Rumor What's going on in Portland?

[SharpeScooterShooter]

…

Nothing failed about Salt Lake City, except they listened to arguments like you're making now and allowed the program to end. It was a 10 year program that saved them a ton of money and virtually eliminated homelessness, drastically reduced crime, reduced emergency services and reduced property damage.

They stopped funding it after the 10 year program concluded and saw homelessness come back and then saw spending drastically increase on homelessness with tent cities, overworked emergency services, police, and damaged public spaces.

Yes, if you end a program it will end…

Yes. You nailed it right here.
Nobody wants to pay into something all their life for someone else failures. Regardless if it costs a little less. Well i shouldn't say nobody. You do. So go get a bill enacted and get it to vote. Not many people feel like you do on this and want to pay their whole life. If 10 years of pay on doesn't fix it for the future then it didn't work. It was just cleaning up the mess without a plan to curtail it in the future.

10 years is plenty of time to fund a program enough to be able to stop the program and have the fix continue.
I take drivers ed. i dont become a bad driver again if i stop taking it. I take college courses. I don't forget what i learned and regress if i stop taking courses.

Find a program that can be funded for a decade that creates a fix for the future that stems longer than a decade(permanent fix) instead of sweeping it under the rug and ill back it. Until then i will not.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You are arguing against things nobody claimed. I'm trying keep it on topic. Your concerns have either been addressed or are not relevant.

When they talk about reducing homelessness by 91% that includes the people you're talking about.

If there are 100 homeless people in a neighborhood costing $50k each, that's $5 million per year.

Because of that density you see the homeless all over the place.

Now, spend $25k ea to get all of them room and board. Say only 91 people take you up on it. Now you're spending only $2.875 million on the same population. Your police no longer have to worry about the area, most of the public spaces are clear again, and they are nicer because they aren't being constantly damaged.

Now we can more easily monitor our much smaller homeless population and criminals can no longer hide amongst them. We no longer have police, maintenance, or emergency workers working overtime to keep up.

Did that make everyone a productive member of society? No. Does that make it a failure? No.
Did that address the people who didn't want help? Yes. Because overall, society is in a better situation.

We'd be saving over $2 million per year on that homeless population and they wouldn't be wrecking our public spaces or hounding us at every corner. That may sound harsh, but if they weren't in a better situation they would still be there on the corner. But we find that they aren't desperate enough to be there in those high numbers.

So even those who want no help end up costing us less and doing less damage.

Those are all wins.

Then we can focus on what to do with those who want no help. Then it's a much more solvable problem.

What you fail to address here and every model i have seen fails to address, is the constant repair and upkeep of these shelters that will inevitably come into play as they are trashed and destroyed.
To think giving a shelter to someone is just going to create discipline, organization and cleanliness is not rational. To think they will just take care of it is not reality as proven already.

 

[Phatguysrule]

What you fail to address here and every model i have seen fails to address, is the constant repair and upkeep of these shelters that will inevitably come into play as they are trashed and destroyed.
To think giving a shelter to someone is just going to create discipline, organization and cleanliness is not rational. To think they will just take care of it is not reality as proven already.

The monthly rent covers the cost of the upkeep and repairs. Just like any other rental.

Please show evidence that upkeep or repairs is a significant problem in housing first? I've shared several reviews here of landlords saying the opposite.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes. You nailed it right here.
Nobody wants to pay into something all their life for someone else failures. Regardless if it costs a little less. Well i shouldn't say nobody. You do. So go get a bill enacted and get it to vote. Not many people feel like you do on this and want to pay their whole life. If 10 years of pay on doesn't fix it for the future then it didn't work. It was just cleaning up the mess without a plan to curtail it in the future.

10 years is plenty of time to fund a program enough to be able to stop the program and have the fix continue.
I take drivers ed. i dont become a bad driver again if i stop taking it. I take college courses. I don't forget what i learned and regress if i stop taking courses.

Find a program that can be funded for a decade that creates a fix for the future that stems longer than a decade(permanent fix) instead of sweeping it under the rug and ill back it. Until then i will not.

I'm sorry but that's a fantasy. Completely unrealistic. New damaged people are born and created every day. There is no decade long program that will fix all of them in perpetuity.

There has never been any program conceived that could do that.

I'm sorry, but you aren't even having a serious discussion now.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'm sorry but that's a fantasy. Completely unrealistic. New damaged people are born and created every day. There is no decade long program that will fix all of them in perpetuity.

There has never been any program conceived that could do that.

I'm sorry, but you aren't even having a serious discussion now.

really? Because your solution is not addressing part of the problem. Poor parenting.
One of my areas of concern your models don't dive into that i have seen.
its not fantasy. Fantasy is thinking pouring money into something without disciplined education is a solution. Its not a solution. Its a bandaid. We need solutions. Bandaids have not worked. And it starts with parental education. Not housing the homeless.

Agreed there never has been a solution. Hence my points of contention. Who's living in fantasy land? The one who says his proposals will fix things or those who say it wont, and thus aren't interested in funding something that will not provide a sustainable solution?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

The monthly rent covers the cost of the upkeep and repairs. Just like any other rental.

Please show evidence that upkeep or repairs is a significant problem in housing first? I've shared several reviews here of landlords saying the opposite.

Please show me any reports from landlords of shelters claiming this? I have not seen one. Are not these shelters state or government run? What landlords?

I have not seen one report from a shelter landlord claiming addicts have moved in and stopped being destructive.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Please show me any reports from landlords of shelters claiming this? I have not seen one. Are not these shelters state or government run? What landlords?

I have not seen one report from a shelter landlord claiming addicts have moved in and stopped being destructive.

They are not necessarily government run. In fact, what I have advocated for are generally not government run.

Here is one...

Lambert Adjibogoun, who owns the home that Crain is living in, was eager to participate in the short-lived program. He already had a personal goal to rent to people who are sometimes excluded from access to quality, affordable housing, so the program complemented his values, he said.

“I believe in second chances and that is why I had this property in the first place,” Adjibogoun said. “I believe if you give people a place to live, then they will show you the best of themselves. If you are able to solve someone’s housing problem, then they are able to better maintain a job or find work.”

He said he knows that many landlords are hesitant to look past what they typically think are red flags such as past evictions, criminal histories, no steady income or credit issues. But in his experience, giving people a chance has led to positive outcomes for his properties, even before the county’s program launched.

“Those people I have rented to have taken better care of my properties than any other people because they don’t want to lose their home and they want to prove themselves and they want a chance in life,” Adjibogoun said.

 

[Phatguysrule]

really? Because your solution is not addressing part of the problem. Poor parenting.
One of my areas of concern your models don't dive into that i have seen.
its not fantasy. Fantasy is thinking pouring money into something without disciplined education is a solution. Its not a solution. Its a bandaid. We need solutions. Bandaids have not worked. And it starts with parental education. Not housing the homeless.

Agreed there never has been a solution. Hence my points of contention. Who's living in fantasy land? The one who says his proposals will fix things or those who say it wont, and thus aren't interested in funding something that will not provide a sustainable solution?

So again, you're moving the goal posts. Nobody said every single person would get a job and support themselves.

This is why I have to remind you to stay on topic, as that's not what anybody is talking about.

From my reading on the topic, the way you address poor parenting is by improving access to education, healthcare, and improved social safety net, as well as an education and rehabilitation based corrections system. I advocate for all of these, almost constantly.

You claim it hasn't worked, but it very clearly has. And SLC found out that ending the program was for more damaging and expensive, which is why they have started it back up.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

They are not necessarily government run. In fact, what I have advocated for are generally not government run.

Here is one...

This is not one. This is helping those who are also trying to help themselves dig out.

Someone who does not want to lose a home is not the point of contention…

“Those people I have rented to have taken better care of my properties than any other people because they don’t want to lose their home and they want to prove themselves and they want a chance in life,” Adjibogoun said.

This has nothing to do with what i said is a concern. This is helping those who want to prove themselves as a productive member.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

So again, you're moving the goal posts. Nobody said every single person would get a job and support themselves.

This is why I have to remind you to stay on topic, as that's not what anybody is talking about.

From my reading on the topic, the way you address poor parenting is by improving access to education, healthcare, and improved social safety net, as well as an education and rehabilitation based corrections system. I advocate for all of these, almost constantly.

You claim it hasn't worked, but it very clearly has. And SLC found out that ending the program was for more damaging and expensive, which is why they have started it back up.

steps. One at a time. Without the first step others will trip up and fail.

Education of parents os the first step in stopping generational cycles. Not homeless shelters.

 

[Phatguysrule]

This is not one. This is helping those who are also trying to help themselves dig out.

Someone who does not want to lose a home is not the point of contention…

“Those people I have rented to have taken better care of my properties than any other people because they don’t want to lose their home and they want to prove themselves and they want a chance in life,” Adjibogoun said.

This has nothing to do with what i said is a concern. This is helping those who want to prove themselves as a productive member.

I have never proposed putting people who want no help into this kind of situation. I discussed that in an earlier post.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I have never proposed putting people who want no help into this kind of situation. I discussed that in an earlier post.

I never discussed not helping those who want help. Remember i made a post and you quoted it???
So whats your point? I see it as you like to argue. I already said i agree with most of what you said and disagree or draw the line at funding for those who dont want help. So what is your disagreement then that you keep coming at me with??

 

[Phatguysrule]

steps. One at a time. Without the first step others will trip up and fail.

Education of parents os the first step in stopping generational cycles. Not homeless shelters.

Actually, no. It worked just fine in SLC (and everywhere else it has been tried) when housing first was the first step. Educating parents takes far longer than 10 years, and is beyond the scope of this discussion.

The parenting issue is addressed by a Nordic style commitment to education, healthcare, and corrections system. I'm all for that as well.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

steps. One at a time. Without the first step others will trip up and fail.

Education of parents os the first step in stopping generational cycles. Not homeless shelters.

Even if parental education is the "first step in stopping generational cycles" (not necessarily stipulating that it is, but we'll go with it for now), why should that preclude cities (or Portland specifically) from attempting other steps?

My biggest issue with the position you seem to be taking (and please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) is that it seems like you're saying that if a plan--whether PGR's or another--doesn't address the homeless crisis completely and from all angles, then it shouldn't be attempted.

I, personally, am of the opinion that even if we're not fixing everything, it's better to improve something than to do nothing.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I never discussed not helping those who want help. Remember i made a post and you quoted it???
So whats your point? I see it as you like to argue. I already said i agree with most of what you said and disagree or draw the line at funding for those who dont want help. So what is your disagreement then that you keep coming at me with??

You keep saying this fails. That's your claim. This system doesn't fund people who choose to leave or remain homeless. I never claimed it did. In fact, in my description and calculation above, I specifically kept those who didn't want help at the higher homeless level societal cost of around $50k.

I'm explaining why you're wrong in your claim that this has failed, or is failing. That's not the same as arguing.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

So again, you're moving the goal posts. Nobody said every single person would get a job and support themselves.

This is why I have to remind you to stay on topic, as that's not what anybody is talking about.

From my reading on the topic, the way you address poor parenting is by improving access to education, healthcare, and improved social safety net, as well as an education and rehabilitation based corrections system. I advocate for all of these, almost constantly.

You claim it hasn't worked, but it very clearly has. And SLC found out that ending the program was for more damaging and expensive, which is why they have started it back up.

I brought it up. Its my topic. Wtf. Lol. Who engaged with who first???

How about you stay on topic with my original posts. I have not swayed.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

You keep saying this fails. That's your claim. This system doesn't fund people who choose to leave or remain homeless. I never claimed it did. In fact, in my description and calculation above, I specifically kept those who didn't want help at the higher homeless level societal cost of around $50k.

I'm explaining why you're wrong in your claim that this has failed, or is failing. That's not the same as arguing.

Fails at helping those who wont help themselves, which was the point of my posts you keep responding to and twisting it to your agenda.
This is the fix we need.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Fails at helping those who wont help themselves, which was the point of my posts you keep responding to and twisting it to your agenda.
This is the fix we need.

No. Those people are the vast minority of the people who need help. As SLC has already proven. Those people need a different kind of help. As I have stated over and over, every time this comes up. Housing first allows you to identify those people more easily by getting the vast majority in homes. Then you address those who refuse help, or even those who are criminals, on a case by case basis.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I brought it up. Its my topic. Wtf. Lol. Who engaged with who first???

How about you stay on topic with my original posts. I have not swayed.

I believe I have addressed your every concern. If not, please let me know specifically and I'll do so.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

One more time. The city is in the state it is largely because of youth who want anarchism to rule. I walked the streets and had these conversations with them.
This is what i said you responded to. If you would please stay on topic, we might get through this. I never brought up helping those who want help has or would fail. Im saying i don't want to fund the destructive life of those who refuse help. Period. Thats what i said you responded to.

Stay on topic please.

How do we clean up the destructive ones who refuse help? I disagree with treating them the same as other homeless and i dont care if it costs more to jail them. If they refuse the help and continue to be destructive they don't deserve more help.

i never once brought up helping those who want help fails.
Im separating things and i don't think you are.
How many times do i have to say i agree with most of what you say, but draw the line at helping those who don't want help and thst if we try, or continue to try , it will fail?

im not getting the disconnect here. Unless you are only reading a portion of my posts.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No. Those people are the vast minority of the people who need help. As SLC has already proven. Those people need a different kind of help. As I have stated over and over, every time this comes up. Housing first allows you to identify those people more easily by getting the vast majority in homes. Then you address those who refuse help, or even those who are criminals, on a case by case basis.

Portland is a mecca for youth who want anarchy. I fully believe the percent of homeless in portland who don't want help far exceeds most other cities. Real life events have cemented this opinion.
I should have not brought up slc because its a different city.
There are two fold problems.
One giving short term aid to those who want a better life and become productive. Im all for your proposals for this.
Two getting rid of the ones hellbent on destruction and do not want to change.

im saying portland has a high percentage of number two and pouring funding into programs will not fix this. how do we fix this?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

How do we clean up the destructive ones who refuse help?

In my mind, the first step to addressing the destructive ones who refuse help is to identify them. And the first step to identifying those who refuse help is to help those who won't refuse help.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

In my mind, the first step to addressing the destructive ones who refuse help is to identify them. And the first step to identifying those who refuse help is to help those who won't refuse help.

I agree. And kind of my point. I have not seen a model or test that does this. All models can be taken advantage of by those who refuse from what ive seen and this is my point. Where is the model that helps distinguish this vs letting the destructive ones play innocent, use and abuse the system?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I believe I have addressed your every concern. If not, please let me know specifically and I'll do so.

i have and i think we are closer to being on the same page.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I agree. And kind of my point. I have not seen a model or test that does this. All models can be taken advantage of by those who refuse from what ive seen and this is my point. Where is the model that helps distinguish this vs letting the destructive ones play innocent, use and abuse the system?

Even if the destructive ones will abuse a system, is that a reason not to implement a system that will help those who want/need help? Especially if that system would require fewer resources than our current process?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Even if the destructive ones will abuse a system, is that a reason not to implement a system that will help those who want/need help? Especially if that system would require fewer resources than our current process?

well of course the easy answer is no. But i think this os more complicated than that. I think the alternative response would be, should we settle for a solution that only addresses a portion of the problems, or should we continue to work harder for a solution that helps all?

will a system actually work if a percentage of it is using and abusing it?

Again, i think Portland is an anomaly because i believe we have a far greater percentage of youth who want anarchy instead of help. So for Portland, because of this anomaly, I question the success of models that don't address this portion of the problem and i haven't seen a model that does.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

should we settle for a solution that only addresses a portion of the problems, or should we continue to work harder for a solution that helps all?

Need it be binary? Can't we do both? Can't we implement a presumably imperfect solution that only addresses a portion of the problem--or even multiple incomplete solutions--while also continuing to work harder for additional solutions that help all?

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Need it be binary? Can't we do both? Can't we implement a presumably imperfect solution that only addresses a portion of the problem--or even multiple incomplete solutions--while also continuing to work harder for additional solutions that help all?

With regards to Portland? I think so. Ive had too many direct discussions with youth on the streets wanting to burn it all down. With regards to Portland, if we do not address this first, I think the proposed system will be abused to the point of failure. When i say failure, meaning it would end up costing more than we are currently spending, because a large portion of the funds will be wasted on these types.

 

[THE HCP]

Anybody looking for a fantastic breakfast? This place is amazing. Great vibe up on Alberta.
https://www.yelp.com/biz/cheryl-s-on-12th-portland?osq=Alberta+Street+Restaurants+breakfast

 

[PtldPlatypus]

With regards to Portland? I think so. Ive had too many direct discussions with youth on the streets wanting to burn it all down. With regards to Portland, if we do not address this first, I think the proposed system will be abused to the point of failure. When i say failure, meaning it would end up costing more than we are currently spending, because a large portion of the funds will be wasted on these types.

So then, this is where we are in fundamental disagreement. And that's OK--at least we've been able to communicate effectively to find that point.

I will never be on board with a "perfect solutions only" mindset...especially when it comes to an issue as complex as homelessness. "Perfect is the enemy of good" is one of my favorite maxims, and I absolutely believe it applies here. Like I said above--even if we're not fixing everything, it's better to improve something than to do nothing. That is a hill from which I'll never be moved.