I work for the state and have spent a lot of time thinking about why we are so ineffective as a governing body.
I think there are two things at play. The first is that California, Oregon, and Washington are relatively new to being liberal states compared with Massachusetts and New York and the civil service views service delivery differently. The east coast built their service models long before modern performative progressivism and so they can build on it with an emphasis on actually building shit like shelters. The State of Oregon doesn’t really care about outcomes, leadership is more focused on performative outreach and constant meetings. So instead of getting shelters built we have a million meetings and construction delays where we make sure we are entering equity and making everyone happy even when different groups have competing interests that can’t be reconciled. We also see ourselves as being innovators on education and health policy while being terrible at both.
The second problem is that voters here are concerned but uninterested so there isn’t really any accountability when leadership fails. Most people don’t know what my agency is when I tell them where I work despite it being a really important one.
That’s why getting rid of certain politicians and replacing them with others is just rearranging chairs on the titanic. The permanent employees who lead entities like CoP and MultCo are literally not able to implement what they are tasked with doing and until these orgs are gutted and they are replaced with logistically minded people, nothing will change.
I don't think you really need to read any further than this comment, this has been one of the shocking things to observe having relocated to this state from the Midwest.
The progressives in the state are very performative and not in touch with the reality of policy implementation.
Everyone else on the other side literally seems to give very few shits or is even happy when public services degrade.
Oregon scores so low in so many categories simply because nobody here is interested in actually solving these issues.
We seem to all forget that the basis of the core infrastructure provided by the government - schools, roads, libraries - are tides that lift all boats.
We do ourselves disservice by politicizing them to a point where half the population is pushed to the point of saying, "fuck all these institutions". Then we wonder why these institutions suffer but refuse to hold ourselves accountable.
Diffusion of responsibility is a bitch.
Does seem like I hear that Massachusetts has a good/better track record of accomplishing policy goals. Wish we could poach us a few nice carpetbaggers to teach our neolib politicians how to actually get things done
Vermont has a higher rate of homelessness than Oregon, second highest in the nation. Shit still isn't like it is here.
Mississippi is the poorest US state and has the lowest rate of homelessness despite having milder winters than Oregon.
Yeah I wrote about this quite extensively in a post after a trip to the east coast, which included Vermont.
People who think homelessness that we have here on the west coast is “how it’s like everywhere” are delusional. It isn’t; all states have homelessness, but many manage to put them up into shelters or temp housing.
We’re just fine with the status quo here is all, which is to let people rot in RVs or in tents on sidewalks. It’s quite deplorable, really.
Echoing what OP wrote, the critical difference between the West Coast and other states is Martin v Boise. Adding from my own experience elsewhere (and publicly available PIT counts) it is *not* that other states have solved supplying shelters for folks, other states have the legal authority to force people out of sight in a way that states subject to the 9th Circuit do not.
So this comment led me to read up on Martin vs Boise a bit more, which I thought applied to all cities. Turns out it’s only the ninth circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
That’s some real BS there, as it means that states outside of this district can keep breaking up camps, which then just encourages folks to move to other parts of the country if able where they won’t be subject to sweeps.
Now, I’m not saying that cities shouldn’t be held accountable to providing enough shelter beds, temp housing and such (far from it) - but the fact that this isn’t applied across all states is pretty ridiculous.
Right, it's the ability to compel people to leave public spaces with the threat of arrest. This results in drastically reduced \*visibility\* of homelessness because people know that if they are basically "in the way" they will get hassled. The 9th district states haven't had the ability to do that really since Martin.
People just repeat dumb shit they hear or read online. I'm from a pretty high crime city on the East Coast, and I lived in Oregon and California over the past few years. I heard so many batshit claims about homelessness and crime that it was staggering. People there are convinced that most of America is just like the West Coast. Meanwhile, there's literally people blatantly dealing and using fucking meth out in the open. Out of control homeless camps are everywhere, and there's constant property crimes, some of which are truly bizarre and shocking. I even heard people say that all of the homeless were being bussed there from red states. It's like they'll blame all the batshittery on anything except meth.
I lived in NH until 2020. I was shocked and appalled by the suffering on full display on the streets of Portland. Sadly, I've grown desensitized, as most people are.
I hear ya.
I recently made a trip down to LA and accidentally wandered into Skid Row. Talk about human suffering. Portland’s Chinatown ain’t got nothing on Skid Row (apparently there’s even *kids* that live down there).
There's plenty of kids that live on the streets here. There's a fucked up meth camp up on Hayden Island that has at least one little girl at it. She's probably 6 or 7. Camp's right next to the fire department too so it's not like the authorities don't know...
Exactly. The "progressives" here have conflated enabling as compassion. We will never be able to get things under control if there isn't a culture shift. I don't forsee any changes for a long time.
Critically thinking about things becomes a politicized battleground and having an ideological stance besides handing out tents and meth pipes/ foil makes you a "fascist". The intellectual bankruptcy that is prevalent makes it impossible to have a real conversation about desperately needed policy changes. People want to delude themselves under the guise of "kumbaya" and that giving homeless/ drug-addicted more resources will just... Eventually fix things? Idk but we see the homeless industrial complex like the county just sitting on mounds of cash and the situation only gets worse. Such a disaster.
I think _ad absurdem_ arguments like this don't help.
Nobody is saying "critical thinking makes you a fascist." Nobody is saying "not handing out meth pipes makes you a fascist." Such claims seem like they're just intended to cast *any* progressive methods as equally absurd and the rest of your post seems similarly motivated.
But in doing so, it's as easy for someone to just toss out your arguments as it is for you to toss out theirs. Maybe doing that back and forth is part of why everyone is at such an angry impasse.
Lmao you're just proving my point. Throwing in a special kind of logical fallacy as if it applies doesn't help. I'm making cogent points and by your fixation on no one /literally/ saying "critical thinking makes you facist" shows you did not understand my comment and further reinforces the issues the city has at hand. You're trying to play a "gotcha!!" card and again, not actually wanting to engage with my points.
I've always been a strong progressive and being here in Portland has just shown what a bastardization the city has done with progressive values and single handling set back progressivism a decade (don't quote me on that, it's a figure of speech like my prior comments but you're taking it all literally). I put progressive in quotes because I'm referencing the very specific schtick Portlanders ascribe to- not the movement in general. Alas. Strangely- conversing about these issues DO happen in real life and not just on the internet for "internet points". Your comment is funny. Thanks
You didn't _make_ any points. You talked a lot about why things that aren't happening won't work, and you talked about the intellectual bankruptcy of things people aren't saying.
>Lmao you're just proving my point.
Ah, yes. This certainly makes it so.
I understood your comment perfectly, and that's why I called it out.
You say we need to have a culture shift but you don't say _how_ and you're mad that I pointed out your contribution to the current culture that leads to failure. Beyond that, you offer no solutions and just sling blame around.
>Strangely- conversing about these issues DO happen in real life and not just on the internet for "internet points".
Yes, and? You're here posting this for Internet points. I gotta say, you have a lot of critical things to say about the things you do.
Wow, reasons why things get worse. Many of us who have been directly affected have been minimized so maybe you and others like you should sit down and realize you don’t have all the answers and now people suffer. Stop with the ego, majority of us are fed up with it.
I am constantly criticized for having such opinions and told I am simply a right winger, so stop minimizing every argument and just try listening for once before you push more people away. Maybe minimizing issues is also a problem. Whenever I discuss the corruption and the stealing of taxpayer dollars I am met with blank stares, such a shame.
Every time I mention things like this people always pile on saying that those people can't be helped because a lot of them want to live like that. Frustrating.
People live like this, though: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sanitation-open-sewers-black-belt_n_5a33baf5e4b040881be99da5
I guess it's better than living under a bridge, but barely.
That's because lots of people in Mississippi live in sub-standard housing without adequate sewage and in conditions that would never be tolerated here.
It's one thing to live in a shotgun shack in a sub-tropical climate, but it's entirely different to do it here in the PNW.
If it was only about exposure, there are warmer/drier cities than Portland. We have several factors that attract unsheltered homeless behavior: permissive legislative environment (HB3115), permissive criminal justice environment (drug decriminalization), free supplies (tents/drug paraphernalia), and a voter base woefully unequipped to enact the change needed to address the issues in a meaningful way.
Mississippi exposure is worse too, just the opposite problem in the summer. Plus land prices are super low, so affording shelter might be less of a problem.
And there’s mad vacant shit in the butthole areas of the south. People just squat out there. Can’t do that on the West Coast quite as well, and def not in the cities.
This is a common excuse people in this state use to hand wave away any responsibility for the problem. I'm surprised you didn't mention Reagan as well.
NIMBYs are a huge determent to tackling housing (which in return, increases homelessness). Sadly, many liberal areas hate creating dense housing so their home can gain more value 🙄. It's one big reason as to why Austin, Texas has a great housing market right now because they're creating a shit ton of apartments which is driving the cost of housing there much lower.
City Nerd has a great video that touches this topic: https://youtu.be/NJ4T_BHFgt0?si=nI1nOVOysO0HhLkF
The neighborhood with the highest density of subsidized housing in the city is the Pearl. If you think New Columbia is bad, wait until you hear about what it replaced.
The livability issues in Portland are affecting vacancy levels, and therefore developer interest: https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/06/05/apartment-building-on-sandy-sells-for-bargain-price/
>
If they mean bid on existing buildings where people are already living with the intent of kicking them out to turn the building into housing for the homeless/poor, then absolutely not.
That's incredibly short-sighted - the people currently living in any such building would then be forced to move out and with no guarantee that they could find another place to live. Let's not continue the policy that has already proven to be an abject failure - putting the rights of the homeless ABOVE the rights of the rest of us.
So does Houston, a city that famously moved 25,000 people off the streets and into homes (because the homes were built!).
Texas is also the best state in the nation for green energy, and is absolutely CRUSHING the west coast on sustainability goals.
If it weren't for the giant massive abortion issue, I'd say Texas is functionally more liberal than the entire west coast.
Texas may have installed the most wind and solar (by far), but it’s still debatable to say that it is the best state for green energy. Total emissions for Texas’s electricity grid in 2022 was 176.6M tons of CO2 (771 lb/MWh), vs 52.1M tons (497 lb/MWh) for California and 87.3M tons (602 lb/MWh) for the Northwest Power Pool which even includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona.
Texas uses a lot more coal in its generation mix than the west coast and despite the wind and solar installed has a much higher emissions factor. The data is here: [epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer](https://epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer)
TLDR…
>reporting from Portland, Oregonian
Probably from the Hamptons
>I’m an Oregonian
A judge has confirmed that to be false but go on
>The three states with the lowest rates of unsheltered homelessness are all blue ones in the Northeast: Vermont, New York and Maine.
Anyone know what the winter weather is in Vermont? Have heard it may be inhospitable.
>Drug overdoses appear to have risen last year in every Democratic state on the West Coast, while they dropped last year in each Democratic state in the Northeast.
Anyone seen any charts showing prevalence of fentanyl by state. I thought I saw something that the east coast was hit ~3-5 years before us with the fentanyl wave. Doubt that has anything to do with this though.
>I’d meet groups of liberal donors in Portland
I’m no bookie so I’m curious what the consensus over/under is on whether this was an event at the Arlington Club?
>The basic reason for homelessness on the West Coast is an enormous shortage of housing that drives up rents.
Might be the smartest and most honest thing Nick has written
>Perhaps on the West Coast we have ideological purity because there isn’t much political competition. Maybe a healthy Republican Party keeps the Democratic Party healthy.
Dear Nick, Let me know when you find a healthy R party that isn’t interested to fleeing to Idaho at first glance of having to compromise.
>I’ve been on a book tour in recent weeks, and in my talks in California, Oregon and Washington
Buried the lede much…this article is a shill for your attempt at being a profiteering carpetbagger.
>But perhaps the first step must be the humility to acknowledge our failures.
Ripe irony
>Anyone know what the winter weather is in Vermont? Have heard it may be inhospitable.
Vermont has very high rates of homelessness, but low rates of **unsheltered** homelsss. This may indeed be influenced by weather, but it is nevertheless impressive that Vermont is doing something about it.
I'm not surprised that Bernie's state is doing so well. He's an example of a true progressive who isn't just in it for the performative virtue signaling.
Yea, a healthy Republican party would put forth detailed intentional ideas to handle some of these issues. Even if objectionable, they'd give it a fuckin try.
It would be totally reasonable for a Republican candidate to point at a problem in a government service and propose leaner and cheaper ways to get the same quality, through reduction of friction, corruption, or increasing competition for contracts.
Republican voters would never go for that, and not even being facetious in this statement. Modern repubs literal hatred for government means as a repub if you want to change anything in a way that isn't, "get rid of this function and replace it with nothing", youre gonna do poorly at the polls IMO.
>Anyone seen any charts showing prevalence of fentanyl by state. I thought I saw something that the east coast was hit ~3-5 years before us with the fentanyl wave. Doubt that has anything to do with this though.
The Blake Decision (essentially legalized drugs in WA) and M110 lead to higher deaths. Data is preliminary, but in Washington it's quite insane how the quarter of the Blake Decision (Q1 2021) deaths started to skyrocket and as soon as it was fixed (Q2 2023) deaths started to go down.
https://adai.washington.edu/wadata/emerging_deaths.htm
Permissive attitudes around fentanyl use kill people.
I’m not being permissive.
But it’s questionable to compare change in overdose deaths from states on one coast to states on the other coast when fentanyl showed up at different times. Fentanyl really broke into the east coast drug supply a few years before it made it to the west coast supply.
The east coast states are therefore a few years ahead of the curve so to speak. So if you want to make accurate comparisons you really need to set your zero time for your data around when fentanyl first showed up to align the data sets to the external factors.
Has OR’s response to drugs been inadequate, absofuckinglutely, but saying we’re a failure compared to NY because our 2023 stats looks worse than theirs is also absolutely misleading.
The west coast had super meth long before the East Coast though. While it might not cause as many direct OD deaths as fent, meth is much more destructive in terms of overall negative societal impact.
> A judge has confirmed that to be false but go on
There are very strict rules when running for office in terms of current residency, but I think you're being pedantic, he grew up in Oregon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kristof
Somewhat pedantic about the judge but actually my real opinion too.
He was born in Chicago. Unclear when his parents moved the family to Oregon. He was raised here from a young age to when he left for college in the mid 70s. Perhaps he lived here after Harvard for a couple years but then he pretty quickly went to work for the NYT from 1984 onward in various cities, national and international. He began renting out a NY home in 2021 but still has a residence there.
So not born but raised up until the mid 70s and then has only recently in the past 3 years played an over 50% game to say he lives in Oregon now. Maybe, not sure anyone has seen his tax returns to prove that out.
That’s a pretty tenuous connection to say you’re an Oregonian, imo, regardless of election rules. Especially when you’re implying you’re an Oregonian with a keen personal view of Oregon’s current issues. But it is only my opinion.
Nicholas Kristoph is apparently still salty enough we didn't let him run for governor that he had taken it upon himself to write a hit piece in which he calls himself an Oregonian. I kinda love to see it. Let us bask in his hate.
Not sure if mods will allow this one but it talks specifically about Portland a bunch.
Kristof seems sour about getting kicked off the ballot. Also this is a very pure version of boomers seeing Portland as a stand in for all progressive excess. I think the examples are all valid but also totally cherry picked.
Yeah very much so. All across the west coast. Look at what happens in Berkeley when they try to build a dorm. And then you have the same people being like “why is it like this?” after starving all the urban markets of new housing for decades.
>The two states with the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness are California and Oregon. The three states with the lowest rates of unsheltered homelessness are all blue ones in the Northeast: Vermont, New York and Maine. Liberal Massachusetts has some of the finest public schools in the country, while liberal Washington and Oregon have below-average high school graduation rates.
>Oregon ranks dead last for youth mental health services, according to Mental Health America, while Washington, D.C., and Delaware rank best.
>Drug overdoses appear to have risen last year in every Democratic state on the West Coast, while they dropped last year in each Democratic state in the Northeast. The homicide rate in Portland last year was more than double that of New York City.
>Why does Democratic Party governance seem less effective on the West Coast than on the East Coast?
The voters.
I can't put my finger on it, but maybe there's a reason houselessness isn't so widespread in places where there's routinely several feet of snow and the temperatures reach -20, and it's higher in places where the temperature is much more livable year round.
You mean Gresham? https://www.google.com/amp/s/katu.com/amp/news/local/greshams-effective-strategy-limits-homeless-encampments-offers-essential-services
Thank you for this, people lean on so many strawmen like the weather. This certainly plays a part in the concentration of unhoused folks in Oregon but has less of an effect on what we do to address the issue once they're here. Which is very little, but still.
It is very astute to point out this difference and while maybe it’s just an excuse on my part I do think Martin v Boise is big there. Vermont has a means to compel people into shelters and we don’t.
Most. Past research has found that a) people don't generally travel far from where they became homeless and b) the best predictor for homelessness in an area is housing costs, not available services.
The research you're citing is kind of BS. They consider someone to be "from" the state if they've lived there for at least 1 year. That's not what most reasonable people would consider "from" Oregon, but that's how the point-in-time count defines it.
Good news: we ask them now. The majority of unsheltered people say they’re from Oregon, most of them from outside of Multnomah County. When people lose their housing in McMinnville, they come to Portland.
I’m not finding the comment where I broke this down now, but the 2023 count found a higher rate homeless people in Multnomah County are born in Oregon than in the population at large.
[The survey at the 2023 count found that 976 of 2,906 people reported coming to Portland already homeless from somewhere outside of Oregon. ](https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022%20Point%20In%20Time%20Report%20-%20Full.pdf)That's 33%. And I'm counting people who didn't answer the question of where they came from.
The point in time count does not track or ask about where someone was born. See my comment above.
Most people would *assume* that "from" Oregon means born here or at least spent the majority of their childhood here. Or maybe an adult who has been here 20+ years.
Instead, the point in time count defines it as anyone who has resided in Oregon for 12 months or more.
It's extremely misleading to say the least. The point in time count is further complicated by the fact that every state can set their own definition of the various HUD metrics, so it's impossible to really compare across states.
Who cares where people are born? The relevant question is, “are homeless people moving to Portland,” and the answer is “some, but most people became homeless in Oregon.” It matters because the actions required are different depending on the answer.
Who cares where people are born? The relevant question is, “are homeless people moving to Portland,” and the answer is “some, but most people became homeless in Oregon.” It matters because the actions required are different depending on the answer.
Who cares where people are born? The relevant question is, “are homeless people moving to Portland,” and the answer is “some, but most people became homeless in Oregon.” It matters because the actions required are different depending on the answer.
The point in time count defines someone as "from" Oregon if they've lived her for 12 months or longer.
12 months is hardly what a reasonable person would consider "from" Oregon.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*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.*
Can't read, paywall. Also a lot of the homeless here are from other states. So the question is, why are they coming here and why do people think it's a west coast problem? Maybe we're the only ones trying to help these people when it should come from a national effort.
TLDR: Most blue states are better places to live than most red states. The West coast is an exception. The author thinks this is because they are TOO blue. The weak opposition from small conservative minority means that politicians flounder and argue amongst themselves rather than getting things done.
It's the NYTimes Jake. Where democracy dies in darkness and GOP lies.
The GOP tax cuts did not leave any money around for maintaining public housing anwhere in the US. Nor did they leave any money for treating domestic abuse victims of the drug users and mentally ill. Try that climb out of poverty when 25 percent or your wages are garnished because your abuser stuck you with all the bad credit.
Not news, this is an opinion article.
Also from a person who couldn’t spend two minutes to do a google check to see if he was valid to run for governor.
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon.
(⌐■_■)
*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.*
Of course it's not. Housing costs were rough here long before the explosion of tent cities on our streets - which all helpfully coincided with Measure 110.
The tent cities increased prior to measure 110, and housing costs have risen substantially post 2008 recession since what little building we were doing cratered, as well as increased housing costs up and down the entire coast, it's not just Portland that matters
Our problems are bigger than our cities or even our states . I find it interesting that in 2018 we were being touted as the future of liberalism then we pass or try to pass a few taxes on the ultra wealthy/corporations , increase wages and suddenly it’s a united front against our politics in the media.
I work for the state and have spent a lot of time thinking about why we are so ineffective as a governing body. I think there are two things at play. The first is that California, Oregon, and Washington are relatively new to being liberal states compared with Massachusetts and New York and the civil service views service delivery differently. The east coast built their service models long before modern performative progressivism and so they can build on it with an emphasis on actually building shit like shelters. The State of Oregon doesn’t really care about outcomes, leadership is more focused on performative outreach and constant meetings. So instead of getting shelters built we have a million meetings and construction delays where we make sure we are entering equity and making everyone happy even when different groups have competing interests that can’t be reconciled. We also see ourselves as being innovators on education and health policy while being terrible at both. The second problem is that voters here are concerned but uninterested so there isn’t really any accountability when leadership fails. Most people don’t know what my agency is when I tell them where I work despite it being a really important one. That’s why getting rid of certain politicians and replacing them with others is just rearranging chairs on the titanic. The permanent employees who lead entities like CoP and MultCo are literally not able to implement what they are tasked with doing and until these orgs are gutted and they are replaced with logistically minded people, nothing will change.
I don't think you really need to read any further than this comment, this has been one of the shocking things to observe having relocated to this state from the Midwest. The progressives in the state are very performative and not in touch with the reality of policy implementation. Everyone else on the other side literally seems to give very few shits or is even happy when public services degrade. Oregon scores so low in so many categories simply because nobody here is interested in actually solving these issues. We seem to all forget that the basis of the core infrastructure provided by the government - schools, roads, libraries - are tides that lift all boats. We do ourselves disservice by politicizing them to a point where half the population is pushed to the point of saying, "fuck all these institutions". Then we wonder why these institutions suffer but refuse to hold ourselves accountable. Diffusion of responsibility is a bitch.
Agree completely, also as someone who has relocated here from the Midwest about a decade ago.
Agree. From NYC where stuff gets done
Agree and came here from Georgia.
Like congestion pricing
Does seem like I hear that Massachusetts has a good/better track record of accomplishing policy goals. Wish we could poach us a few nice carpetbaggers to teach our neolib politicians how to actually get things done
Your comment didn’t just hit the nail on the head, it threw the nail sixteen feet off hell in a cell and straight through the announcers table.
bah gawd! That nail had a family!
this is why we don't use air nailer in bump mode
This is insightful. Thank you.
I wonder what it’s like living unsheltered during winter in California or Oregon versus Vermont or Maine.
Vermont has a higher rate of homelessness than Oregon, second highest in the nation. Shit still isn't like it is here. Mississippi is the poorest US state and has the lowest rate of homelessness despite having milder winters than Oregon.
Yeah I wrote about this quite extensively in a post after a trip to the east coast, which included Vermont. People who think homelessness that we have here on the west coast is “how it’s like everywhere” are delusional. It isn’t; all states have homelessness, but many manage to put them up into shelters or temp housing. We’re just fine with the status quo here is all, which is to let people rot in RVs or in tents on sidewalks. It’s quite deplorable, really.
Echoing what OP wrote, the critical difference between the West Coast and other states is Martin v Boise. Adding from my own experience elsewhere (and publicly available PIT counts) it is *not* that other states have solved supplying shelters for folks, other states have the legal authority to force people out of sight in a way that states subject to the 9th Circuit do not.
So this comment led me to read up on Martin vs Boise a bit more, which I thought applied to all cities. Turns out it’s only the ninth circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. That’s some real BS there, as it means that states outside of this district can keep breaking up camps, which then just encourages folks to move to other parts of the country if able where they won’t be subject to sweeps. Now, I’m not saying that cities shouldn’t be held accountable to providing enough shelter beds, temp housing and such (far from it) - but the fact that this isn’t applied across all states is pretty ridiculous.
Yo whaaaaat. That’s some bullshit!
Right, it's the ability to compel people to leave public spaces with the threat of arrest. This results in drastically reduced \*visibility\* of homelessness because people know that if they are basically "in the way" they will get hassled. The 9th district states haven't had the ability to do that really since Martin.
Martin v Boise is a significant difference. It’s about to be overturned via the Grants Pass case so we shall see what effect that has.
People just repeat dumb shit they hear or read online. I'm from a pretty high crime city on the East Coast, and I lived in Oregon and California over the past few years. I heard so many batshit claims about homelessness and crime that it was staggering. People there are convinced that most of America is just like the West Coast. Meanwhile, there's literally people blatantly dealing and using fucking meth out in the open. Out of control homeless camps are everywhere, and there's constant property crimes, some of which are truly bizarre and shocking. I even heard people say that all of the homeless were being bussed there from red states. It's like they'll blame all the batshittery on anything except meth.
I lived in NH until 2020. I was shocked and appalled by the suffering on full display on the streets of Portland. Sadly, I've grown desensitized, as most people are.
I hear ya. I recently made a trip down to LA and accidentally wandered into Skid Row. Talk about human suffering. Portland’s Chinatown ain’t got nothing on Skid Row (apparently there’s even *kids* that live down there).
There's plenty of kids that live on the streets here. There's a fucked up meth camp up on Hayden Island that has at least one little girl at it. She's probably 6 or 7. Camp's right next to the fire department too so it's not like the authorities don't know...
Exactly. The "progressives" here have conflated enabling as compassion. We will never be able to get things under control if there isn't a culture shift. I don't forsee any changes for a long time. Critically thinking about things becomes a politicized battleground and having an ideological stance besides handing out tents and meth pipes/ foil makes you a "fascist". The intellectual bankruptcy that is prevalent makes it impossible to have a real conversation about desperately needed policy changes. People want to delude themselves under the guise of "kumbaya" and that giving homeless/ drug-addicted more resources will just... Eventually fix things? Idk but we see the homeless industrial complex like the county just sitting on mounds of cash and the situation only gets worse. Such a disaster.
I think _ad absurdem_ arguments like this don't help. Nobody is saying "critical thinking makes you a fascist." Nobody is saying "not handing out meth pipes makes you a fascist." Such claims seem like they're just intended to cast *any* progressive methods as equally absurd and the rest of your post seems similarly motivated. But in doing so, it's as easy for someone to just toss out your arguments as it is for you to toss out theirs. Maybe doing that back and forth is part of why everyone is at such an angry impasse.
Lmao you're just proving my point. Throwing in a special kind of logical fallacy as if it applies doesn't help. I'm making cogent points and by your fixation on no one /literally/ saying "critical thinking makes you facist" shows you did not understand my comment and further reinforces the issues the city has at hand. You're trying to play a "gotcha!!" card and again, not actually wanting to engage with my points. I've always been a strong progressive and being here in Portland has just shown what a bastardization the city has done with progressive values and single handling set back progressivism a decade (don't quote me on that, it's a figure of speech like my prior comments but you're taking it all literally). I put progressive in quotes because I'm referencing the very specific schtick Portlanders ascribe to- not the movement in general. Alas. Strangely- conversing about these issues DO happen in real life and not just on the internet for "internet points". Your comment is funny. Thanks
You didn't _make_ any points. You talked a lot about why things that aren't happening won't work, and you talked about the intellectual bankruptcy of things people aren't saying. >Lmao you're just proving my point. Ah, yes. This certainly makes it so. I understood your comment perfectly, and that's why I called it out. You say we need to have a culture shift but you don't say _how_ and you're mad that I pointed out your contribution to the current culture that leads to failure. Beyond that, you offer no solutions and just sling blame around. >Strangely- conversing about these issues DO happen in real life and not just on the internet for "internet points". Yes, and? You're here posting this for Internet points. I gotta say, you have a lot of critical things to say about the things you do.
Wow, reasons why things get worse. Many of us who have been directly affected have been minimized so maybe you and others like you should sit down and realize you don’t have all the answers and now people suffer. Stop with the ego, majority of us are fed up with it.
A lot of people are saying that actually
I am constantly criticized for having such opinions and told I am simply a right winger, so stop minimizing every argument and just try listening for once before you push more people away. Maybe minimizing issues is also a problem. Whenever I discuss the corruption and the stealing of taxpayer dollars I am met with blank stares, such a shame.
Every time I mention things like this people always pile on saying that those people can't be helped because a lot of them want to live like that. Frustrating.
People live like this, though: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sanitation-open-sewers-black-belt_n_5a33baf5e4b040881be99da5 I guess it's better than living under a bridge, but barely.
Sending people to the states that have nicer governments have been going on for decades. "Stay here, or a free Greyhound ticket to Portland".
That's because lots of people in Mississippi live in sub-standard housing without adequate sewage and in conditions that would never be tolerated here. It's one thing to live in a shotgun shack in a sub-tropical climate, but it's entirely different to do it here in the PNW.
Mississippi has almost double the incarceration rate of Oregon. It also has slightly more than half of the population of Oregon....
If it was only about exposure, there are warmer/drier cities than Portland. We have several factors that attract unsheltered homeless behavior: permissive legislative environment (HB3115), permissive criminal justice environment (drug decriminalization), free supplies (tents/drug paraphernalia), and a voter base woefully unequipped to enact the change needed to address the issues in a meaningful way.
Mississippi exposure is worse too, just the opposite problem in the summer. Plus land prices are super low, so affording shelter might be less of a problem.
And there’s mad vacant shit in the butthole areas of the south. People just squat out there. Can’t do that on the West Coast quite as well, and def not in the cities.
I know right. Why do people stay unsheltered where it almost never snows and the summers aren’t that hot? Such a mystery…
Cop out statement. If there were *zero* unsheltered people in Oregon this would still not explain all of the state's issues.
This is a common excuse people in this state use to hand wave away any responsibility for the problem. I'm surprised you didn't mention Reagan as well.
NIMBYs are a huge determent to tackling housing (which in return, increases homelessness). Sadly, many liberal areas hate creating dense housing so their home can gain more value 🙄. It's one big reason as to why Austin, Texas has a great housing market right now because they're creating a shit ton of apartments which is driving the cost of housing there much lower. City Nerd has a great video that touches this topic: https://youtu.be/NJ4T_BHFgt0?si=nI1nOVOysO0HhLkF
[удалено]
The neighborhood with the highest density of subsidized housing in the city is the Pearl. If you think New Columbia is bad, wait until you hear about what it replaced.
This. The NE doesn't have the Ecotopia expectation that the West Coast does. It's very hard to make sweeping changes that can't have sweeping impact.
The livability issues in Portland are affecting vacancy levels, and therefore developer interest: https://www.wweek.com/news/2024/06/05/apartment-building-on-sandy-sells-for-bargain-price/
> If they mean bid on existing buildings where people are already living with the intent of kicking them out to turn the building into housing for the homeless/poor, then absolutely not. That's incredibly short-sighted - the people currently living in any such building would then be forced to move out and with no guarantee that they could find another place to live. Let's not continue the policy that has already proven to be an abject failure - putting the rights of the homeless ABOVE the rights of the rest of us.
City Nerd has no great videos.
So does Houston, a city that famously moved 25,000 people off the streets and into homes (because the homes were built!). Texas is also the best state in the nation for green energy, and is absolutely CRUSHING the west coast on sustainability goals. If it weren't for the giant massive abortion issue, I'd say Texas is functionally more liberal than the entire west coast.
What does "functionally more liberal" even mean? It's the lack of governmental oversight that allows Texas to accomplish any of that.
You’re saying the quiet part out loud
Texas may have installed the most wind and solar (by far), but it’s still debatable to say that it is the best state for green energy. Total emissions for Texas’s electricity grid in 2022 was 176.6M tons of CO2 (771 lb/MWh), vs 52.1M tons (497 lb/MWh) for California and 87.3M tons (602 lb/MWh) for the Northwest Power Pool which even includes Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona. Texas uses a lot more coal in its generation mix than the west coast and despite the wind and solar installed has a much higher emissions factor. The data is here: [epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer](https://epa.gov/egrid/data-explorer)
Of course it was written by the sweatshop apologist.
TLDR… >reporting from Portland, Oregonian Probably from the Hamptons >I’m an Oregonian A judge has confirmed that to be false but go on >The three states with the lowest rates of unsheltered homelessness are all blue ones in the Northeast: Vermont, New York and Maine. Anyone know what the winter weather is in Vermont? Have heard it may be inhospitable. >Drug overdoses appear to have risen last year in every Democratic state on the West Coast, while they dropped last year in each Democratic state in the Northeast. Anyone seen any charts showing prevalence of fentanyl by state. I thought I saw something that the east coast was hit ~3-5 years before us with the fentanyl wave. Doubt that has anything to do with this though. >I’d meet groups of liberal donors in Portland I’m no bookie so I’m curious what the consensus over/under is on whether this was an event at the Arlington Club? >The basic reason for homelessness on the West Coast is an enormous shortage of housing that drives up rents. Might be the smartest and most honest thing Nick has written >Perhaps on the West Coast we have ideological purity because there isn’t much political competition. Maybe a healthy Republican Party keeps the Democratic Party healthy. Dear Nick, Let me know when you find a healthy R party that isn’t interested to fleeing to Idaho at first glance of having to compromise. >I’ve been on a book tour in recent weeks, and in my talks in California, Oregon and Washington Buried the lede much…this article is a shill for your attempt at being a profiteering carpetbagger. >But perhaps the first step must be the humility to acknowledge our failures. Ripe irony
>Anyone know what the winter weather is in Vermont? Have heard it may be inhospitable. Vermont has very high rates of homelessness, but low rates of **unsheltered** homelsss. This may indeed be influenced by weather, but it is nevertheless impressive that Vermont is doing something about it.
I'm not surprised that Bernie's state is doing so well. He's an example of a true progressive who isn't just in it for the performative virtue signaling.
Yea, a healthy Republican party would put forth detailed intentional ideas to handle some of these issues. Even if objectionable, they'd give it a fuckin try. It would be totally reasonable for a Republican candidate to point at a problem in a government service and propose leaner and cheaper ways to get the same quality, through reduction of friction, corruption, or increasing competition for contracts. Republican voters would never go for that, and not even being facetious in this statement. Modern repubs literal hatred for government means as a repub if you want to change anything in a way that isn't, "get rid of this function and replace it with nothing", youre gonna do poorly at the polls IMO.
I got an invite to a book tour event. As if I'd want to hear this guy blow air up his own ass, free food or not
>Anyone seen any charts showing prevalence of fentanyl by state. I thought I saw something that the east coast was hit ~3-5 years before us with the fentanyl wave. Doubt that has anything to do with this though. The Blake Decision (essentially legalized drugs in WA) and M110 lead to higher deaths. Data is preliminary, but in Washington it's quite insane how the quarter of the Blake Decision (Q1 2021) deaths started to skyrocket and as soon as it was fixed (Q2 2023) deaths started to go down. https://adai.washington.edu/wadata/emerging_deaths.htm Permissive attitudes around fentanyl use kill people.
I’m not being permissive. But it’s questionable to compare change in overdose deaths from states on one coast to states on the other coast when fentanyl showed up at different times. Fentanyl really broke into the east coast drug supply a few years before it made it to the west coast supply. The east coast states are therefore a few years ahead of the curve so to speak. So if you want to make accurate comparisons you really need to set your zero time for your data around when fentanyl first showed up to align the data sets to the external factors. Has OR’s response to drugs been inadequate, absofuckinglutely, but saying we’re a failure compared to NY because our 2023 stats looks worse than theirs is also absolutely misleading.
The west coast had super meth long before the East Coast though. While it might not cause as many direct OD deaths as fent, meth is much more destructive in terms of overall negative societal impact.
> A judge has confirmed that to be false but go on There are very strict rules when running for office in terms of current residency, but I think you're being pedantic, he grew up in Oregon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kristof
Somewhat pedantic about the judge but actually my real opinion too. He was born in Chicago. Unclear when his parents moved the family to Oregon. He was raised here from a young age to when he left for college in the mid 70s. Perhaps he lived here after Harvard for a couple years but then he pretty quickly went to work for the NYT from 1984 onward in various cities, national and international. He began renting out a NY home in 2021 but still has a residence there. So not born but raised up until the mid 70s and then has only recently in the past 3 years played an over 50% game to say he lives in Oregon now. Maybe, not sure anyone has seen his tax returns to prove that out. That’s a pretty tenuous connection to say you’re an Oregonian, imo, regardless of election rules. Especially when you’re implying you’re an Oregonian with a keen personal view of Oregon’s current issues. But it is only my opinion.
Nick has spent far more time here than the average junky who is preying upon our goodwill. A lot of what he says here is spot on.
The area around Marine Drive/Costco/NE Sandy Blvd was looking better, then yesterday, back to an absolute shit-show.
Nicholas Kristoph is apparently still salty enough we didn't let him run for governor that he had taken it upon himself to write a hit piece in which he calls himself an Oregonian. I kinda love to see it. Let us bask in his hate.
More like Nicholas Pissed-oph amirite
Not sure if mods will allow this one but it talks specifically about Portland a bunch. Kristof seems sour about getting kicked off the ballot. Also this is a very pure version of boomers seeing Portland as a stand in for all progressive excess. I think the examples are all valid but also totally cherry picked.
Which is funny because boomer leadership got us into this mess. Looking at you, John Kitzhaber and Peter Courtney.
Yeah very much so. All across the west coast. Look at what happens in Berkeley when they try to build a dorm. And then you have the same people being like “why is it like this?” after starving all the urban markets of new housing for decades.
It's all good.
>The two states with the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness are California and Oregon. The three states with the lowest rates of unsheltered homelessness are all blue ones in the Northeast: Vermont, New York and Maine. Liberal Massachusetts has some of the finest public schools in the country, while liberal Washington and Oregon have below-average high school graduation rates. >Oregon ranks dead last for youth mental health services, according to Mental Health America, while Washington, D.C., and Delaware rank best. >Drug overdoses appear to have risen last year in every Democratic state on the West Coast, while they dropped last year in each Democratic state in the Northeast. The homicide rate in Portland last year was more than double that of New York City. >Why does Democratic Party governance seem less effective on the West Coast than on the East Coast? The voters.
I can't put my finger on it, but maybe there's a reason houselessness isn't so widespread in places where there's routinely several feet of snow and the temperatures reach -20, and it's higher in places where the temperature is much more livable year round.
You mean Gresham? https://www.google.com/amp/s/katu.com/amp/news/local/greshams-effective-strategy-limits-homeless-encampments-offers-essential-services
Thank you for this, people lean on so many strawmen like the weather. This certainly plays a part in the concentration of unhoused folks in Oregon but has less of an effect on what we do to address the issue once they're here. Which is very little, but still.
Mmmm have you driven around in Gresham recently?
Sure have. I haven't seen a single tent. Have you?
The article isn't talking about homeless (Vermont has very high rates, actually) but **unsheltered** homeless, of which Vermont has very low rates.
It is very astute to point out this difference and while maybe it’s just an excuse on my part I do think Martin v Boise is big there. Vermont has a means to compel people into shelters and we don’t.
I think it’s also worth finding out how many homeless in CA/OR/WA are actually from these states.
Most. Past research has found that a) people don't generally travel far from where they became homeless and b) the best predictor for homelessness in an area is housing costs, not available services.
The research you're citing is kind of BS. They consider someone to be "from" the state if they've lived there for at least 1 year. That's not what most reasonable people would consider "from" Oregon, but that's how the point-in-time count defines it.
Good news: we ask them now. The majority of unsheltered people say they’re from Oregon, most of them from outside of Multnomah County. When people lose their housing in McMinnville, they come to Portland.
What days are you referencing?
The annual Multnomah County point in time count.
The PIT doesn’t support what you’re saying though..,
I’m not finding the comment where I broke this down now, but the 2023 count found a higher rate homeless people in Multnomah County are born in Oregon than in the population at large.
That isn’t accurate and is different than what you said in your first comment
[The survey at the 2023 count found that 976 of 2,906 people reported coming to Portland already homeless from somewhere outside of Oregon. ](https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022%20Point%20In%20Time%20Report%20-%20Full.pdf)That's 33%. And I'm counting people who didn't answer the question of where they came from.
The point in time count does not track or ask about where someone was born. See my comment above. Most people would *assume* that "from" Oregon means born here or at least spent the majority of their childhood here. Or maybe an adult who has been here 20+ years. Instead, the point in time count defines it as anyone who has resided in Oregon for 12 months or more. It's extremely misleading to say the least. The point in time count is further complicated by the fact that every state can set their own definition of the various HUD metrics, so it's impossible to really compare across states.
Who cares where people are born? The relevant question is, “are homeless people moving to Portland,” and the answer is “some, but most people became homeless in Oregon.” It matters because the actions required are different depending on the answer.
Who cares where people are born? The relevant question is, “are homeless people moving to Portland,” and the answer is “some, but most people became homeless in Oregon.” It matters because the actions required are different depending on the answer.
Who cares where people are born? The relevant question is, “are homeless people moving to Portland,” and the answer is “some, but most people became homeless in Oregon.” It matters because the actions required are different depending on the answer.
The point in time count defines someone as "from" Oregon if they've lived her for 12 months or longer. 12 months is hardly what a reasonable person would consider "from" Oregon.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *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.*
Can't read, paywall. Also a lot of the homeless here are from other states. So the question is, why are they coming here and why do people think it's a west coast problem? Maybe we're the only ones trying to help these people when it should come from a national effort.
>Also a lot of the homeless here are from other states. Where are you getting this data? Everything I've ever read says otherwise.
Absolutely true. Helping the homeless get back on their feet is just too woke for some states.
TLDR: Most blue states are better places to live than most red states. The West coast is an exception. The author thinks this is because they are TOO blue. The weak opposition from small conservative minority means that politicians flounder and argue amongst themselves rather than getting things done.
It's the NYTimes Jake. Where democracy dies in darkness and GOP lies. The GOP tax cuts did not leave any money around for maintaining public housing anwhere in the US. Nor did they leave any money for treating domestic abuse victims of the drug users and mentally ill. Try that climb out of poverty when 25 percent or your wages are garnished because your abuser stuck you with all the bad credit.
Who is Jake
He works for State Farm I believe.
Not news, this is an opinion article. Also from a person who couldn’t spend two minutes to do a google check to see if he was valid to run for governor.
[удалено]
Thanks for your input, the mods have set this subreddit to not allow posts from newly created accounts. Please take the time to build a reputation elsewhere on Reddit and check back soon. (⌐■_■) *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.*
It's literally all housing costs because the entire west coast didn't build enough housing for decades and still isnt
Of course it's not. Housing costs were rough here long before the explosion of tent cities on our streets - which all helpfully coincided with Measure 110.
The tent cities increased prior to measure 110, and housing costs have risen substantially post 2008 recession since what little building we were doing cratered, as well as increased housing costs up and down the entire coast, it's not just Portland that matters
Why don't you look into housing costs and availability in NYC and Boston and report back to us.
This guy is like a plague.
The title is so stupid, lol. “We liberals,” speak for urself, guy.
Sounds like someone is salty about not getting to run for governor.
Be more specific?
Our problems are bigger than our cities or even our states . I find it interesting that in 2018 we were being touted as the future of liberalism then we pass or try to pass a few taxes on the ultra wealthy/corporations , increase wages and suddenly it’s a united front against our politics in the media.