4 ms·

Don't these permanent "homeless camps" already exist though? When I was in Portland last January I saw a large grouping of what I can only describe as very-tiny

Don't these permanent "homeless camps" already exist though? When I was in Portland last January I saw a large grouping of what I can only describe as very-tiny homes - essentially glorified shacks on rollers and stilts - which were obviously city-sanctioned homeless encampments next to a bypass.

LarryMullins 4y ago
The camps that last the longest seem to be the ones furthest from neighborhoods where rich people might complain about it. Near or under highways is a "good" place for the camps since highways are noisy/stinky and properties next to highways generally aren't very desirable. Homeless camps in nicer neighborhoods might last for a few weeks/months but seem a lot less permanent than those under highways.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Near or under highways is a “good” place for the camps since highways are noisy/stinky and properties next to highways generally aren’t very desirable. Under highways, particularly, also have the political advantage of reduced visibility. As a bonus (for the people who don’t want the homeless around), these locations (near and under highways) are also extremely unhealthy, particularly for people with respiratory conditions (and staying in them is a good way to develop such conditions in the first place), so it helps reduce the population served.
trynewideas 4y ago
Nope. Those were unenforced camps. The mayor is proposing reserving city-owned or -leased property, setting up on-site services, and requiring swept homeless people to move to those city-run outdoor camps or single-night shelters or be charged. The liability alone that Wheeler's proposing is incredible. It'll cost tens of millions to set up (by his estimate) and there'll be lawsuits against the city within days, guaranteed. Nobody will be helped, hundreds will be harmed, and people who aren't chronically homeless will wind up in jail. The camps won't have enough capacity, so nothing fundamentally changes on the ground. Nobody wins.

LarryMullins 4y ago

The camps that last the longest seem to be the ones furthest from neighborhoods where rich people might complain about it. Near or under highways is a "good" place for the camps since highways are noisy/stinky and properties next to highways generally aren't very desirable. Homeless camps in nicer neighborhoods might last for a few weeks/months but seem a lot less permanent than those under highways.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Near or under highways is a “good” place for the camps since highways are noisy/stinky and properties next to highways generally aren’t very desirable. Under highways, particularly, also have the political advantage of reduced visibility. As a bonus (for the people who don’t want the homeless around), these locations (near and under highways) are also extremely unhealthy, particularly for people with respiratory conditions (and staying in them is a good way to develop such conditions in the first place), so it helps reduce the population served.

trynewideas 4y ago

Nope. Those were unenforced camps. The mayor is proposing reserving city-owned or -leased property, setting up on-site services, and requiring swept homeless people to move to those city-run outdoor camps or single-night shelters or be charged. The liability alone that Wheeler's proposing is incredible. It'll cost tens of millions to set up (by his estimate) and there'll be lawsuits against the city within days, guaranteed. Nobody will be helped, hundreds will be harmed, and people who aren't chronically homeless will wind up in jail. The camps won't have enough capacity, so nothing fundamentally changes on the ground. Nobody wins.