
One Day With the Squad That Removes Needles and Feces From Downtown Portland - unquote
https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2019/05/08/one-day-with-the-squad-that-removes-needles-and-feces-from-downtown-portland-streets/
======
trynewideas
A good side read is the Street Response team proposed by Street Roots, funding
for which is in the proposed city budget:
[https://news.streetroots.org/2019/03/15/portland-street-
resp...](https://news.streetroots.org/2019/03/15/portland-street-response-
blueprint-better-system#overlay-context=2019/03/15/need-better-first-response-
portland-streets)

Clean and Safe only works in downtown and often works in service to businesses
who complain, and homelessness is an issue across the city. Portland police
often resort to ineffective sweeps to clear camps, and are prone to deploying
force when their limited de-escalation skills fail (most often when faced with
mentally ill people, some of whom aren't homeless).

The Street Response proposal pitches teams comprised of a firefighter (unsafe
heating and electrical hacks are common) and a person specifically trained in
de-escalation and dealing with behavioral health issues. A centralized
dispatch would send these teams to respond to non-violent calls--like sleeping
campers, noise disturbances, minor medical incidences, and illegal fires--
intentionally without police backup to assess and address the situation. The
teams would roll in SUVs capable of reaching off-road sites and can help carry
belongings to a shelter, legal campsite, family member, or treatment.

~~~
jesssse
Endless enablement will worsen the environment. Criminals should be charged
with crimes, not receive free services.

~~~
EliRivers
Many people take a more pragmatic, evidence-based approach that leads to a
better outcome.

In the interests of not being passive-aggressive, I'm saying that your
absolutist approach is a bad idea and in many cases makes things worse.

I do recognise that there are people who prefer a worse outcome, because they
want to see people directly punished, and also people who prefer a worse
overall outcome if it makes their lives any better at all (effectively offload
all the bad outcome onto other people).

~~~
jesssse
I wonder what evidence could be found about my proposed solution of "law
enforcement".

Currently, criminals are allowed to live on public pathways and in
neighborhood parks.

It's normal to see mountains of feces and needles and water bottle caps.

It's outrageous and absolutely a failure of government.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
I*m working from memory here, but evidence generally finds that having an
actual safety net and giving folks homes to live in works. Making sure folks
have mental health care works. Even with folks that insist on trying to stay
on the streets ... it seems simply taking them home enough time works.

You could also build centers with toilet facilities for people to live outside
if they choose - like campsites, only nicer.

If the people are criminals, the solution is to have better re-integration
programs and focus much of the criminal justice system on helping folks
instead of being cruel and punishing folks.

You are correct, however, that it is outrageous and an absolute failure of
government.

------
xrd
I'm curious, does anyone from Portugal or Amsterdam have any comments on this
story? Obviously, easy access to drugs is one side of this story. But, that's
also the case in Portugal and Amsterdam, right?

Are narcoterrorists from Central and South America the difference? Is this a
new heroin, why the 10x leap in needles in five years?

Is the difference that mental health is left to someone other than the state?

As a native Portlander and someone that thinks the city should be involved in
helping people get out of addiction and homelessness, this story is riveting,
tragic, hopeful and maddening all at once.

~~~
01100011
> Is this a new heroin, why the 10x leap in needles in five years?

1\. Hand out opioids like candy. Everyone has pain now and then(backpain,
dentist, etc), so everyone gets to try them.

2\. People become habitual users and in some cases junkies.

3\. Restrict the supply of OTC opioids, while continuing to lose the war on
illegally supplied drugs.

4\. Addicts and people looking to avoid getting dopesick look to heroin for
its low-cost and relative abundance.

Now you have a major spike in heroin users. From what I've heard, a lot of
people switch to heroin because it's available. They switch to shooting up
because it's cost effective.

When you're high as a kite, sleeping in the street or being covered in shit
really doesn't bother you. When you're obsessed with getting another fix, you
tend to lower the priority of 'non-essential' activities like bathing or
eating.

Note that not all addicts end up sleeping in gutters. I learned via a friend
that there are many hidden addicts in society. There are professionals who
shoot H just to maintain and avoid getting dope sick. I think the perceived
lack of opportunities for low-skilled and older workers has contributed to a
situation where many would rather get high and be homeless than struggle
holding down a 9-5 just to go broke at their first health crisis.

~~~
max76
> I learned via a friend that there are many hidden addicts in society. There
> are professionals who shoot H just to maintain and avoid getting dope sick.

A typical daily heroin addiction costs $100-$200 a day, or ~55k/yr. Some
professions can cover the expense, but it costs serious money. When continuing
with your career while addicted the user is put into a hard situation. Too
many sick days from an empty bank account, a bad deal, or a lack of access can
cost someone their career.

~~~
knowledgepowers
If that is how much it costs, how can people afford it?

~~~
jpatokal
They generally cannot, which is why so many users resort to high-risk, high-
reward ways to make money like prostitution, theft, etc.

------
dvdbloc
Does Seattle has services like this? It seems that lately there has been
garbage literally all over the entire city and no one seems to care or clean
it.

~~~
markgavalda
No it doesn't. Watch this for a full picture of what's happening in Seattle
and a proposed, humane and actually effective solution at the end.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpAi70WWBlw)

------
emptybits
Good job, Portland.

Another approach to reducing discarded needles is to open needle-exchanges and
safe-injection sites (e.g. Vancouver[1]). This also reduces infection from
sharing needles, overdose deaths, and paramedic resources.

[1] [https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/safe-injection-site-
and...](https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/safe-injection-site-and-needle-
exchange.aspx)

------
RickJWagner
If it employs those that need it, keep the business environment clean, and
makes everybody safer, it isn't all bad.

It's also worth noting the homeless are not being run out of town.

Things could be worse.

------
throw03172019
Dear San Francisco,

Can we have a few of these squads?

~~~
yostrovs
That would make the people that generate the needles and feces effectively
invisible in our society. Their suffering would be for naught.

~~~
sologoub
So it’s better to not provide the people in this horrid situation with any
dignity in the hopes that something changes and shames society into some
unknown action?

Portland IS trying to provide public toilets and a cleaner environment on the
streets at least. It sounds like the person profiled for this article actually
was able to get her life together. It’s a step.

SF can learn a lot from Portland. For example, it is possible to provide
people with the dignity of a toilet while fighting off a lot of the problems
that are currently used as an excuse not to provide these:
[https://www.businessinsider.com/portland-loo-perfect-
public-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/portland-loo-perfect-public-
toilet-2016-10)

Providing these does not make the situation worse or less visible.

~~~
briandear
> SF can learn a lot from Portland.

SF can learn a lot from Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio: they don’t have city
blocks covered with shit, needles, or people living in tents on the sidewalks.
The more SF “helps,” the more they attract. Houston is the 4th largest city
and has a fraction of the homeless. Red districts seem to have less income
inequality and fewer homeless and lower poverty.[1]

The San Francisco Approach seems to always be “let’s spend more money on the
problem.” But basic economics suggests that subsidizing something gives you
more of it. For example, unemployment benefits in France are extremely
generous, and you have double and triple the unemployment than in the US. Many
people in France stay on unemployment to the last possible moment before they
seek a job because the system incentivizes just that. The problem as I see it
is that liberals tend to make policies from a position of emotion, such as “we
can’t cut <some program> because that’s cruel.” However, it is just like
feeding stray cats: you feed them and that promotes more strays. If you raise
a Lion in captivity, they never learn to hunt and thus they are forever
destined to being the wards of the state.

This is a highly unpopular opinion around here to be sure, but if we are being
honest, the current policies promote a society of dependency. San Franciscans
often cite a pleasant climate as a reason for so many homeless choosing to
live in the city, however, for a homeless person, San Francisco weather is a
lot colder and more miserable than many other places in the US. So why does
San Francisco have such an incredible addiction and homeless problem? Perhaps
it’s policies that allow homeless people to shoot up on the street? Perhaps
it’s the higher availability of homeless services from well-meaning, but naïve
non-profits? One of the richest and most liberal cities in the world — and a
profound homeless problem. Is there a correlation? Could the policies of
liberal Portland and San Francisco actually be the problem? I had to spend
some time in New Haven and Hartford and, as someone from Texas, I was amazed
at the total slums right next to gated millionaire neighborhoods. Despite high
taxes to “help” the problem, it only seems to make it worse.

What am I missing? I am not trying to throw gasoline on the issue, but I
genuinely don’t understand. California is almost 80% Democrat, so supposedly,
the state is unencumbered by pesky conservatives, yet the problem seems to be
getting progressively worse. It isn’t the federal government’s fault because
otherwise there’d be similar levels of problems everywhere else.

[1] [https://www.axios.com/income-inequality-blue-red-
districts-6...](https://www.axios.com/income-inequality-blue-red-
districts-641c4e96-327c-4237-91a5-6613ad80cff5.html)

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Your examples are postwar "car" cities that are less walkable for life on the
streets.

