Portland's Houseless Thread

[2oh1]

From a news story from KGW:

The city's emergency response to this homeless crisis will result in city workers losing their jobs [due to strained budgets], and every neighborhood in Portland now asked to find a spot to put a homeless camp.

Here's a link to the story, with video.

"Where's the best place for people to camp in your neighborhood, where we could provide services, where we could get people signed up to be on waiting lists? And we're going to ask every single neighborhood to tell us that."

-- Amanda Fritz

[downtownpdx]

Saw a story on the local news about Salt Lake City's success with this issue. They've seen a 72 percent drop in homelessness over the last several years by simply building housing for the homeless. Once they're situated with a real, stable place to live, it's much easier and cheaper to provide the mental health/drug addiction services that most suffer from. Of course it's cheaper there to build housing there, I think by about 25 percent. Not a big fan of just putting camps all over the city -- they'd have to be seriously monitored or they just become crime/filth magnets.

http://www.thenation.com/article/cit...sness-housing/

[urbanlife]

So when do the voters get to start removing the do nothing city council that is currently in place? I really miss having people on the city council that has a real vision for the city, and actually wants to see this city move forward correctly.

Throwing their hands up in the air and saying there is nothing they can do should not be an option.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

so when do the voters get to start removing the do nothing city council that is currently in place? I really miss having people on the city council that has a real vision for the city, and actually wants to see this city move forward correctly.

Throwing their hands up in the air and saying there is nothing they can do should not be an option.

vote vote vote!

Also, why does homeless camps = city employees losing their jobs? I don't get the correlation.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

So when do the voters get to start removing the do nothing city council that is currently in place? I really miss having people on the city council that has a real vision for the city, and actually wants to see this city move forward correctly.

Throwing their hands up in the air and saying there is nothing they can do should not be an option.

The first one that needs to go is Amanda Fritz. The problem is... how do we find someone to run against her? ...someone who can win?

Originally Posted by zilfondel

vote vote vote!

We need candidates to vote FOR though. We need someone to run against Amanda Fritz, and maybe against a few others too.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

vote vote vote!

Also, why does homeless camps = city employees losing their jobs? I don't get the correlation.

It is one of the things I hate and love about not living in Portland anymore. I don't get to vote for who is running the city, but I do get to vote for who is running Milwaukie.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

The first one that needs to go is Amanda Fritz. The problem is... how do we find someone to run against her? ...someone who can win?

We need candidates to vote FOR though. We need someone to run against Amanda Fritz, and maybe against a few others too.

Mary Nolan was a great candidate who ran against Fritz last time, and would have been much more competent than Fritz. But unfortunately more people voted for Fritz. If Nolan ran against her again, she'd win this time.

[cityscapes]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

vote vote vote!

Also, why does homeless camps = city employees losing their jobs? I don't get the correlation.

Maybe because the idea is terrible, half-assed, and doesn't address any long term issues regarding our homeless population, not to mention that it's bound to piss off every neighborhood in the city. If you think infill without parking is going to bring out the NIMBYs of Portland just wait until they try and decide to pick an empty lot in every neighborhood to house a bunch of homeless people. I'm sure that will go smoothly. We deserve a city council that can come up with more visionary ideas than what I've been hearing lately and this has been the worst one yet. I don't want to speak for another member but that's what I think the correlation is between homeless camps and the need to vote in a better city council. If I were getting paid to do their job, and had access to the Mayor's office, City Attorney, and CFO and PDC and contacts with all the social services in the city I'm pretty sure I could come up with a more viable solution.

The problems leading to the large homeless population in Portland are beyond the ability of the city council to tackle. It's going to take a federal and state level change in the way of doing things, and cultural shifts that would move society towards being more receptive to building a stronger social safety net, drug treatment, mental health care, and department of veterans affairs. After all those areas I mentioned are strengthened I think we would see a reduction in homeless populations nationwide.

Thinking more locally, if we can work the financing for a new Convention Center hotel or buying the Post Office site why can't the City of Portland or Metro buy a warehouse and a ton of bunkbeds to house all of the homeless people in the city, give them some shelter and slowly start addressing their individual issues in order to get them back on their feet.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Maybe because the idea is terrible, half-assed, and doesn't address any long term issues regarding our homeless population, not to mention that it's bound to piss off every neighborhood in the city. If you think infill without parking is going to bring out the NIMBYs of Portland just wait until they try and decide to pick an empty lot in every neighborhood to house a bunch of homeless people. I'm sure that will go smoothly. We deserve a city council that can come up with more visionary ideas than what I've been hearing lately and this has been the worst one yet. I don't want to speak for another member but that's what I think the correlation is between homeless camps and the need to vote in a better city council. If I were getting paid to do their job, and had access to the Mayor's office, City Attorney, and CFO and PDC and contacts with all the social services in the city I'm pretty sure I could come up with a more viable solution.

The problems leading to the large homeless population in Portland are beyond the ability of the city council to tackle. It's going to take a federal and state level change in the way of doing things, and cultural shifts that would move society towards being more receptive to building a stronger social safety net, drug treatment, mental health care, and department of veterans affairs. After all those areas I mentioned are strengthened I think we would see a reduction in homeless populations nationwide.

Thinking more locally, if we can work the financing for a new Convention Center hotel or buying the Post Office site why can't the City of Portland or Metro buy a warehouse and a ton of bunkbeds to house all of the homeless people in the city, give them some shelter and slowly start addressing their individual issues in order to get them back on their feet.

look at Salt Lake City for a long term solution to much of the issue. One that actually cost less long term than most of the proposals to "end homelessness":

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news...d-for-homeless

[innovativethinking]

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

This thread is in the Business, Economy and Politics subforum. If you feel that business, the economy and politics have nothing to do with skyscrapers, just ignore things posted in this subforum.

I'm glad that multiple forumers have suggested emulating SLC in addressing chronic homelessness with permanent housing. What I'm confused about is why -- though I know Fritz-bashing is a popular pastime on this forum -- why exactly are we blaming Amanda Fritz for the city's failure to come up with such a solution? The mayor is Charlie Hales. The housing commissioner is Dan Saltzman. Fritz has Parks, and in that capacity the scandal is evidently that she's shown the homeless some compassion by leaving the water on for them (the mayor's office provided porta-potties, for which any nearby homeowners with front lawns ought to be grateful, I imagine).

What should she have done? If we criminalize homelessness, does that solve the problem?

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

I'm glad that multiple forumers have suggested emulating SLC in addressing chronic homelessness with permanent housing.

I really hope the city looks seriously at this. I know capitalism has its flaws, but not one person in the world's wealthiest nation should be without a roof over their head. It's inexcusable and whatever we're doing right now clearly isn't working. SLC certainly seems to be on the right track. Not only is it working well but it's also the right thing to do. .. go figure!

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

I would argue that the homeless problem holds back some investment in the central city, so fewer skyscrapers get built as a result.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by innovativethinking

I thought this was a skyscraper forum? What does this have to do with any of that

You are browsing the "politics" subforum.

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

What I'm confused about is why -- though I know Fritz-bashing is a popular pastime on this forum -- why exactly are we blaming Amanda Fritz for the city's failure to come up with such a solution?

I'm bothered by the fact that she steps in front of the cameras to talk about Portland's financial crisis, yet when she rammed through huge increases in fees on developers, she did so to raise money for......... parks. She's on KGW talking about how the homeless crisis is so bad that the city is going to ask every single neighborhood to find a place for homeless camps, and that the cost of providing services for the homeless has escalated so far out of control that the city is going to fire city workers (wtf?) but when she pushed through a huge increase on developers to raise money, she used the money for....?

Parks.

You're going to have to cut back!
And YOU'RE going to have to cut back!
And you, and you and you!
Oh, but I just rammed through a huge increase for my budget for parks.

If the city is hurting and cutbacks need to be made for emergency measures, why is she exempt? Her fees are expected to generate an additional 500 million dollars over 20 years. I must have missed the great Portland parks crisis - the one that outweighs Portland's other needs.

I love our city parks, but we're not talking about funding. We're talking about additional funding.

So, we'll have homeless camps opening up across the city, but our parks will be prettier than ever. And I didn't even touch on the fact that we've got a housing crisis, yet she fights against proposed height increases because she's not in favor of increased density.

Amanda Fritz has misplaced priorities.

[maccoinnich]

Originally Posted by cityscapes

Thinking more locally, if we can work the financing for a new Convention Center hotel or buying the Post Office site why can't ...

While I'm not disagreeing with you, I do think it's worth pointing out that the Post Office redevelopment will result in somewhere around 700 units of affordable housing that would not be built otherwise.

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

[W]hen she rammed through huge increases in fees on developers, she did so to raise money for......... parks.

Again, her portfolio is Parks. Portland's parks and community centers will require more resources to maintain as neighborhoods densify; by adjusting the SDCs that developers pay, Fritz was able to avert a situation where these become a drain on the General Fund. You may disagree with its fairness, but Fritz's proposal exempts affordable rentals and homes for households making up to 100% of the medium income and reduces development charges on the smaller units that developers should be building more of. So you can't in any way argue that Fritz is pushing parks at the expense of housing.

She's looking out for Parks because that's what she's commissioner of. The commissioner in charge of housing is Salzman. Fritz thinks neighborhoods should be involved in deciding where homeless services will be provided because she thinks neighborhoods should be involved in everything.

As for bemoaning her fight against height increases, can you even name any highrise projects within the last couple decades that contained primarily affordable housing? What have 500-ft towers of luxury condos got to do with housing Portland's homeless?

[2oh1]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

Again, her portfolio is Parks

Last time I checked, she also gets to vote on things that aren't parks. And, quite frankly, unless the woman has no conscience at all... unless she is so greedy and cold hearted that the only part of Portland she cares about are parks, not even people, just parks... if she found a way to raise half a billion dollars of additional revenue over 20 years (she did) she should have passed the idea on to someone else in city council rather than use the money on parks.

There is absolutely no way to convince me that parks is where that additional money should be going right now. There is absolutely no way to convince me that if the city can find an additional half billion dollars of additional revenue over a 20 year period, the money should be going to parks.

Yes, increasing population means increasing needs for parks, but increasing population already means increasing revenue for parks through fees.

Frankly, I don't think now is the time to be substantially jacking up fees on developers, but if that's what the city is going to do, the additional revenue should NOT be going to PARKS. Not when we have a housing crisis. Not when we have a homeless crisis so bad that we're asking neighborhoods to find space for homeless camps! PARKS? There is absolutely positively no reason she couldn't have passed the idea for raising additional revenue on to someone else on city council to make sure the money is spent in ways that meet Portland's most urgent needs. But... no. Parks. She wants half a BILLION dollars of additional revenue -- additional revenue -- for parks.

Originally Posted by Encolpius

As for bemoaning her fight against height increases, can you even name any highrise projects within the last couple decades that contained primarily affordable housing? What have 500-ft towers of luxury condos got to do with housing Portland's homeless?

As I said, that's a separate issue. But if Portland is not going to grow outward, it needs to grow upward. I'm glad we're not expanding our urban growth boundary. I support increasing height, regardless of whether it's for housing or offices.

[mhays]

Market rate rents matter too. Affordability isn't just about designated-affordable housing. A big factor in market rates (and project cost at every level) is land cost. Portland's relative lack of capacity is the culprit behind its expensive land. Upzone in key areas at least, and land prices will relax, with the amount being relative to the extent of the upzones. And please do it by adding infill capacity, not sprawl capacity.

(In a few very central spots land prices would probably rise because they'd be worthy of larger towers, but generally it's about a plentiful resource vs. a scarce one.)

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

PARKS? There is absolutely positively no reason she couldn't have passed the idea for raising additional revenue on to someone else on city council to make sure the money is spent in ways that meet Portland's most urgent needs. But... no. Parks.

Here's one reason: state law (ORS 223.297 to 223.314) stipulates SDCs may only be used to fund capital improvements to water, wastewater, storm drain, transportation and park systems.

Originally Posted by mhays

Market rate rents matter too. Affordability isn't just about designated-affordable housing. A big factor in market rates (and project cost at every level) is land cost. Portland's relative lack of capacity is the culprit behind its expensive land. Upzone in key areas at least, and land prices will relax, with the amount being relative to the extent of the upzones. And please do it by adding infill capacity, not sprawl capacity.

(In a few very central spots land prices would probably rise because they'd be worthy of larger towers, but generally it's about a plentiful resource vs. a scarce one.)

That's funny, and here I thought all these years more housing wasn't built because land prices in Portland were still too low to generate development.

Regardless, I don't know where you're getting that Portland currently lacks development capacity: after all, Metro just voted unanimously earlier this month not to expand the Urban Growth Boundary on the grounds that lack of capacity is not the culprit behind expensive rents. Plenty of parking lots we can still build on. And if we're going to upzone, we could debate whether upzoning in neighborhoods of detached single-family homes (where upzoning would permit things like duplexes and midrise apartments) or upzoning in the central core (where the extra height can almost only mean more high-end offices and luxury condos) is more likely to lead to additional affordable housing.

But to keep this discussion focused on homelessness and the extent of Commissioner Fritz's alleged personal culpability, with respect to the charge of callousness in opposing an increase in downtown building heights in the midst of a housing shortage, can we at least agree that developers are not currently clamoring for more height so they can build affordable penthouses to accommodate Portland's homeless?