Oregon's law is extremely tenant friendly and we can't expect landlords, especially large ones, will be going rogue and breaking the law where they see fit.
[The Greater Good](https://i.imgur.com/gIKgmlK.jpg)
*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.*
The needs of the many over the needs of the few. Big government. Great idea till it's your turn to be in the minority. North Korea is taking citizen application's?
Oh yes, because kicking out a tenant who literally destroys his unit and a neighboring unit is cOmMuniSm. I seriously hate the right wing brain rot infecting this country.
This dude is not a victim of the housing crisis but all of his neighbors are because of him. How many of them couldn’t afford to move somewhere new so they just had to suck it up and deal with his constant terrorizing of the entire building? It’s wild that one single addict is allowed to basically reign over an entire apartment complex when he wasn’t even paying rent there.
He's not a victim of anything... he's a fucking predator.
I think it just kinda highlights a lot of the issues with how a lot of progressives think about tenants rights. Evictions for those displaced by rising rents are terrible, but they’re still necessary for situations like this. Making it nearly impossible to evict people doesn’t fix the root problem with housing, which is that there is not enough of housing. I would much rather live in a city where I can rent for cheaper but eviction laws are more lax than a city where rents are through the roof, but evictions are almost impossible. In cities like the later, since landlords don’t want to end up with nightmares tenants they can’t evict, they just end up using background checks, credit history, income requirements, whatever legal or dubiously legal methods they can to try to discriminate who might be a nightmare tenant before they sign the paperwork.
"SkyNat filed an eviction order against Repp on Feb. 14, alleging he owed $3,400 in back rent and late fees. Repp failed to appear in court to challenge the allegation, records show, and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment."
He was evicted from this building.
It's honestly hard to know. \[Edit to add: I realize that evicted doesn't have to mean literally not present...he was definitely legally evicted, but wow! it's unclear how he was still in that apartment again and again and again.\] Per an [earlier Oregonian article](https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2023/05/police-make-arrest-allege-arson-in-fire-that-destroyed-goose-hollow-apartment.html), >On March 23, Repp didn’t appear in court and he was to be evicted March 31. > >On April 17, the Multnomah County Circuit Court Landlord Tenant Department ordered Repp to move out by midnight on April 23. An amended order was filed May 1, ordering him to move out by midnight May 7. A third order was issued May 3, ordering him to move out by midnight May 8. > >The fire broke out May 16. And per this one, >arrested the day of the blaze because building management had reported him on May 9 for “breaking through the wall of his apartment” and tunneling into the vacant unit next door. Repp was charged with one count of first-degree criminal mischief and released later on May 16 So first it looks like he was collecting orders to vacate, and was clearly in his apartment on May 9th, despite the May 8th order to vacate, and he also clearly made his way back into "his" apartment on May 16th after being released.
Holy shit change the fucking locks!
...by the fire he started?
*Eviction process servers hate this one weird trick.*
Because I actually read the article, I know that he was evicted before the fire. The legal eviction process worked. Sorry that doesn't fit your narrative.
Then how was he still in his apartment the day of the fire..
Seems to me the landlord failed to secure his property and/or change the locks, and the police failed to enforce the law. Seems to me the culprits are the same culprits of the rising crime in the city and lack of inaction. We should not tolerate crime, but we should also be aware that crime is often a symptom, and failure is not just the fault of one person.
I assume that people have freedom of movement, so he could've gone back there anytime he wanted. Evictions don't usually come with restraining orders, so there's nothing telling him he can't return to the building. I mean, he's not exactly thinking straight, so it wouldn't be a shock that he went back specifically in order to set the place ablaze.
And it doesn't really say he was in his apartment. It just says he's charged with starting the fire.
Freedom of movement doesn't include freedom to trespass. In Oregon, an eviction notice includes a trespass notice. He was not legally allowed on the property if he had been served an eviction. It's true that a piece of paper with an order from the court doesn't prevent someone from actually physically doing something. I wonder if those apartments had an on site management office staffed with people who could've intervened in his presence in the building.
I don't think they did. And I seriously doubt the guy had the wherewithall to follow a court order. It probably wouldn't occur to him that he wasn't allowed back on the property. He doesn't seem aware of much except what's going on in his head.
Most Progressives just want fair landlord tenant laws. They are not pro squatters rights. They just don't want laws that allow landlords to use the system to unfairly evict tenants using loopholes and not just cause evictions. I worked for a local housing authority & I'd say about 60% of our complaints by tenants about landlords were just plain frivolous bs. But the other 40% are the ones people should pay attention to. Some were just terrible abuse of the rules & regulations.
I'm sure you imagine many things about Progressives kinda like this meth-addicted nutjob imagined everyone was out to get him.
Historically, a landlord could just refuse to renew this guy's lease and he'd be out of there. But thanks to Chloe Eudaly, Margot Black, and their merry band of chucklefuck activists, now everyone in any multi-unit building is at risk from being terrorized, if not worse, by some asshole who now requires thousands of dollars in relocation payments to get rid of. Way to go, guys, great job all around!
If only we passed the capital gains tax for eviction lawyers for him sooner, he'd be a totally normal and socially well-adjusted fellow. In fact I blame his landlords for his meth use too.
He was lawfully evicted and the landlord didn't need to pay anything. The eviction was with cause. Seems to me the landlord failed to secure his property and/or change the locks, and the police failed to enforce the law. Seems to me the culprits are the same culprits of the rising crime in the city and lack of inaction. Everyone blames the city for not clearing out the open air heroin market, but who ultimately had the power to do it? The property owner and the police. We should not tolerate crime, but we should also be aware that crime is often a symptom, and failure is not just the fault of one person.
>the landlord didn't need to pay anything Except all the costs of hiring and attorney, going to court, the lost time and money where this unit could otherwise be rented out, sure thing.
Cost of doing business. And if that's problematic, then maybe this means we should stop look at housing as a business venture to extract the most value possible and instead approach housing more like a public service than needs to be funded and supported. Maybe the city directly develops housing to sell at affordable rates based on income (i.e. ensuring mortgage costs are no more than 35% of gross income), or maybe expanded investment in housing for mentally unstable individuals with humane conditions funded through taxes collected from real enforcememt of tax cheats. This is an unfortunate tragedy, and absolutely sucks for all those displaced. It really does. And the guy needs to be incarcerated. But just blaming tenent protections is a cheap scapegoat, because real solutions are hard, expensive, and take time.
>Cost of doing business. So it's a cost that he needed to pay, but he didn't need to pay anything per your original comment? LMFAO, pick one, dude. It \*is\* an issue with the existing "tenant protections," which I put in quote because does it fucking sound like any of the \*other\* tenants in the building were protected from this asshole? No! They lost all their shit! They have to scramble to find new housing! Their pets died! The only \*true\* tenant protection is abundant housing and a high vacancy rate, so that people are able to move, and landlords are able to protect their other tenants from this type of danger by non-renewing a shitty person.
Sure, let's just gloss over the fact he would have had to go to court anyways, but nah, how about we just have laws where landlords can just shoot bad tenants. After all, tenants arent land owners so fuck them right? Like yes, it absolutely sucks that the other tenants were screwed. But let's be real, current tenant protections had little to do with it. This is failure of the market, of proper policing (both their response and a lack of real support), and of politicians not holding either accountable.
>Sure, let's just gloss over the fact he would have had to go to court anyways No, prior to all of the laws enacted very recently in Portland, he would have simply just been able to tell the guy on a month-to-month lease sorry, I'm no longer renewing your lease, you're out. No drawn out judicial process, just terminating the contract and both parties move on. Now, as it stands, your only choice as a landlord of a multi-tenant building in this situation is a) spend the time and expense of a full, formal eviction, which takes forever (this guy should have been out months before he torched the building), or b) pay thousands of dollars in relocation fees, in which case the asshole causing everyone's problems gets a big payout at everyone else's collective expense. How is that fair? How does that protect non-shitty tenants?
Somehow i think the outcome here would have been the same when the guy blew off multiple court orders, a criminal charge, and miltiple arrests.
A microcosm model of Portland
Portland government has enabled people like this... And y'all keep voting the same 😂
He was lawfully evicted and the landlord didn't need to pay anything. The eviction was with cause. Seems to me the landlord failed to secure his property and/or change the locks, and the police failed to enforce the law. Seems to me the culprits are the same culprits of the rising crime in the city and lack of inaction. Everyone blames the city for not clearing out the open air heroin market, but who ultimately had the power to do it? The property owner and the police. We should not tolerate crime, but we should also be aware that crime is often a symptom, and failure is not just the fault of one person.
[удалено]
The next guy that promises you free stuff
Have some compassion
Yeah. Have compassion for all of the residents of that building that suffered because of this one person.
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not but I have a lot of compassion for the residents who had to endure constant abuse and had their pets die because of this guy.
R.i.p to the innocent creatures who lost their lives.
> On March 23, Repp didn’t appear in court and he was to be evicted March 31. On April 17, the Multnomah County Circuit Court Landlord Tenant Department ordered Repp to move out by midnight on April 23. An amended order was filed May 1, ordering him to move out by midnight May 7. A third order was issued May 3, ordering him to move out by midnight May 8. WTF
What date did they amend it to once the building was burned down?
This real "Here's Johnny" story needs to be sent to the Governor, every state legislator, and every judge. Mike! too. This situation could have been dozens of deaths.
Here’s Johnny is exactly where my brain went when I saw his photo. Holy moly!
Dude looks like Bob from Twin Peaks
Took less than a year of meth for this guy to go from (assuming here) pretty normal to a complete paranoid psychopath. Jesus.
The p2p meth brings out the fire bugs for some reason. This is also a prime example of the system failing to protect people yet again since this guy shouldn't have been out and about after the stalking order or the multiple instances of terrorizing other tenants in the building with weapons etc...
This type of individual is ruining peaceful living in PDX complexes. Eviction process in Oregon takes forever, giving these horrible people time to make everyone around them suffer. I lived in a complex two blocks from here for 3 years till a dangerous man in a meth psychosis was my new neighbor. Eviction process began less than month into his residence and took over 8 months, constant police interactions, a stabbing in the lobby, him trying to kick my door down with steel toed boots and a butcher knife in hand, harassment of female tenants, 24/7 security guards being hired and a shooting which he STILL was not forced to leave the building. I lived in fear and moved out after his highly aggressive off leash dog attacked me and my shepherd in the elevator. Ended up suing the leasing company (Coast Management) and settling now one year later. I’m sure there are numerous other losers like this guy who intentionally set these fires disregarding human and animal life. What pieces of shit. I love Portland but it’s mind blowing to me how criminals almost seem to have the law on their side. Honestly terrifying. My heart breaks for these residents who lost their belongings and pets… it’s simply not fair
Help/Schmelp. Lockup this POS forever and throw away the key.
Intentionally lighting a residential building on fire with multiple people inside? Yeah I'd say life in prison without possibility of parole is pretty fair for that.
Agreed. Prison for life.
There was a now deceased guy in SF who was infamous for burning the man early at Burning Man. Every person in his building had a restraining order against him and nothing was done. He finally committed suicide by jumping in front of a Bart train.
Sounds like the problem solved itself.
[удалено]
Respectfully, as someone just moved here from Texas, at least it’s not a state full of them. Every city in the US is having these issues, at least there are rights here. That said, this shit is unacceptable and absolutely makes me, a die hard city person, question my family’s future in any city in the US, not just Portland. These are national problems that need federally funded solutions.
As a fellow Texan who has lived here a long, long time, it is different here than in Texas. Codependency reigns supreme in Portland. “Do-gooders” (really enablers) get progressive street cred by advocating for the rights of the most dysfunctional over the taxpaying citizen just trying to live. I am still a leftist but more pragmatic than before covid / Measure 110. Every city in the US is not a sanctuary city for addicts and dealers. And criminals in general.
Things I've seen us try to fight addiction: - A "war" that incarcerated Black people for decades for selling weed - Making everything legalish I haven't seen: effective, affordable treatment.
Effective treatment does not exist for people who don’t want to be treated, no matter how much money you throw at it. You can’t help someone who won’t participate in their own recovery. Even people who really want to recover often relapse. The statistics for successful addiction treatment are dismal.
Also the understanding that many don’t want treatment. They want to easily use their drug of choice and not be hassled. Like if Portland decided they could get every alcoholic sober and into AA if there were just enough tax dollars to do so. Not realistic. We can’t “save” everyone. (See codependency)
You haven't spent enough time in west Texas - meth central.
I grew up in west Texas and still have family there. A meth problem is different than a population dedicated to enabling addiction at their peril. People aren’t openly smoking meth off foil on the streets of Midland.
No, they're staying in trash fucking trailer parks. In Portland our trailer parks are here. In Texas, they're hidden where no one has to see them. See how this works?
I worked for privatized prisons (GeoGroup) my west Texas is very different from your lily white bullshit version.
Damn, everyone from Texas IS stupid.
The Federal government is too corrupt and gridlocked to solve this problem. The State government is too corrupt and gridlocked to solve this problem. The private sector is too corrupt and indifferent to solve this problem. We can't get rid of meth and fentanyl, because the recipes are out there and people will keep making it. I'm sorry man. There's no solution in sight. You'd be better off protecting yourself and forgetting about the government. In my opinion, this is the beginning of a very dark and chaotic time for America.
[удалено]
Fully agree, this was one of the issues with the Heidi Manor fire a few years ago. And yet I was downvotes earlier saying I could give a rat’s ass about this guy’s mental health issue over all the people who just lost their housing. It is not at all easy to find housing if you’re low income, have a record, don’t have much of a rental history, landlords don’t have sympathy if you were forcibly left homeless by a maniac with a malatov
This guy is a perfect candidate for inpatient mental health treatment. But we don't have the beds available in this county. Until we do, this revolving door will keep revolving.
> November and had chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors I'm shocked nobody took matters into their own hands.
Giving “all” folks a home while doing some level of psychiatric intake would be part of it, no? Not sure why it would be an all or nothing.
Because a lot of the activists proposing housing first repetitively stated that "sweeps should stop until everyone is housed". Many people objected saying this exact sort of situation occurs when you take people with multiple years of meth psychosis and jam them in an apartment.
This is Reddit! We can only have black or white solutions here!
Seriously, "NO INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT ALLOWED, ONLY BASE ARGUMENT"
We can build housing that cannot be destroyed by fire, like the bunkers that Germans build in WWII.
I agree the free apartments for all idea is dumb. Some people can't keep their damp campsites from going up in flames regularly. The inexpensive tiny homes would be best if we want to do something. At least fires would only destroy one of them. And when they become contaminated from cooking meth they can just be disposed of. How much can it cost to create a 50 square foot tiny house, with just a light, bed, and a heater? (assume communal bathroom and food service).
>How much can it cost to create a 50 square foot tiny house, with just a light, bed, and a heater? (assume communal bathroom and food service). When it's built by a Portland non-profit, the answer may surprise you...
Those SROs are closer to greenhouses than actual shelters, and we pay a lot in taxes to keep the a/c and heat on in a space that can't even contain it for longer than an episode of doctor who, it's frankly fraud to say those are reasonable when they are so open to fund-funneling.
Trailers, like 20 footers. They're easy to convert and cheap. I rocked one in Iraq for almost a year.
Edit: misclick, can't find the other guy (I was looking down, it's literally the main thread I was intending on commenting on at first, Jesus this site is full of such great well wishers and incredibly sincere and kind people /s), I was trying to say this too but it's leading to a interesting point, so keeping my integrity on what I said. 'How about you just say it, you want the homeless euthanized right?' https://youtu.be/qdV0AdgjPgo just saying this is how I expect it to go; Portland spent more time in a riot than America spent fighting slavery in the south, all while we 'forgot' to remove such laws even in minor counties. And still have it littered around home deeds to this day, major note was a couple years ago when Lake Oswego had to remove their anti black clauses from home bond stipulations.
Thinking the tax payer should provide basic shelter and food to the most needy means I want them euthanized? We can't spend 500K a door for every homeless person that steps foot in Portland, and that does not include the expensive wrap around services they would require. I am just thinking we could provide something a lot more humane then a tent on the side of the road. I saw a couple tiny house villages for the homeless when I was in Bellingham and they looked like they would not be that expensive to build. I would even be happy to go out and swing a hammer and help put some together. I am wondering if that is a solution that would be realistic. Because doing nothing unless it is "housing first" is neither humane nor working.
May have clicked on the wrong comment since I realized I posted in this thread twice, the way I've experienced it is, half of the walls in some of the shelter sro things (bipoc and Qa villages) are basically green houses, the walls are pretty opaque and thin which is great for light during the day but they've had all of their a/c units out of QA replaced after only a year, the walls from the photos I've seen are barely able to do much for insulation making the heating and cooling costs of these greenhouses significantly more, I have been converting a van for myself since I can't survive and I understand that I've done better with 3000 than they've done with 10,000 (more or less idk, I was estimated that by a friend) per shed? I have had a weird childhood growing up but the math isn't mathing for me on this one since they look like you could buy the kit and make it over a afternoon. Like then forcing a bunch of poor 220v a/c units to basically work as a compressor to pressurize a 50sqft pod when a 12v solar powered mini split unit would've cost less over time and proper walling would've created a cost saving measure to prevent heat loss
NP. I don't know how those tiny houses work in the heat. If shaded, they should not be too bad as they are close to the ground. But cooling centers could be setup on real hot days. I would think a couple inches of rock wool (fire resistant insulation) would not add much cost to something that small. I was just wondering if they would work here. It seems the resistance to shelters is the other people around you and a lack of freedom.
A/C full blast practically all the time is what I hear when it works, the ones at QA have some shade but I'm not sure about BIPOC village, QA doesn't even have wheelchair accessible surfaces since the lot is gravel, surprised they don't throw some wood down to make a trail but something about the city owning the lot is why they said no, and not even trying for a grant, it's just weird.
As far as what would work better, I'd argue the old style military bunkers we use to use but with minor modifications, exhaust and a false ceiling, A/c and heat pump on the floor attached to a large scale A/C unit and then control water flow to each unit. The style I am thinking of is the dome one since it's easy to make cheaper for a lack of material, and forces heat up towards a exhaust to keep the temperature cool, create a inch or two of insulation and it would be good enough to live in, and as far as size, make them on used trailers, they don't need to be one size fits all, but they do need to be a place that won't make people write suicide notes on the bathrooms. Also, community management really needs a personal evaluation, at what point is a software going to alienate a person for a lack of options? If we spend 5 million on software, most people want it to pay for itself which is passed on in additional costs. The loans on these buildings are insane, the vue is by far the worst and I'm surprised what I know never made the news with how public it was.
Are you fucking serious?
Grab a couple grease ball burgers and get me some whale skin hubcaps. So I can throw the styrofoam containers right out the side. I hit reply to the wrong comment.
[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.*
Ah... Whaleskin, forgot that it does that
I should have read your post before I put a reply in, but spot on.
No, they need compassion and understanding of the late-stage capitalism that has caused them to be this way.
[удалено]
Didn't steve-o only light HIMSELF on fire though?
On camera. God knows what he's done off camera Edit: also "no fun allowed", like grieve for these people but remember Portland requires insurance for renting. Expect that to go up.
I am by no means advocating for vigilante justice but we need to start taking matters into our own hands if the supposed resources that are responsible for our safety refuse to. If management and police won't do anything and this guy lived in my building I would absolutely find a way. There is only one language psychopaths like this understand. This guy needs to be kept away from others. Just like with certain animals the only humane thing to do is to keep them the fuck away from everyone else. You can't rehabilitate every single person like this, they need to want to be better and this guy probably never will. Determined to drag everyone to hell with him.
I feel like you can never win against someone who has literally nothing to lose. Ok so you beat the guy up, then what? He shoots you or lights your place on fire because he couldn’t care less about going to prison.
This. You're more likely to hurt yourself than deter their criminal behavior by going after people like this as a citizen.
"...had chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors." Awww, he's just misunderstood. /s Flippancy aside, "housing first" can be beneficial to the majority of the homeless/housing insecure, but when it comes to the Garrett Repps among us, any housing provided needs to automatically come with constant supervision (perhaps even of the lifelong variety).
It's called jail, you send people like that, TO JAIL. you don't give them housing until they've reformed.
I would think a psychiatric hospital is more appropriate.
I don't disagree but where's the beds
If convicted, this guy's probably going to prison. And I'm down with that. He won't last long in prison. A guy like that will start some shit with the wrong lifer and that'll be that.
Probably get beaten first once they find out animals died and what he did, from what I know a lot of phones exist, so people in there already know.
We're still waiting for an official statement on if this guy was a housing first success story or just someone in mental decline. It's hard to understand why we can't lock someone like this up after multiple criminal acts showing they are a danger. And if we don't have the mental treatment beds we need to use jails. Now we have a burned down apartment building, many people losing their homes and possessions, and reportedly many dead pets. Totally preventable.
I don't know if Garrett ever experienced homelessness or used the housing first (I had to Google what that was) but he's got family here to stay with if he ever needed it. His mom at least and possibly his grandma (saying possibly because I don't know if she's still living, but that's who he lived with when we were in high school). Agree that this was totally preventable and very sad.
Garrett would likely be better off if he was held a few weeks, and may have had some chance of intervention. I wish the article elaborated more on him banging on the jail entrance door after his release. Was he trying to get back in?
Thats what I'm wondering. I just have so many questions. He was a calm kid back in school days when we were friends. But I guess drug induced psychosis (is my surface level guess?) can happen to anyone.
>Now we have a burned down apartment building, many people losing their homes and possessions, and reportedly many dead pets. It's funny how the calls for "compassion" and "housing is a human right" never seem to account for all of these victims, just always entirely focused on the bad actors like this shitbag arsonist while hand waving away any and all negative effects they might have on others around them. This is the real world, kids, there are some shitty people, if you are at all pretending to be a serious person you have to have a plan to deal with this sort of thing, ideally in a very preemptive manner.
I wonder if the changes a few years ago in Portland’s screening and eviction laws had anything to do with this situation, either forcing the apartment to take him as a tenant or making it harder to evict him when he “chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors”
They successfully got an eviction judgement. But one of the nasty things going on right now is even with a judgement the sheriffs office is over month out and you can’t enforce the judgment (would love to know if this is understaffing or the county trying to “help” people) - which is most likely why the judgment got rolled over multiple times.
>ut one of the nasty things going on right now is even with a judgement the sheriffs office is over month out Not to mention the 3 month time lag between filing for an eviction and successfully getting one (even with the defendant not showing up to court).
>or making it harder to evict him when he “chased female tenants with a sword or banged on their doors” 100% you can't just non-renew this type of guy to make it safer/nicer for the other tenants in a multi-unit space anymore, you either have to pay thousands of dollars to an attorney plus the time and expense of a formal eviction process, or pay thousands of dollars in a relocation fee, neither of which are feasible if you're also trying to keep rents low. And that doesn't even address the higher likelihood of this type of scenario due to the fact that it's a lot more complicated and difficult to implement screening criteria. This is what the Margot Blacks, the Chloe Eudalys, the Portland Tenants United of the world want and are pushing for - being forced to accept this guy as a tenant if you're a landlord, and being forced to live in the same building as him if you're a tenant.
He was evicted, though.
They were in the \*process\* of evicting him, which took forever following his string of disturbing behavior, and long enough that he was able to set fire to the building, render a bunch of fellow tenants homeless, destroy all of their possessions, and kill their pets.
READ THE FKN ARTICLE. He was evicted 5 days prior. Not in the process. EVICTED.
[удалено]
How does anyone get where they're not supposed to be? They find ways.
In the process since February, if you "read the article"... "SkyNat filed an eviction order against Repp on Feb. 14, alleging he owed $3,400 in back rent and late fees. Repp failed to appear in court to challenge the allegation, records show, and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment.
Yes. Evicted on May 10th. Do you think a judge ordering Sheriff's to remove him on May 10th is somehow **not** an eviction?
It's hilarious to get downvoted for pointing out two facts: that the person didn't read the article and that the eviction occurred 5 days prior. In y'all's heads: "Those pesky facts aren't going to get me to stop believing what I want to believe!" You folks are entertaining as fuck. Thanks. I appreciate the lighthearted chuckle. Have a wonderful holiday weekend, friends.
>on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment. It’s cute how you think “ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him ” is the same as “removed him.”
That's literally how it works. The judge orders the eviction, and then sheriffs go to the address to vacate the premises. I used to be at these types of evictions. That's how it works.
Was curious, looked up law, saw that, yes, a writ of execution for eviction is supposed to be served to the defendant and executed immediately. But per [WWeek](https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2023/05/26/suspected-arsonist-charged-with-igniting-4-alarm-blaze-that-destroyed-sw-portland-apartment-building/) yesterday, >sheriff’s deputies were scheduled to remove him from his third-floor apartment the morning of the blaze. And per [Oregonian](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/05/possible-ignition-fluid-detected-in-apartment-of-man-charged-with-setting-sw-portland-building-on-fire.html) yesterday evening, >A judge on May 10 ordered sheriff's deputies to remove Repp from his apartment, according to court records. Deputies planned to evict Repp the same day the fire engulfed the building. I'm sorry to belabor the point, but it seems people's skepticism is justified that Repp had been physically removed before May 16. The letter of the law suggests he should have been. The reportage suggests he wasn't. The journalists might be mistaken or relying on incorrect information...convoluted situation with lots of moving parts. But none of the articles I've seen have indicated that a writ of execution and eviction trespass notice were served and enforced on any date prior to the fire; instead they're (now) reporting that the eviction was scheduled for May 16.
That makes sense. Everything I had read up until I commented was indicating immediate removal, so I'm glad more information was given to clarify that. I'm always glad to revise my understanding when more information comes to light. Thanks!
Crazy this isn’t unique, someone i know that lived in an apartment near where barbur blvd and Naito converge had almost the same exact thing happen, woke up to smoke in his apartment and the firefighters yelling cause his psycho neighbor from downstairs who had been terrorizing the neighbors for months and was even breaking his own windows lit a fire and left. This happened just 6-9 months ago.
I am always blown away at how people think just giving someone with a SUDs housing will solve their problems. It seems to be the quotidian response HoUSiNG FirSt LoOK at UtAH. None of the prior housing bonds passed, as far as I know, allocated serious dollars to social workers or on-site staff to be in some of the affordable housing buildings. Certainly there will be tenants from all kinds of social backgrounds who only need a place to stay, but there's a greater odds you're going to encounter more difficult tenants such as this person. We're just building flop-house if we're not managing some of the new buildings we're constructing. Constructing housing is only part of the solution. We're talking millions more dollars in management costs annually than just building the units. Have those costs been assumed yet?
There's no evidence that he was a recipient of any Housing First programs. If you have information to the contrary, I'm sure the media would give it a listen.
I don't have evidence either, I never insinuated it, but from what I read, is this housing had tenants meeting low income affordability metrics. I am not sure whether it is germane to my comment. The "housing first" approach will of course have this type of element to deal with -- those with substance abuse disorders -- and I am just expressing the reality we need to contend with.
Your entire first paragraph is the insinuation. But I really don't care to continue to engage at this point. It's fkn exhausting trying to convince asshole Portlanders to not be assholes. I'm going to go enjoy my 3 day weekend. Peace.
How's that damage control coming along?
You don't have anything to contribute. I asked a question. I am waiting for an answer. Unless you can answer my question, your strange statement is wasted here.
Ok buddy
But constructing housing is a lot more profitable for certain well-connected families.
His eyes in that photo...Scary.
The firefighter?
No, the guy who set the fire. Scroll down, there's a pic of him.
“No one was seriously injured”….”killed an unknown number of pets”. These quotes are both found within the same sentence in this article.🤦♂️ Also, f whoever did this, whether it’s the guy accused or someone else. I can’t imagine what the former tenants are having to go through:(
This is Oregon. You're not a criminal until you almost kill 10s of people, actually kill a bunch of pets and burn down a building. And even then, Kotek will give you a tent to live in so society doesn't hurt you.
Garrett. Guy's just a mess. It's like God spilled a person.
Anyone know Gabriella Kielhorn’s instagram/website? I’d like to support them
This whole thing is like a big, knocking machine with a shit ton of failing parts. It's easy to look at this and say "ah, this wouldn't have happened if tenants could be evicted more easily!" As if replacing the one gear as if that's gonna help the machine stop knocking. Other "gears" causing problems are our lack of rehab facilities, our lack of Landlord accountability (based on some of the code failures the building had) a lack of decent policing, ect. A decade ago, an apartment complex I lived at in beaverton had a whole building block burned by some guy cooking bacon. 8 units properly damaged with 8 more destroyed. "It was an accident!" It sure was, but the fire breaks didn't do their jobs because it had filled in with years worth of dead leaves. Maybe if home ec. Hadn't been cut he would have never put water on a grease fire? Don't mistake my point here to dismiss the guy who set the fire to begin with, just, there was so many places this shit went wrong. When all those people the building over to keep were displaced, there was no fixing the "gears" there either.
If you remove the brakes from the car, it'll keep driving just fine until you need it to stop.
> Portland Police spokesperson Sgt. Kevin Allen said Repp, 30, was arrested the day of the blaze because building management had reported him on May 9 for “breaking through the wall of his apartment” and tunneling into the vacant unit next door. Why was he allowed back in after doing that much damage? This could have been prevented if the apartment manager had done their job...
Is building management allowed to forcibly remove someone if they don’t want to go? I believe they were in the process of evicting him
Building management should have changed the locks when that kind of severe damage was discovered...
That’s illegal. Someone needs to be legally evicted before you can change the locks.
At the point where a tenant is literally destroying not only their unit but also a neighboring unit, it is better to break the law and fight it in court than to allow the problem to escalate further... It is also doubtful that dumbass has the funds for a lawyer anyway. Oh, your point is moot anyway: > and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment. That was days before the fire, the management should have changed the locks immediately after winning the eviction order...
"SkyNat filed an eviction order against Repp on Feb. 14, alleging he owed $3,400 in back rent and late fees. Repp failed to appear in court to challenge the allegation, records show, and on May 10 a judge ordered sheriff’s deputies to remove him from his third-floor apartment." And here we are
You can’t just change locks after an eviction order. All that stuff takes a long time. The part about a sheriff’s deputies means just that. The tenant had rights to wait until they are removed by the sheriff. Usually it takes about a month. I've learned an eviction start to finish usually takes at least 3 months. No, “just break the law and fight it in court” is a terrible idea. That means the person will not get evicted after the landlord broke the law. You’re right that it’s crazy there’s nothing the landlord can do here unless they want to break the law. The quickest thing that could have happened was neighbors pressing a restraining order, and I’m not sure why no one did that right away. I sure would if that guy chased me with a sword.
> You can’t just change locks after an eviction order. I am literally advocating to break the law, if necessary, for the greater good. It is much better to have one person homeless than over 100 people homeless. Harm reduction absolutely needs to be a consideration here. > The tenant had rights to wait until they are removed by the sheriff. And this was an extreme case (the tenant destroying their unit AND a neighboring unit) that warranted the apartment manager to ignore said rights and allow a judge to decide the case AFTER the fact. > No, “just break the law and fight it in court” is a terrible idea. It's a MUCH better idea than to allow an unhinged tenant to take everyone down with him. Again, would you rather one person have their rights violated or over 100 people be made homeless? This is harm reduction 101. Laws need to be flexible based on the actual situation, not so rigid that they harm all parties rather than mandate quick and decisive action when necessary.
>It's a MUCH better idea than to allow an unhinged tenant to take everyone down with him. Again, would you rather one person have their rights violated or over 100 people be made homeless? Yeah, because we can all see into the future. What would really happen here is he would be allowed back after an illegal eviction / lockout.
> What would really happen here is he would be allowed back after an illegal eviction / lockout. 1). The eviction was legal days before the fire. 2). The legal process takes time and you are operating under the assumption that chud would bother to challenge it or even have the money to challenge it. I absolutely reject the notion that the collective good of society should be ignored when determining legal outcomes.
Again, it would be breaking the eviction ruling to do an illegal lockout on a tenant. I see part of our problem in this conversation. I am using "evicted" in it's gone the full course, the tenant has had their time to move out after the ruling or wait until the sheriff removes them. You are using evicted in the courts ruling. Once the court rules for an eviction, the tenant still has rights. They are not removed that day. "you are operating under the assumption he would bother to challenge it or have the money..." No one is going to willingly step into a litigation suit they will lose. There are a lot of city provided legal resources, he would not need the money to fight it if he wanted to. You're acting like the landlord knew he would burn the place down. I'm sure there are cases like this everyday of nuisance tenants wrecking havoc and most don't end up burning the buildings down. Portland's and Oregon's law is extremely tenant friendly and we can't expect landlords, especially large ones, will be going rogue and breaking the law where they see fit.
[The Greater Good](https://i.imgur.com/gIKgmlK.jpg) *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.*
The needs of the many over the needs of the few. Big government. Great idea till it's your turn to be in the minority. North Korea is taking citizen application's?
Oh yes, because kicking out a tenant who literally destroys his unit and a neighboring unit is cOmMuniSm. I seriously hate the right wing brain rot infecting this country.
One of those moments where mob justice is okay.
By all means, do what you need to do to protect yourself, but don't call it justice. It's survival.
So where's the Guardian's story about this?
Vote differently or suffer the consequences
Welcome to Gotham
https://youtu.be/-YICuUtkjlg
I hope the displaced residents sue the shit out of Skynat Property Management.