Rumor What's going on in Portland?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I would think everyone who currently pays for a small place would take the free one. Then all the younger people who move out on their own every year would take one. Just seems too good of a deal to pass up.

I don't see the problem with that?

barfo
 
can you specifically point it out? I do not recall one portion discussing and putting sctual costs, a number to all the side costs entailed when the person doesn't change thier habits? Everyone i read i dod not see an actual number detailing out the costs of all the extras like still having 911 called because thye are still addicts. Still destroying the property and rebuilding it... how often? The quicker they destroy it the quicker it needs rebuilding, increasing the annual costs.

point me specifixally to an article thst detaisl that out. Nothing you have posted has broken that down and acknowledged the same costs now will still be there but then rhe additional costs of the housing will also be there.
Without fixing their addition, the 911 calls will still happen. The destruction will still happen.
So please point me specifically to a report and point to where in that report it acknowledges this and breaks it all down.
Because it's a complicated calculation. It takes Data from dozens of sources.
id also like to point out, if the ecreport was that accurate, why arent cities across the nation homeless free? wouldnt they all have done this and rid themselves of the homeless with free housing everywhere?

i just did a search and didn't find one city that provides free housing for the homeless without any incentive or requirements to work and contribute.
So if its really half the costs why hasn't this been an answer long long ago and why is the homeless increasing in numbers?

is it because the government knows it will cost more? Is it because majority votes to down and if so, why? If this is truly half the cost, the majority cant really turn their backs on that can they?

Nothing in the reports broke costs down to the dollar and addressed the addiction factor of recovery time or the behaviors of addicts.

they wil still leave their homes and shit on the streets, vandalize, steal... all the things that cost now. Plus then the costs of the proposal.

no amount of money tossed st them will help solve anything until their addiction is first solved.

No free rent.

Work for rent. Rehab for rent.
You can't break it down to the dollar like that. There isn't enough Data collected on the homeless to do that. That's the problem with allowing them to remain homeless. You can't track them. You can't check up on them. You can't study them. They are too unpredictable. To unreliable.

You have to view it as number of episodes, arrests, emergencies, per person, compared with the city budget. And length of a given housing status comparison and with outcomes of other statuses.

It's not simple. It's complex. But housing first gets people off the streets. That is proven, thereby keeping our public spaces cleaner and safer. That is proven. It has done so everywhere it has been tried. It saves money nearly everywhere, and there is no evidence that it has ever cost more money than leaving them homeless anywhere. It makes these people easier to track.

Here is some data.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7492-8

People are easier to treat when homed than when homeless. And the treatment they receive is more effective and more often leads to full recovery and self reliance.

That's not even in question.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the problem with that?

barfo

A generation of people not having to pay for living expenses? Just set up shop in a free apartment, what could go wrong? I guess I have less faith in people. I think if there were requirements for it, like a full time job, no criminal activity, etc., maybe it works, but tracking that seems impossible. And what housing is this, newly built housing on vacant land, or empty buildings? I just think it any 'free' housing needs to be absolutely bare bones, as basic as possible. Nothing anyone would enjoy, but better than homeless. I sound like an asshole maybe, but I don't love the idea on its surface.
 
btw i have no doubt it saves money. i just dont quite have a grasp on the fairness of it all or the incentive for people to 'get out and improve their lives' if we give them free apartments.
 
My daughter had squatters living in an empty house next to her for some time. Initially they were not a problem and she helped them with food and other needed things. They were not a problem until they themselves didnt limit who and how many could crash there and trouble started. Parties started happening nightly and my son in laws shop was broken into and needles started showing up on her lower property. She went back over to talk to the ones that she first met with and it appeared their clout with the others was zero, so they ignored my daughters concerns. She did ask them to calm it down and dont migrate onto her property because her kids played there and she was finding needles. Well, a week after her second visit my son in law went with her to address again but they were both threatened so eventually the cops were able to do something because they had taken in guys that were robbing houses and storing merchandise there. The out of town owners eventually put the place up for sale and were able to after a long while, get them out for good. People tried to help and reach out but no respect for others and criminal activity cannot be tolerated in a community environment. You cant mix drug addicts and/or mentally unstable people with no regards for others in a neighborhood/community.
 
Last edited:
btw i have no doubt it saves money. i just dont quite have a grasp on the fairness of it all or the incentive for people to 'get out and improve their lives' if we give them free apartments.

We have to decide whether it is more important to us to improve our community/society/cities/streets, or whether it is more important to make sure nobody gets a free ride.

barfo
 
We have to decide whether it is more important to us to improve our community/society/cities/streets, or whether it is more important to make sure nobody gets a free ride.

barfo
Should try and do both.
 
So you agree with Adams and Wheeler that putting the homeless in neighborhoods around town will accomplish this?
How did that get in here? I don't recall saying a thing about that.
 
We will have to agree to disagree for a few reasons:

first the homeless are already spread out. The narrative that its jsut downtown is way off base. they are all along 205, johnsons creek trail, etc etc etc.

Second they wont be given apartments from what i gathered. Just minimal shelters in existing neighborhoods

lastly, i highly doubt anyone who owns a home would like a homeless camp set up next door to them.

i do not believe for a second housing them will rid portland of the problem. It will Just put us further in debt. Because we will still be paying for al the clean up they require, plus funding the roof over thier head.
I drove I-205 from Stafford road to SR-14 in Washington and saw may 30 homeless peoples tents. Downtown must have many many more from what I've seen. They want to be near where they can get food, drink and panhandling.
 
We have to decide whether it is more important to us to improve our community/society/cities/streets, or whether it is more important to make sure nobody gets a free ride.

barfo
There are unintended consequences to these things. Handing out free housing sounds wonderful. We clean up the streets. I just think you have to look at what you are setting yourself up for once you do it. Again as long as there are some qualifications around the housing and rule enforcement then fine. But how the hell are we going to do that? If you just dole out free stuff what does that do to younger people who traditionally went out got jobs and found a place to live. Now they what, just go live free and what’s the incentive to make money? Most of my monthly expense is my home. It just seems a little short sighted.
 
There are unintended consequences to these things. Handing out free housing sounds wonderful. We clean up the streets. I just think you have to look at what you are setting yourself up for once you do it. Again as long as there are some qualifications around the housing and rule enforcement then fine. But how the hell are we going to do that? If you just dole out free stuff what does that do to younger people who traditionally went out got jobs and found a place to live. Now they what, just go live free and what’s the incentive to make money? Most of my monthly expense is my home. It just seems a little short sighted.
It would be great if it were done nationally otherwise you're going to attract all the homeless from all over the country.
 
btw i have no doubt it saves money. i just dont quite have a grasp on the fairness of it all or the incentive for people to 'get out and improve their lives' if we give them free apartments.
I get what you're saying. But is it more fair to spend more to hold them further down, for longer?

If there are requirements it will not work. The whole problem is they don't want to do what we tell them.

Maybe because of mental illness, maybe because of trauma, maybe because they have drug problems. But if they were interested in jumping through hoops they wouldn't be in their current situation.
 
The wife and I had dinner at BAES Chicken tonight. Down by Voodoo donuts. Owned by our good family friend Ndamukong Suh.
Beautiful evening out. Sat outside and enjoyed the fresh air. Highly recommended.

3FAECAD4-FE1C-4E06-B80F-FDB9FDA8A3B3.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • 3FAECAD4-FE1C-4E06-B80F-FDB9FDA8A3B3.jpeg
    3FAECAD4-FE1C-4E06-B80F-FDB9FDA8A3B3.jpeg
    476.3 KB · Views: 82
There are unintended consequences to these things. Handing out free housing sounds wonderful. We clean up the streets. I just think you have to look at what you are setting yourself up for once you do it. Again as long as there are some qualifications around the housing and rule enforcement then fine. But how the hell are we going to do that? If you just dole out free stuff what does that do to younger people who traditionally went out got jobs and found a place to live. Now they what, just go live free and what’s the incentive to make money? Most of my monthly expense is my home. It just seems a little short sighted.

If paying housing costs motivates young people to work, maybe we should triple housing costs for young people, so that they'll work even harder?

I'm pretty sure that young people have uses for money other than housing, and thus they'd still have some motivation to work.

I agree there are unintended consequences to free housing - as there are to a lack of free housing.

barfo
 
I drove I-205 from Stafford road to SR-14 in Washington and saw may 30 homeless peoples tents. Downtown must have many many more from what I've seen. They want to be near where they can get food, drink and panhandling.

They were also up and down 17th. And on several intersections on killingsworth. And all over se 92ave.
and remember most are underneath the freeway overpass so you don't see them unless you exit.
 

Yeah. I heard on the radio today that wheeler and appointed Sam Adams’s plan is to build camps in neighborhoods around town and relocate them there.

i mean... im at a loss for words other than im sooo glad i got out.

I contend that the only real solution starts with closing the wealth gap.

How did that get in here? I don't recall saying a thing about that.

read above. Hoopguru posted the news. I commented on it and you commented on mine. Following the trail you commented on led to my question. :)
 
I was more trying to offer the perspective of an immigrant from a poor country (that grew up there and came back to live for a few years) in regard to the issue of homelessness, and how much the work ethic of a person seemingly plays a role in it. If you ask immigrants that came from poor countries, I think you’d find many to be unempathetic to homeless people.

I know among many Vietnamese immigrants, they have an attitude that if you are homeless in America, then it’s your own choosing. To them if you’re willing to work hard and don’t get into trouble, America should offer you with enough opportunity to earn a decent living to provide for yourself. They think the issue with mental health is mostly an excuse to be lazy. As far as being a drug addict to the point of not being able/unwilling to work, then the person is no longer of any value to society, and s/he should somehow be discarded. That actually happened to the dude I mentioned in my previous post. He hung out with the wrong crowd and became a drug addict in his 20’s. His family just straight up disowned him. Pretended he was dead. He was/is a good dude, just has a problem with drug addiction.

As a person with a strong work ethic, it’s hard for me to understand or sympathize with people that don’t try their best to better themselves. But I don’t really look at this issue from a moral standpoint (that we should help people because they’re in need even if they chose to put themselves in that situation), but from a rather practical standpoint of what we can do to mitigate the problem without crossing the line of being immoral/unethical by violating people’s rights. So while I have a lot of reservations in helping lazy/unmotivated people, I believe we should find a solution (again, without violating their rights) to help them simply because it would in turn help us.

I’d definitely support @Phatguysrule's idea of giving them free housing if it indeed proves to save money over cleaning up their mess while they’re on the streets. Deserving/fairness has nothing to do with this. Just plain attacking the problem with good old analytical data (again, if the data proves to be accurate).
Its indeed hard to fathom, having a good work ethic myself.

my only point of contention, of which it was noted that there arent numbers for the X factors, i believe will make housing them more expensive in the long run.
I suppose the question is, is the additional cost worth removing them from the streets?


Im in full disagreement that putting a roof over their head will improve their recovery of being a drug addict, of which almost half in portland are. It will help others and im open to that via some employment type program thst ifnds them a livable working wage and then weens them off the support.

I am for putting the addicts in rehab centers.

But the argument to that is its against the law to force them.
Well my answer to that is laws change all the time. We cant develop a system and incorporate new laws that provides a path to recovery and if they don't do it, and they continue to loiter and trash the streets, then they go to jail?

This is the same concept as mom giving the tantrum child candy to shut up.
very poor parenting and yes it may be harder but we find a better solution than paying for thier behavior even more so than we currently do.

That may sound callous but i don't care. After having exhausted all other options to provide help aNd having it denied to live the simpler, easier, addict life, my sympathy is removed and if they don't want to be a contributing part of society when offered help to do so, then They can go away.


Why would i stress over some stranger addict on the streets when im having to do the same thing to a loved one?

we cannot help these people until they decide they want to help themselves. It really does come down to that.

Ive wasted too much of my life trying to help those who dont give enough effort to help themselves.
Selfish? Oh well. Its my time now. Lol.

Im all about helping those who want it.

But they gotta want it.

my Uncle lives on a remote island in the philipines imo. Ill find the link to his drone video.

probably better for another discussion but ive been thinking about visiting him to see how the cukture is up close. He gives extremely high oraise to the level of importance family is etc.

When my grandmother who i moved near me and took over power of attorney on was on her last days, he came up and took her home over there and she was pampered night and day until the end. And when she passed all the natives camp out and mourn the loss for 30 days.
In an increasingly disconnected society, it sounds more and more pleasant to me.
 
Last edited:
It baffles me that people that support businesses and are willing to accept that there is overhead in businesses and not every investment makes money - are unwilling to invest in the most important resource of the economy - which is the workforce.

Making sure that people have a basic level of income, housing and health are the best investment this country can make. People who are not hungry, sick or live out in the streets are more likely than not going to find a way to contribute to society. So what if a certain percent of them will not and will be "free riders". Just like any other business - some of the investment is not going to be worth it - but without future-vision - you still make it.

universal healthcare and making sure people have basic living conditions is the most capitalistic thing we can do. The place where it goes wrong (communism) is where everyone earns the same no matter how much they contribute / produce. Universal healthcare and basic living support are not that - because they do not stop people that want more from working and earning more.
 
It baffles me that people that support businesses and are willing to accept that there is overhead in businesses and not every investment makes money - are unwilling to invest in the most important resource of the economy - which is the workforce.

Making sure that people have a basic level of income, housing and health are the best investment this country can make. People who are not hungry, sick or live out in the streets are more likely than not going to find a way to contribute to society. So what if a certain percent of them will not and will be "free riders". Just like any other business - some of the investment is not going to be worth it - but without future-vision - you still make it.

universal healthcare and making sure people have basic living conditions is the most capitalistic thing we can do. The place where it goes wrong (communism) is where everyone earns the same no matter how much they contribute / produce. Universal healthcare and basic living support are not that - because they do not stop people that want more from working and earning more.
Ive known a number of serious drug addicts in my 70 years, some relatives, some friends while growing up, and Ive witnessed a few successful recoveries into being productive independent citizens working, thriving and surviving. There were two ways that worked 1) serious rehab with a progression plan 2) Long term jail or prison which forced sobriety to a point of making a decision to clean themselves up for another chance. I've witnessed some that were habitually failing at getting better because they were not wanting too and elected to live off others, and some became homeless, and one died. In these cases they were given many chances but didnt want to use them, its was always party time, crash, and do it again. The one fellow would be alive today im convinced, if he had been locked up for a few years to recalibrate his mind, body and decision making. Sad but for some it works, so what I would like to see is housing for those that want to use it, as a spring board but there has to be a level of commitment, free addiction rehab facilities where they can check into for a long enough period, even if its a year, to make progress. Our if they are bent on being vagrant and living on our streets doing drugs, harassing people, and whatever, send them a way for a while, behind locked doors for addicts, like a prison/rehab hospital/crazy house, whatever you want to call it and use federally funded money to help these people have another chance. For many out there today its the only way they have a chance to get well.
 
Its indeed hard to fathom, having a good work ethic myself.

my only point of contention, of which it was noted that there arent numbers for the X factors, i believe will make housing them more expensive in the long run.
I suppose the question is, is the additional cost worth removing them from the streets?


Im in full disagreement that putting a roof over their head will improve their recovery of being a drug addict, of which almost half in portland are. It will help others and im open to that via some employment type program thst ifnds them a livable working wage and then weens them off the support.

I am for putting the addicts in rehab centers.

But the argument to that is its against the law to force them.
Well my answer to that is laws change all the time. We cant develop a system and incorporate new laws that provides a path to recovery and if they don't do it, and they continue to loiter and trash the streets, then they go to jail?

This is the same concept as mom giving the tantrum child candy to shut up.
very poor parenting and yes it may be harder but we find a better solution than paying for thier behavior even more so than we currently do.

That may sound callous but i don't care. After having exhausted all other options to provide help aNd having it denied to live the simpler, easier, addict life, my sympathy is removed and if they don't want to be a contributing part of society when offered help to do so, then They can go away.


Why would i stress over some stranger addict on the streets when im having to do the same thing to a loved one?

we cannot help these people until they decide they want to help themselves. It really does come down to that.

Ive wasted too much of my life trying to help those who dont give enough effort to help themselves.
Selfish? Oh well. Its my time now. Lol.

Im all about helping those who want it.

But they gotta want it.

my Uncle lives on a remote island in the philipines imo. Ill find the link to his drone video.

probably better for another discussion but ive been thinking about visiting him to see how the cukture is up close. He gives extremely high oraise to the level of importance family is etc.

When my grandmother who i moved near me and took over power of attorney on was on her last days, he came up and took her home over there and she was pampered night and day until the end. And when she passed all the natives camp out and mourn the loss for 30 days.
In an increasingly disconnected society, it sounds more and more pleasant to me.
This is all based on prejudices, assumptions, and anecdotal evidence.

All actual data shows that it costs less to house them and cleans up the streets. Putting them in jail costs more than we're spending now.

What you are describing has been ruled unconstitutional. We do not change constitutional laws very often at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Ive known a number of serious drug addicts in my 70 years, some relatives, some friends while growing up, and Ive witnessed a few successful recoveries into being productive independent citizens working, thriving and surviving. There were two ways that worked 1) serious rehab with a progression plan 2) Long term jail or prison which forced sobriety to a point of making a decision to clean themselves up for another chance. I've witnessed some that were habitually failing at getting better because they were not wanting too and elected to live off others, and some became homeless, and one died. In these cases they were given many chances but didnt want to use them, its was always party time, crash, and do it again. The one fellow would be alive today im convinced, if he had been locked up for a few years to recalibrate his mind, body and decision making. Sad but for some it works, so what I would like to see is housing for those that want to use it, as a spring board but there has to be a level of commitment, free addiction rehab facilities where they can check into for a long enough period, even if its a year, to make progress. Our if they are bent on being vagrant and living on our streets doing drugs, harassing people, and whatever, send them a way for a while, behind locked doors for addicts, like a prison/rehab hospital/crazy house, whatever you want to call it and use federally funded money to help these people have another chance. For many out there today its the only way they have a chance to get well.
Certainly, but the treatment comes after housing them. Their caseworkers will gain a better idea of how best to help them during the homing process.
 
Certainly, but the treatment comes after housing them. Their caseworkers will gain a better idea of how best to help them during the homing process.
That makes since but not leaving the streets, they have to know it wont be tolerated and it could lead to incarceration or a period of time.
I remember vagrancy laws when they were enforced.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line imo if it takes over more of the city and downtown people will move out.
 
That makes since but not leaving the streets, they have to know it wont be tolerated and it could lead to incarceration or a period of time.
I remember vacancy laws when they were enforced.
I would certainly support proven effective rehab programs, or jail if they are committing crimes to support their habit.
 
This is all based on prejudices, assumptions, and anecdotal evidence.

All actual data shows that it costs less to house them and cleans up the streets. Putting them in jail costs more than we're spending now.

What you are describing has been ruled unconstitutional. We do not change constitutional laws very often at all.

how can you say the data shows when you already admitted their are unquantifiable x factors that arent calculated?

Call it prejudiced. I dont care.
Not even sure of your point when you yourself admitted the things i brought up arent “calculable”.

So your data is also flawed.
 
Certainly, but the treatment comes after housing them. Their caseworkers will gain a better idea of how best to help them during the homing process.

are you familir with drug treatment programs?

many are in house?

so you want us to pay for a roof over thier head while they arent using it becuase they already have a roof over their head from an in house treatment facility?

why cant they be admitted to treatment first and then when they are better then we look for work and a home for them?

i still think your putting the cart before the horse aNd am not sure you have spent much close up time with addicts to truly know thier behavior. And how much they take until they are fixed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top