
Portland Wants New Private Buildings to Provide Space for Homeless Camping - fortran77
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2019/12/04/an-influential-city-panel-wants-new-private-buildings-to-provide-space-for-homeless-camping/
======
grawprog
This seems like a terrible idea to me. It's not any kind of solution to
homelessness and it's utterly ridiculous to force private buildings to have
space for people to camp. The whole proposal is utterly stupid on so many
levels. I'm not sure where to begin.

Sanitary issues come to mind first of all. Is building maintenance responsible
for cleaning up after them. I've landscaped and done maintenance for apartment
and commercial buildings and there's no way in hell I'd be going anywhere near
to clean up after that. We wouldn't even touch people's dog shit, let alone
the waste such a camp is likely to produce.

Then there's the people living in these spaces. They're still homeless,
they're now spread throughout the city and this really changes nothing about
their situation. Living in a tent outside a fancy highrise isn't much
different than living in a tent in an alley somewhere. Their living conditions
aren't going to change. This really does nothing to help them.

Honestly, I'm not even too sure what to say to this in a comment. I could
probably rant about the stupidity of this for hours.

------
claudiulodro
As far as I can tell, the title is super editorialized. The actual proposal
causing the ruckus states something different (from TFA):

> There are a dozen such guidelines, but the discussion ground to a halt at
> No. 6, which said the exterior spaces of new buildings must "provide
> opportunities to pause, sit and interact."

The end result of this proposal may be a little similar to what this
editorialized title says, but IMO everyone in downtown Portland would benefit
from more spaces to pause, site and interact, not just homeless campers.

~~~
zaroth
That is the _original_ text which is unobjectionable. The “ruckus” was around
a proposal to amend the text to include “resting” which could include pitching
tents.

> _Magnera, who works as the director of climate and energy policy at Verde, a
> Northeast Portland environmental justice nonprofit, stopped the conversation
> and pushed to add the words "rest and be welcome" to that guideline. She
> explained that public spaces around buildings often include "benches but not
> a lot of place to pitch a tent."_

~~~
claudiulodro
Exactly! They got you too! A reasonable bill that would marginally increase
the cost of skyscraper developers and improve downtown is being represented as
a bill that would let the homeless swarm because one person verbally made a
suggested change.

~~~
johnpowell
Swarm? Between the last 30 years I have lived in Portland for 10, and Eugene
for 20.

Is there a homeless problem in Portland, sure, in the sense that there are
them. But it isn't a inconvenience to me. You see them but they aren't a swarm
of bees trying to swallow your spare change.

I lived on 14th and Alder in Eugene when Jerry Garcia died. That was annoying.
All the people that toured with the Dead decided to land in Eugene while they
found Phish.

It is like when public transport is talked about here. It is garbage because
it isn't the same or better than my car. No fucking shit. It isn't meant to
be. But it gets me where I am going for 60 bucks a month.

Public transportation in Portland is great. The homeless problem is a problem
if you are uncomfortable around homeless people. But I just keep on walking
and loving Portland..

------
buzzkillington
>Magnera, however, says she's more determined than ever to use city code to
carve out space for people who have none. "I'm going to keep pushing," she
says. "I feel it's my role to speak up for people who don't have a voice."

Funny how those people want to say the same things you do.

This is fucked in every which way.

If you want fewer homeless provide affordable housing at public expense.

If you don't have the spine for that stop making unenforceable laws which will
drag developments into the courts and delay them further.

~~~
Bostonian
"If you want fewer homeless provide affordable housing at public expense."

When I worked in Manhattan and did not want to pay Manhattan rents, I lived in
Jersey City or Brooklyn. America is a huge country. If you can't afford to
live in an expensive city, you should move.

------
KODeKarnage
What sort of solution is this supposed to be? I mean, who thinks the reason
homeless people are homeless is just because they don't have a roof over their
heads? Spend money on mental health services! It's not rocket science!

~~~
aurizon
This is classic NIMBYISM run rampant. Restrictive building restrictions that
are aimed to maintain retail house prices at ever higher prices so the
homeowners feel their purchase is making miney and riff-raff (poor, less rich
and homeless) are unable to buy/rent a place to live. The only way to solve
this is to add costs to people who rent. Rent seeking :- Tax rentals as
commercial properties, and forbid tax pass-through to tenants. This extra cash
extracted from the landlords would gradually make rentals non economic. Loosen
home restrictions on size, cars etc,allow multi unit dwellings. 4 plxes, 8
plexes .....64 plexes, Allow tiny units with micro kitchen/washroom walled off
a 1-2 room spot, with 200-300 square feet. When I was in residence my room was
10x12 feet with a narrow bed washup sink and toilet alcoved off with a 3x3
shower. I was content

~~~
loco5niner
> riff-raff (poor, less rich and homeless) are unable to buy/rent a place to
> live. The only way to solve this is to add costs to people who rent.

Or as an alternative, live somewhere where you can afford living. Downtown
Portland is expensive and that's ok.

~~~
aurizon
My intention is to make rent seeking less attractive as an investment. Once
residential units are bought it tends to become permanent, over time a higher
and higher % of space is for rent. The other choice is to mandate equity via
rent. Of some one buys a house and pays 10% down. Then rents it, the tenant
pays the rent which pays the mortgage, but the tenant gets no equity. Grant
equity as a % of mortgage paid during his tenure - if he moves the land lord
owes him money. This will make people buy out right = more taxes etc.

------
teilo
And this is why I will never move back to Oregon.

