The plan seems like a least-worst response to the situation. There are people out there who need shelter and not enough buildings for them, so let's allow them to camp in regulated, monitored locations. This gives the city the go-ahead to dissolve problem sites since they can steer people to non-problem sites and (one hopes) the oversight to prevent sites from devolving into problem sites.

I understand the suspicion, though, particularly about the "what next?" part. The city's proven mighty incapable of allocating funds to problems, e.g., the street fee/tax/fee/gas merry-go-round. If plans like Utah's Housing First approach are going to work in Portland someone's going to need to fund it and implement it.

In addition, that's Utah's plan, not Salt Lake City's. Portland doesn't need a plan: Oregon does. (At a minimum.) Setting aside the transient portion of Portland's population (see the OPB article on Hazelnut Grove), Portland can't go solo trying to fix the mental health/addiction problems, job creation issues and permanent housing issues. We need plans on the state and federal levels to tackle those problems.

So, sure, sanctioned camping isn't the answer -- but we *need* a damn answer, otherwise we're going to be right back here with a bunch of sanctioned camps and a bunch of unsanctioned ones that no one's willing to sweep because we'll still have no answer to "where are we supposed to go?"

ok, well as a rational and generally nice person, id deem the encampments underneath the steel bridge and next to the train station to be "problematic", if we're deeming drug use, mountains of gabage, rats, stolen bikes and broken glass problems...please do something about those two at the very least....

I seems that many people are frustrated because there are some ways to really deal with this problem and the leadership won't discuss them. The Wapato facility could be a great starting point for getting families and others that need real help a place to keep warm, dry and fed. The "red tape" responses to this "crisis" in not fair to people that really want to help and the people that NEED the help. No way is being in the that facility worse that under a tarp on Naito Parkway or Springwater...no way.
It can anger citizens that want to help, when the people who need the help appear to be setting the conditions. Our leaders should, at the very least, have a discussion about this instead of acting like an angry parent who shouts "NO, because I said so!"

while were mulling this all over, can we please find a way to deal with gutter punk assholes too? those dicks really piss me off. traveling hobos are actually a kind of gentleman vagabond but street punks are dicks and not welcome in Portland anymore as far as im concerned. were way too lenient with them and their shitty behavior.....

"to the extent that there's any "answer to Portland's homelessness challenges" being floated these days, that's it."

No it is not because,

1) It costs too much and does not profit- it is not sustainable.
2) There is nothing different about it. Homelessness is a different way of life altogether, not just for those who "chose" it, but even for those who ended up there because the standard way of life everywhere else in society DOES NOT WORK OUT. Who was the genius that said, "trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity"?

There is sustainable solutions. Camping outdoors is about as sustainable as it gets. But for you brainwashed middle class journalists who want to justify stripping people of their autonomy to create themselves a shelter with the two hands given to them by equating "solving" homelessness to offering them your way of life at a smaller and lesser scale and forcing them indoors, then yes there is also solutions which accomplish this. Solutions which - unlike the plan set forth by the self proclaimed experts at Portland Mercury - is self sustainable, profitable, and conducive to a different/ cheaper way of life. Yes you guessed it; pack a warehouse full of beds and rent them.

The economics are simple; you can house 3-6 broke people in the same amount of space as one well off journalist by simply recognizing what he never would consider as he's never been homeless; privacy is non-essential, only autonomy is. So why is it the only place you see such a set up is in jails and missions which dramatically restrict peoples autonomy or (a smaller version of it) in hostels not available to locals on a monthly basis and thus whom are able to get away with charging the equivalent of $900/ month as it is an 'esoteric living experience for travelers'? WHY IS IT NOT PRESENT ON THE MONTHLY RENTAL MARKET?

And here this journalist is yelling, "throw a bunch of money at the 'problem' and put them in shelters". Here is me yelling back, "why not just cut the bullshit and say you want to throw us in cages and waste tax dollars to do it?".

Wonder how many that think this is a good idea actually own their homes?

Because, after growing up poor, and working really hard for over a decade now at my career, I was able to afford a small house in a nice neighborhood. And I love and cherish it and have made it a home. And you know what? Surprise, surprise, I don't want a homeless camp next door, along with the drugs, petty theft, and other quality of life problems that come with that.

And neither does Hales, or any of the others that are pushing this measure as a stopgap. They just happen to live far enough from the city center that it isn't an issue for them. Those of us closer in can't be so sanguine. Call me a crazy, selfish, insensitive asshole, but not everyone who owns a home in this town is some gilded Bay Area transplant. Some of us have something to lose, and to be completely frank, the honest response to this? Fuck you. I'm not gonna give up mine so easily.