Recent Thoughts on Oregon's Homeless Crisis
A front page story about the death of a Portland homeless man appeared in the Saturday, July 29th edition of the NY Times. The headline read: “A Homeless Crisis is a test of Portland's Identity.”
To summarize, a downtown fentanyl addict, a homeless young man, was befriended by a young man who worked as a paramedic and lived in nice apartment in the neighborhood where the addict lived on the streets. The young man tried to help the homeless man, as did others, but the addict eventually overdosed and died.
It was a sensitive and heartbreaking feature and the focus on one person who died was an interesting editorial approach. But there were so many questions the reporter could have asked, but did not. For example, he should have asked the young man who was trying to help the addict: did you ever ask about his drug abuse?
I know from personal experience with members of the Old Crow Club that once trust is established with homeless people, at least the ones I've been around, it is acceptable, even required to ask this question of someone you are trying to help so you can determine what level that person can reciprocate. If they can't reciprocate in some meaningful way, the help probably isn't going to work. This is something that is never discussed in the homeless advocacy media, because, I believe, they think it smacks of judgment and paternalism. Bullshit!
It took me a long time to get there with the homeless men and women in my neighborhood. The book had to come out before I go deeper. Now it seems perfectly natural to do so.
The Oregonian recently published a lengthy story complete with about a dozen photos documenting the ongoing destruction of Portland's multiple natural areas, by the malicious habitation of homeless people. Two of the areas mentioned where the Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge and the Johnson Creek Watershed where years, even decades of expensive and successful restoration work has largely been undone by erosion, compaction of soil, denuded riparian areas, cutting down trees, piss and excrement and mountains and mountains of trash.
I have observed the destruction of the aforementioned areas (and others on the Columbia Slough) myself the past three years and written about it multiple times on this blog and with increasing hostility toward the homeless people who are murdering the flora, fauna and water quality of these areas, not to mention the aesthetic and experience of visiting these respites from the city.
Predictably, the reporter never once asked a homeless person about their role in destroying the area or if he had the right they had to do so. Predictably, the homeless advocates said the residents in these areas should not be swept because of further traumatizing the residents. Predictably, a letter to the editor in the paper a week after the article appeared cast the homeless people as victims and that they should not be stigmatized for their role in wrecking these places. Predictably, the report never interviewed a beaver, a red legged frog, blue heron, salmonid or cedar tree to ask their opinion of being displaced. Predictably, the city and county and various watershed councils had let it all get out of hand and apparently did nothing to reach out to the residents of these natural areas and try and minimize their destruction. Predictably, when push comes to shove, certain progressives will place the welfare of human miscreants well above other species.
I have to leave this issue here because this kind of destruction of natural areas that Oregonians have spent the last 30 years trying to repair, infuriates me like no other issue related to the homeless crisis in Oregon, and I feel more invective coming on and more bullshit from the advocates for the homeless. Can't blame the loggers or ranchers or miners or developers on this one. And blaming the scourge of consumer capitalism doesn't help the watershed, either.
Despite the desperate need for new and affordable housing all across the state, there were no significant changes to Oregon's vaunted land use laws to encourage such construction during the legislative session. Oregon's various environmental groups quashed several bills pushed by the Governor and most Republican legislators (a miracle all by itself), claiming they would destroy wetlands, allow developers to take out more trees, and lead to development in high value land outside urban growth boundaries. I didn't follow this critical issue as closely as I should have, and most of my information came from emails cranked out by the environmental groups, who don't seem to have any sense of urgency in helping people get into affordable housing, even though, in the larger picture, this is a supreme environmental issue as I just wrote about above, and is only going to worsen.
I do know, and I have written many times, that Oregon does need to amend their land use laws to allow for one or more dwellings to go up on farms and woodlots that already have existing homes and developed properties with outbuildings, etc. Rural Oregon has a tremendous housing crisis and allowing, for example, a Port Orford cranberry farmer to add an additional manufactured or tiny home to their land would help alleviate the shortage. I don't know why these rules haven't been changed. All you have to do is drive around rural Oregon to see the opportunity.