Portland's Homeless

[Michael Hopcroft]

I wish I had a link to point to -- maybe someone who is in Oregon can find one.

Newlty elected Portland, OR mayor Tom Potter has made one of the priorities of his administration the abolition of homelessness in Portland. Right now anywhjere from 2,5000 to 5,000 people in the Portland area are believed to be homeless. Potter wants to see that eliminated in ten years, mainly by trying to see to it that, if all possible, everyone who needs housing gets it.

He has not annoucned the details of the plan, obviously, but he has made aboloishing homelessness a major policy goal.

Two questions from this:

1. Is there a good way to deal with homelessness and the problems that spring from homelessness?

2. Is eliminating homelessness in a city the size of Portland even THEORETICALLY posslbe/ Is it even desirable?

[BurgessLau]

I live in downtown Portland, Oregon. I have been here for nearly 30 years. I have seen the ebb and flow of problems on the street.

The first question you should ask yourself is what you mean by "homelessness."

Here is my meaning: "The state of temporarily being without housing due to some factor beyond one's control -- such as flood or earthquake."

On any given day, there probably aren't more than a dozen people in Portland, population of about half a million, who are homeless. But there are certainly thousands of irresponsibles roaming the streets and causing problems for the moral individuals of the city.

I have not studied newly elected Tom Potter's plans, but everything I have heard him say so far indicates he is part of the problem not the solution.

1. Is there a good way to deal with homelessness and the problems that spring from homelessness?

2. Is eliminating homelessness in a city the size of Portland even THEORETICALLY posslbe/ Is it even desirable?

Absolutely! Part of the solution is total privatization of all governmental property, which is often where the maggots stay, followed by ruthless enforcement of all objective laws -- e.g., laws against trespassing, thereby running the maggots off private property. Another part of the solution is abolition of all welfare programs. Besides their double immorality (aggressive taking and unjust giving), they act as magnets for maggots.

Other elements of the solution include: Abolition of all governmental control of construction (creating more housing), abolition of property taxes, and especially the recognition of the right of all land owners, including businesses such as grocery stores, to exclude any individuals they don't want on their property -- for any reason whatsoever, including personal appearance.

Objectively defined homelessness will occur occasionally even in a perfect society. Charity can easily take care of the very few who are honest but temporarily unable to find housing and earn the money to pay for it. Otherwise, is it possible to eliminate homelessness? Of course.

Local Objectivists in Portland do occasionally discuss such issues. See: http://www.aristotleadventure.com/spon/

Edited March 3, 2005 by BurgessLau

[JMeganSnow]

What Burgess said.

Dayton, OH, where I live, has, apparently, a large "homeless" population and they are a NUISANCE. However, I've been homeless twice in my life. The first time, some relatives were nice enough to give me a hand (my entire family, actually), the second time my boyfriend announced I was going to live with him.

Neal Boortz coined a phrase (I think he coined it) that I find very appropriate for most "homeless" people: "Urban Outdoorsman".

[Bryan]

Neal Boortz coined a phrase (I think he coined it) that I find very appropriate for most "homeless" people: "Urban Outdoorsman".

I have my own phrase for most (not all) homeless people: "Alcoholics and/or Drug Addicts".

[plaintext]

A related thread

[DavidOdden]

I'm from Seattle -- where the original Skid Row is located -- and I will say that if Portland is like Seattle (which it is, minus the needle), it is self-induced. Seattle became a welfare haven for bums in the late 60's thanks to all of its "forward-looking" social programs. They bought a couple of motels just a three blocks from my home, where they let vagrants live and -- surprise, surprise! -- these bums moved into the neighborhood and made a profession of harassing the residents, going door to door begging for money, especially late at night. The word was clearly out: "Go to Seattle, they will take care of you there!". It really is bum heaven, and all because of city-owned property where bums are encouraged (not just tolerated, but encouraged) and a remarkably long-lasting feeling of guilt over the city taking over property in Pioneer Square. Sorry, gotta go apply ice packs -- my blood is boiling.

[GWDS]

Absolutely! Part of the solution is total privatization of all governmental property, which is often where the maggots stay, followed by ruthless enforcement of all objective laws -- e.g., laws against trespassing, thereby running the maggots off private property. Another part of the solution is abolition of all welfare programs. Besides their double immorality (aggressive taking and unjust giving), they act as magnets for maggots.

Wouldn't the abolishing of all welfare programs actually cause more homelessness? Many of those on welfare are in pretty dire straights, single parent families and the like, who would most likely become 'maggots' if they lost the welfare checks that pay rent.

[Scott_Connery]

It probably would in the short term. A change to an Capitalist government overnight would cause growing pains for sure. However, in the long run, most of these mooches would run out of people to mooch off of, and they would get jobs. A portion of the most mentally ill and unstable would either end up in mental hospitals or jail.

[McGroarty]

Wouldn't the abolishing of all welfare programs actually cause more homelessness? Many of those on welfare are in pretty dire straights, single parent families and the like, who would most likely become 'maggots' if they lost the welfare checks that pay rent.

Here in Chicago, there are fast food positions available that pay $9/hr, and which generally include some or all of: child care, health insurance, and a retirement plan. These positions remain open despite a large welfare population, as trading welfare for a job means giving up $12-15k/year in benefits for an $18k/year job. Welfare creates a large opportunity cost.

Meanwhile, the city does all it can to shelter illegal immigrants who are not eligible for welfare and who snap up every undocumented job offered. With the money they earn, the illegals manage to rent houses and apartments while still sending extra money back home to Mexico. In my neighborhood, they look to be enjoying a better quality of life than the people in the public aid housing projects. The jobs are there, and there's enough competition for the workers that these guys not only earn an attractive wage, but do all they can to smuggle in more and more friends and family.

Would eliminating welfare result in more homelessness? Around here, the only ones suffering would be the ones who don't snap up the opportunities already being dumped before them every block or two.

[scottkursk]

Here in Chicago, there are fast food positions available that pay $9/hr, and which generally include some or all of: child care, health insurance, and a retirement plan. These positions remain open despite a large welfare population, as trading welfare for a job means giving up $12-15k/year in benefits for an $18k/year job. Welfare creates a large opportunity cost.

Meanwhile, the city does all it can to shelter illegal immigrants who are not eligible for welfare and who snap up every undocumented job offered. With the money they earn, the illegals manage to rent houses and apartments while still sending extra money back home to Mexico. In my neighborhood, they look to be enjoying a better quality of life than the people in the public aid housing projects. The jobs are there, and there's enough competition for the workers that these guys not only earn an attractive wage, but do all they can to smuggle in more and more friends and family.

Would eliminating welfare result in more homelessness? Around here, the only ones suffering would be the ones who don't snap up the opportunities already being dumped before them every block or two.

Around my neck of the woods (Sharpstown in Houston) the homeless fall in 2 categories. The first are the window washers and ones with sympathetic signs begging for money or work. Those are usually the meth addicts. They have plenty of excess energy and are looking to work out some aggression on people's windshields to earn some money for their next fix. The "injured vet needing work" and "stranded war on terrorism vet needing help" types tend to be drunks. They are loaded and want to do teh least amount of work possible for their money. Drunks tend to be very lazy but meth addicts that are geeking out will do alot with their excess energy to get more meth.

The other type of "homeless" in this neck of the woods is the latino immigrant. We've got them standing in groups drinking jugs of water looking at every truck that pulls up for work. Sticking two fingers out the drivers window and yelling "el fontainero dose" you get two people ready to do plumbing related jobs. They fight for it in fact some times. All the guys with "need work" signs always have an excuse like "bad back" or "ptsd from the 'Nam" or some such line of bunk as to why they can't work.

The Hispanic's that most people think are homeless are actually migrant workers looking for work. In my plumbing and constructions days, I'd so gladly pick guys off the street over when, if you listen to the media, so many good workers are looking for work and are homeless. The El Salvadorians I pick up are hard workers that many of which became full time employees after time. They were hard workers who were incredibly productive once you gave them some empowerment and trusted them as human beings.

It's the addict types that make homelessness a marketing aspect to get more off the largess of the guilt feeling people in cars who don't or won't give any thought as to where any of there money goes. The hispanic laboreres that to some apear to be homeless probably own a house "back home" and an apt. here. They come to el Norte' knowing that they'll work their asses off but they feel the risk is worth the rewards.

I give much credit to them because they are making a seriously concious thought and effort to sacrifice short term discomfort for long term gain. These guys tend to think in very macroeconomic senses about the value of their labor here versus that of what it's economically worth at home. Taking some seriously unpleasent jobs here mean a better life for their families and themselves when they go back home.

[mweiss]

What Burgess said.

Dayton, OH, where I live, has, apparently, a large "homeless" population and they are a NUISANCE.  However, I've been homeless twice in my life.  The first time, some relatives were nice enough to give me a hand (my entire family, actually), the second time my boyfriend announced I was going to live with him.

Neal Boortz coined a phrase (I think he coined it) that I find very appropriate for most "homeless" people: "Urban Outdoorsman".

Here in New Milford, CT, since the past five years, and exponential property tax increases (leading to the tax forclosures on a large number of working families, including my next-door long-time neighbors), we have a newly-manufactured homeless population that we did not used to have. Sure, we had a town drunk, but not homeless families before this century began. I blame part of the problem (in my town) on the fact that property taxes surged from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars over a few decades.

This used to be a farming community, and then wealthy urbanites, fleeing New York City and Westchester, moved in during the 80s, and demanded fancy services, thus inflating the town budget needs by several orders of magnitude.

The farmers were run off their land by rising taxes. The property was sold to developers and now we have strip malls up and down the main rt 7 corridor. Moderate and low-income families who've lived here for generations have lost their homes.

The problem is largely the fault of government and 'democracy'.

[Yes]

"Homeless" is one of those politically correct terms which used to apply to drug addicts, hobos, tramps, bums, and "street people."

They survive because they know there are those who enable them, whether by contributing spare change to them, giving them food, or by passing laws which allowed them to loiter on public streets and facilities, thereby degrading the quality of life for those of us who wish to pursue our happiness without these bums imposing upon us and hassling us as we go about our business.

I think that the mayor of Portland, Oregon, should consult with Rudolph Giuliani regarding how to deal with these human entrails. Since his "quality of life" campaign took full tilt, the streets of New York City became safer and more attractive to tourists and businessmen alike.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Yes

[mailegreene]

In Santa Cruz, California, we have a massive amount of homeless people. Most of them are burned out hippies approaching old age--and it's not pretty. It is not uncommon for them to beg for some of your food as you are walking to your car. They don't want your money, they just want a "peice" or they want you to order something for them at the local drive through. Good thing I'm leaving in a couple weeks. Whoo hoo!!

[DavidOdden]

In Santa Cruz, California, we have a massive amount of homeless people.

These aren't the students you're talking about, right?