This line was pretty interesting to me: "the Portland brief reported that about 75 percent of some 3,400 offers of shelter were turned down". I'm wondering if there are any prevailing reasons as to why. If people have good reasons to not go then maybe some money is better spent solving that instead of simply pushing people from one sidewalk to another
Portlander here:
What it boils down to are most of the shelters have restrictions, like "no drugs or alcohol" and the homeless who refuse shelter either can't or won't abide by those restrictions.
Also, aren't the shelters notoriously unsafe, even moreso than living on the street? I know they are in New York, don't know if it's also the case in Portland…
The claim is they are less safe, but it's hard to imagine being less safe than homeless in a place where you can't put your back to a wall.
It might be hard to imagine if you don't know much about it, but situations like this is sadly not uncommon in New York shelters:
Our review of nearly 3,000 pages of internal records of dangerous and criminal activity inside 30th Street in 2017 and 2018 found:
Serious incidents — such as assaults, death threats and possession of significant quantities of drugs — won’t necessarily get someone arrested or even kicked out.
Violations of shelter rules often go without punishment.
Repeat offenders have no trouble bedding down for the night in a shelter, even after multiple incidents in various city-run facilities. That was the case with the man accused of the Chinatown killings.
You may note that it's an old article, but things have gotten much worse since then, in large part because the current mayor is a fascist cop, but I repeat myself.
I believe it has to do with drug use. Even weed isn't tolerated at these facilities. There's not really a fix for that other than housing. A bunch of people doing drugs in a dense population like that wouldn't be good. Doing drugs in your own home like a normal person would be fine. But not even the libs want to house these people.
Not just drug use. Shelters don't let you keep your stuff there during the day. They don't let you keep your dog who's been with you on the street. They don't let you stay with your buddy or partner. They don't even assure you a bed two nights in a row. So going into one can immediately lose you a lot, in exchange for only one night's dubious protection.
I'm the libs. I say build bathrooms. Find ways to legalize camps and make them safer and more sanitary. Nobody's ever gonna lift themselves out of poverty if the government comes along every few weeks and takes all their personal property away.
I think you will like to hear this- we live in a small city, Terre Haute, Indiana. However, we still have a significant homeless problem.
That's not the good part. Here is the good part- my wife is an administrator here at the public library system. They are currently building a new library branch. It will include a signup required, one person at a time shower and washer/dryer free for anyone who wants to use them. Obviously the hope is that the local homeless will take advantage of the situation, but anyone can.
I hope more libraries follow suit. You can't lift someone out of poverty if they have dirty clothes and haven't showered in a month either.
Now here's the question: If our town can do it, why can't Portland?
It would be nice if they can put that much effort into helping them instead of pushing them out.
Rare, right.
Yeah, Republican and liberal establishment people have always been allies against the humane treatment of the unhoused.
Just like they always agree that common sense justice reform that actually changes the broken system would be catastrophic and should be avoided at all costs 🤦
In Rare Alliance
Should read, "On Behalf of The Big Club"
There was a recent court ruling that prevented SF from being able to practically touch any sidewalk encampment: https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-oakland-9685f0a4350f8eb45602417ad334006f
The story of Newsom going to the Supreme Court is because they need to bypass that ruling if they want to be able to move people out who are refusing offers of shelter.
if they want to be able to move people out who are refusing offers of shelter.
Which, to be clear, they absolutely shouldn't. The shelter system has failed and further victimization of the unhoused will only hurt people without addressing any of the root causes.
Bell Riots still right on schedule
Rare alliance? The only difference in rhetoric, in action they collude
Similar article on subject:
West Coast cities start to confront the limits of the liberal dream
"But the City cannot feasibly provide shelter for everyone”
After spreading its collective cheeks for every big money developer buying up small homes by the block to put up overpriced complexes that sit empty for decades…
Fuck everything about this propaganda. Open your damn eyes, neighbors. We're next.
