Portland homeless situation

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

The SF situation for me got so bad it was definitely a factor for me moving away in 2015. Seattle has a homeless problem but it's far more contained. Perhaps it's because I lived in SoMa, but I was just not down with the rampant lawlessness and disgusting behavior that SFPD turns a blind eye to. Finding someone shooting up in my car, getting my car broken into 8x in 6 years, feeling physically threatened on MUNI all too often got super old. The homeless in SF are much more aggressive and unstable than anywhere else I've visited. My heart goes out to them, but at the end of the day, when it comes to substance abuse, you to take responsibility for your own life--you have to want to get better. Now for the mental illness component--FUCK REAGAN (and capitalism). We need more mental health resources all around in this country that are free or affordable.

Why fuck Reagan? Haven't Clinton and obama , totalling 16 years, had enough time to fix how bad he made things? This is like the most common thing I hear when people speak of mental health and politics yet noone likes to admit their progressive "allies" have done zero to address the issue. So fuck them all?

[mhays]

Oh? When did they have the dual house and senate majorities needed to pass new funding?

[Sun Belt]

^I don't think lack of funding is the cause or matters much when you consider Pedestrian's post about the homeless situation in San Francisco. The city spent over $40,000 per year per homeless person and the situation seems to be growing not declining.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Why can't we do anything about it is the question of the year.

Think of that: $305 million/7499 = $40,672 spent per homeless person per year . . . and yet, the problem "is as bad as ever". I'd say worse than I've ever seen it in 35 years.

That the city spends $40,000 of each of these people every year suggests they could easily rent a studio apartment for each of them and voila! No more homeless IF simply not having a home were actually the problem. But it clearly isn't.

Niether is a lack of mental health treatment. San Francisco may be one of the few cities in the US that runs an extensive system of public neighborhood health centers whose services include mental health care such as supplying the mentally ill with needed medication as well as other forms of therapy: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/comupg/ose...ntalHlth/CBHS/

I would argue San Francisco does everything the law allows to help the homeless but what it doesn't do is enforce any sort of standard of public behavior. There are laws against lying on sidewalks, obstructing sidewalks, use of many drugs favored by the homeless, indecent exposure (I once witnessed a homeless man strip completely naked in McDonald's dining room), obscene public behavior including defecation and so on. But there is absolutely no will to enforce them, either by the police or by the district attorney.

Most San Franciscans have just gotten used to all this and walk by acting as if nothing is worth notice or surprising. It's just the way things are and nothing is likely to change it.

I suspect that we're seeing the results of pain medication abuse that has taken a few years to roll through the population. Addiction has finally reared it's head in the visible form with the first wave of abusers as their addiction has spiraled out of control to the point where they are incapable of not living on the streets.

[Chef]

I see this mostly as an housing problem. We have always had addicts and mentally ill, the difference is that now they don't have any place to live. There was a point when most cities had skid rows - areas of flop houses and cheap hotels that the down and out used to live in. Most cities lost their skid rows to redevelopment and zoned them out of existence. The idea was to make the cities nicer but you can't fight extreme poverty with zoning. As American cities continue to get more expensive and lose affordable housing I would expect homelessness to increase.

[dubu]

housing and transportation problem. cars arnt cheap same with shelter, theres more cars then houses. we could all work from home, that would be cool

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Weather is definitely not the reason why there are homeless in high numbers in Portland, unless they prefer being damp and living in wet conditions for 8 months out of the year.

there's a pretty significant difference between being damp and uncomfortable in portland and literally freezing to death in chicago.

portland has a mild enough climate where one can get away without ever needing proper heated shelter.

in chicago, on a dark frigid january night, shelter isn't optional. you either get inside somewhere or you die.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

there's a pretty significant difference between being damp and uncomfortable in portland and literally freezing to death in chicago.

portland has a mild enough climate where one can get away without ever needing proper heated shelter.

in chicago, on a dark frigid january night, shelter isn't optional. you either get inside somewhere or you die.

For sure. Why be cold and wet when you can be warm and dry? Portland is probably better than Chicago, but is it better than Southern California? A homeless guy in Portland could escape to a more ideal location in the same way that a homeless guy in Chicago would in theory, flee the cold and move to the Pacific Northwest.

A sociologist or geographer - whomever - should study migration patterns of America's homeless. Where are they coming and going. Are they mobile or do they chose to squat within their home region? How long on average do they live on the streets? How long do they set up camp in a foreign city. Why did they chose that city? and so on.

It's life and death in Chicago during an arctic outbreak. Chicago still has nearly 6,000 homeless people in shelters and on the streets. Maybe Chicago is constantly churning out homeless that ultimately move south and west as shelters remain at capacity, with their overall population count remaining around 6,000 in the city?

[dubu]

homelss ride the train at night to get warm and steel and go to jail and get a free place. they probably dont move much. small cities can kick them out and theres only a few big cities to go

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

A sociologist or geographer - whomever - should study migration patterns of America's homeless. Where are they coming and going. Are they mobile or do they chose to squat within their home region? How long on average do they live on the streets? How long do they set up camp in a foreign city. Why did they chose that city? and so on.

i really don't have any idea to what degree chronically homeless people migrate around the country.

i was only trying to point out that year-round homelessness is a MUCH easier lifestyle choice to make in a city like portland than it is in a city like chicago.

one can get by just fine for a good long while without shelter in chicago, but january always looms, and it's a life and death kind of seriousness, not just a "it's damp and chilly" deal.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Chef

I see this mostly as an housing problem. We have always had addicts and mentally ill, the difference is that now they don't have any place to live. There was a point when most cities had skid rows - areas of flop houses and cheap hotels that the down and out used to live in. Most cities lost their skid rows to redevelopment and zoned them out of existence. The idea was to make the cities nicer but you can't fight extreme poverty with zoning. As American cities continue to get more expensive and lose affordable housing I would expect homelessness to increase.

Once again, San Francisco has gone out of its way to preserve "single room occupancy hotels" (aka "flop houses") in the Tenderloin after it did lose one neighborhood of them around what is now Moscone Center/Yerba Buena. Two primary pieces of legislation several decades ago have tried, with some success to preserve them and stop gentrification: (1) A ban on conversion of SROs with rooms renting by the month to tourist hotels renting by the night and (2) a height limit of 90 ft in most of the Tenderloin, 120 ft in some places which usually means 9-12 floors. The buildings beginning to go up when gentrification was unchecked were true high rises of several hundred feet.

In addition, the city has built several modern SRO-type facilities with even medical spaces on the ground floor (to give mentally ill residents their meds for example).

I believe most to those sleeping on the city streets night after night are there by choice. For whatever reason, they won't go to a shelter or take advantage of other housing options.

New direction in housing for S.F.’s homeless: modular
By J.K. Dineen
October 4, 2017 Updated: October 4, 2017 6:00am

San Francisco officials are going forward with a plan to use off-site modular construction to build supportive housing for the homeless, a move that could save time and money, but has long been regarded as politically untenable because of opposition from the building trade unions.

The Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development, known as MOHCD, is set to issue a request for proposals for a developer capable of building a 250-unit housing complex using modular construction on a parking lot owned by the federal government at Seventh and Mission streets. Building the modules in an off-site factory will cut costs by 20 percent and speed up production by 30 to 40 percent, the city estimates.

The project marks the first time San Francisco’s powerful building trades, which have long had an iron grip on multifamily development in the city, have agreed not to oppose modular construction for projects aimed at housing formerly homeless people.

MOHCD acting Director Kate Hartley said that her staff met with building trades representatives and relayed to them the “urgency of getting housing built faster for the homeless.”

“They understand that housing the homeless in San Francisco is vitally important,” Hartley said. “Our goal is to build units as fast as possible, so we can get people off the streets as fast as possible.”

The parcel at 1068 Mission St., behind the federal courthouse that houses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, could accommodate 250 studios in two separate buildings, one of which would house formerly homeless seniors. The federal government has agreed to donate the land to the city for $1, with the caveat that the project be built within three years of the property transfer.

“In San Francisco that is fast,” Hartley said. “With conventional construction we would never make that deadline” . . . .

http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/a...s-12250784.php

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Just noticing the LA job thread, which brought to mind that the unemployment rate in Portland is about 4%. There are not enough people to fill positions in pretty much any industry. So despite a booming economy the homeless situation worsens, which hasn't typically been the case -- homelessness is usually associated with recessions. Sounds to me like more support for mental health, drug treatment, affordable housing and job training is the way to go, rather than $1.4 trillion in tax cuts for large corporations. Exacerbating the gulf between rich and poor is not going to solve this problem.

I live off 68th and Halsey in Northeast Portland and this summer the supposed "homeless" set up tents off the freeway exit in the green space between the off ramp and the freeway! The City does nothing about it. Because it is Oregon dept. of transportation property they are the people we are supposed to call to complain to. Now we have gotten more action from the Oregon sheriffs department. They defecate on the property, litter the property with their bicycle parts, cans, and trash and the City does not seem to care, yet the residents who live nearby and pay taxes get to see their property values degraded and their neighborhood looking like crap. I found out that a lot of these people are from Seattle. The point is, if you cant afford to live in Portland why are you here? I would like to live on the upper east side of Manhattan or the beaches of the French Riviera, but because I CANT AFFORD TO LIVE THERE you don't see me pitching my tent there. And speaking of taxes...we pay an ARTS tax every year to the City so kids can finger paint and study limbo dancing but the City cant provide its Citizens with a clean environment and neighborhoods and the ability to keep their property values intact? Something is seriously wrong with priorities.

[IMBY]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

The SF situation for me got so bad it was definitely a factor for me moving away in 2015. Seattle has a homeless problem but it's far more contained. Perhaps it's because I lived in SoMa, but I was just not down with the rampant lawlessness and disgusting behavior that SFPD turns a blind eye to. Finding someone shooting up in my car, getting my car broken into 8x in 6 years, feeling physically threatened on MUNI all too often got super old. The homeless in SF are much more aggressive and unstable than anywhere else I've visited. My heart goes out to them, but at the end of the day, when it comes to substance abuse, you to take responsibility for your own life--you have to want to get better. Now for the mental illness component--FUCK REAGAN (and capitalism). We need more mental health resources all around in this country that are free or affordable.

If more people would equivocate addictions, as addictions are addictions are addictions, there'd be more understanding of why some of these people can't turn it around.

Like I said to my pulmonologist when, diagnosed with COPD, and after cutting down to a half-pack a day, he said: You need to quit! And my response: Give me your car keys, from this day forward you will not drive a car anymore, you're going to give up this very dangerous addiction to driving/owning a car. Next time I come here, I want to see your bus pass!

I read of a company out east, who had to reject 50% of its applicants, for merely not passing a drug test, jobs paid roughly $13 an hour. And did they test them for pharmaceutical drugs or alcohol usage?

The obstacles to getting off the streets today can be formidable. This wouldn't be happening in Japan, with its chronic shortage of labor, due to their resistance to bringing in immigrants, 1.2 applicants per job. Now! How many obstacles do they throw in the way of these 1.2 applicants, employers starving for workers?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by IMBY

If more people would equivocate addictions, as addictions are addictions are addictions, there'd be more understanding of why some of these people can't turn it around.

Like I said to my pulmonologist when, diagnosed with COPD, and after cutting down to a half-pack a day, he said: You need to quit! And my response: Give me your car keys, from this day forward you will not drive a car anymore, you're going to give up this very dangerous addiction to driving/owning a car. Next time I come here, I want to see your bus pass!

Seriously? As a 2 pack a day smoker who quit 30 years ago on about the 8th try, I can tell you that like other substance addictions it’s EASIER to quit entirely than to “cut back”. Nicotine gum helped me and today there is “vaping” which is much easier on your lungs than smoking because there’s no tar in vapor. And as someone who watched my smoking mother die of COPD, I urge you to stop making excuses and telling yourself you’ve told your pulmonologist like it is—he’s heard it all before many times and probably just shrugged at another suicidal patient—and actually give up cigarettes.

Meanwhile, back on-topic, as a physician in an opiate treatment clinic, I did hear these same excuses from patients, many of whom were homeless. They didn’t work for them either. If those people kept using at any level it meant that the drug remained a part of their lives, they continued to have relationships with their sources and with other users. Giving up the addiction meant living differently with different friends and associates as well as simply not using a substance.

[JoePDX]

Originally Posted by IMBY

If more people would equivocate addictions, as addictions are addictions are addictions, there'd be more understanding of why some of these people can't turn it around.

Like I said to my pulmonologist when, diagnosed with COPD, and after cutting down to a half-pack a day, he said: You need to quit! And my response: Give me your car keys, from this day forward you will not drive a car anymore, you're going to give up this very dangerous addiction to driving/owning a car. Next time I come here, I want to see your bus pass!

I read of a company out east, who had to reject 50% of its applicants, for merely not passing a drug test, jobs paid roughly $13 an hour. And did they test them for pharmaceutical drugs or alcohol usage?

The obstacles to getting off the streets today can be formidable. This wouldn't be happening in Japan, with its chronic shortage of labor, due to their resistance to bringing in immigrants, 1.2 applicants per job. Now! How many obstacles do they throw in the way of these 1.2 applicants, employers starving for workers?

There is NOTHING wrong with ALOT of these people. They choose to pitch a tent and live on the off ramp because the city allows it. I talked to one who was just "passing through" Portland and just pitched his tent for a while. Meanwhile hes crapping and peeing behind a bush next to the freeway ramp and sitting on a lawn chair as the traffic whizzes by. Its like hes just pitched his lounge chair next to a stream in the woods except the stream is a traffic crowded off ramp! Unbelievable. Granted, I guess we are not talking here about the chronic homeless. I think our area was a gold mine because it was near a grocery store bottle and can return area. They would collect all their bottles and cans for deposit money . Also with a condo dumpster nearby they could raid that too. Since the grocery store stopped its return drop offs I have noticed a drastic reduction in raids of the condo dumpster and hopefully the summer freeway tent city wont return.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i really don't have any idea to what degree chronically homeless people migrate around the country.

i was only trying to point out that year-round homelessness is a MUCH easier lifestyle choice to make in a city like portland than it is in a city like chicago.

one can get by just fine for a good long while without shelter in chicago, but january always looms, and it's a life and death kind of seriousness, not just a "it's damp and chilly" deal.

it appears that they migrate west and southwest on an almost continual basis out of the midwest. i see tons of hitchhikers on I-70 going west and I-44 going southwest in the autumn. i also see huge amounts of them in southern cities in winter. i think i remember being in nashville last winter and there was a big fire set under the interstate by homeless and remember seeing the plume of smoke...the encampments in disused spaces really swell. i've seen big camps under interchanges in atlanta around new years. florida can get pretty intense mid winter.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by JoePDX

There is NOTHING wrong with ALOT of these people. They choose to pitch a tent and live on the off ramp because the city allows it. I talked to one who was just "passing through" Portland and just pitched his tent for a while. Meanwhile hes crapping and peeing behind a bush next to the freeway ramp and sitting on a lawn chair as the traffic whizzes by.

And by living in a tent off the freeway as opposed to an apartment where you have to work to pay for it, they don't have to conform or abide by society's norms..or rules. They come and go as they please and hustle when they need some money.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

...
Nicotine gum helped me and today there is “vaping” which is much easier on your lungs than smoking because there’s no tar in vapor. And as someone who watched my smoking mother die of COPD, I urge you to stop making excuses and telling yourself you’ve told your pulmonologist like it is—he’s heard it all before many times and probably just shrugged at another suicidal patient—and actually give up cigarettes.
...

In theory vaping is easier on the lungs, but I'd carefully watch results of studies on whether there is diacetyl in vaping smoke. And as with any other battery-operated device, be careful to watch for battery issues that may result in explosions.

Originally Posted by IMBY

...
This wouldn't be happening in Japan, with its chronic shortage of labor, due to their resistance to bringing in immigrants, 1.2 applicants per job. Now! How many obstacles do they throw in the way of these 1.2 applicants, employers starving for workers?

Japan does have a homeless problem, although it's not as nearly as pronounced and stems from different causes.

[Pedestrian]

Hmmm . . .

SF built one new home for every 10.4 new jobs last year
By Adam Brinklow
Dec 15, 2017, 2:04pm PST

On Thursday the San Francisco Planning Department presented the results of the city’s 2016 Commerce and Industry Inventory to the Planning Commission, an annual tally of SF’s economic performance and outlook.

The results: Between 2015 and 2016, San Francisco’s job numbers went up, up, and up, adding tens of thousands of new positions and driving incomes ever upward. But at the same time, relatively little new construction happened.

Without further ado, the sobering highlights:

The total number of jobs in San Francisco went up four percent during the year. That adds up to 27,048 additional positions, driving the total to an all-time high of 703,230 citywide.

But the number of building permits issued declined two percent. The city issued only 29,117 new permits between 2015 and 2016, 68 percent of them for residential projects. But of course, most residential building permits are for changes to existing buildings rather than new construction.

. . . the most recent U.S. Census estimate says the city added only roughly 2,600 new homes during this period. That would mean SF produced only one new home per every 10.4 new jobs during this period . . . .

The city is getting wealthier at a ridiculous pace. While jobs citywide went up four precent, total wages citywide went up six percent, to an unbelievable $71.5 billion in total. For perspective, back in 2012 that same figure was only $49 billion. By 2013 it had already spiked five percent to $52.5 billion. This has dragged the city’s average (not median) wage per job to $101,640, from $83,570 just five years ago . . . .

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised some people don't have a home when the music stops.