Show off your favorite abandoned-garbage-riverside-homeless-camps of 2022!

Status
Not open for further replies.
interview on the news last night with a homelss gal from an encampment being dismantled. Reporter asked why be homeless in Bend and it's feezing winters, why not 'move' to a more comfortable climate like San diego.
Homeless gal.."I couldn't do that, this is home, it's where I'm from, and where all my friends are."
Homeless, and human...
 
Last edited:
Problem ownership. It's one of the rules I try to live by. Who owns the problem of homelessness if it isn't the homeless? Is there any obligation whatever in the human social contract (however constructed) for the housed to do something about homelessness? If so, why? and what?

Gov. Inslee is proposing that the Legislature pass a $4 billion bond to provide homes for the homeless. I haven't seen it, so I have no idea what details, if any, it includes. This bond will be subject to a vote of the people, and Inslee says he is sure voters will approve it. Will they? I don't plan to vote to approve it unless and until I see some clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that it is truly in the public interest to do so. My initial thought upon hearing Inslee's proposal was, great, one more magnet to attract additional homeless drug addicts to WA state. Like legalizing drug use wasn't magnet enough. (Don't get me wrong, I think all drugs should be legal, just like I think it should be legal to shoot any druggie or other perp who attempts to assault me or break into my home, car, etc.) Back to the point, doesn't the provision of housing create an incentive for people who live at society's margin to become homeless and apply for this free public housing?

Stupidity should hurt. Another rule I try to live by and extend to others as much as I am able. A natural axiom of life would appear to be that if you want something in life, then you work for it - food, clothing, shelter, family, friends, transportation, right on down to more fly rods. Plain and simple.

Among the homeless there are likely two significant groups, those who want a better life and are willing and able to work for it, and those who, for one reason or another, are not. As has been posted previously in this thread, the first group is pretty easy to help by lending a hand, and they hardly need a solution from the governor and the Legislature. In that second group are a lot of people whose highest priority in life is their next drug fix, and that looks to be a larger as well as more troublesome group.

Why do we want to do anything about that second group? Probably because some of us are compassionate bleeding heart liberals who would do anything for those who need help, whether they deserve it or not. Some of the rest of us just want to get them off the sidewalks and downtown store entrances where they sleep and defecate so that our towns are usable to the majority. It's kind of like how I support public transit even if I don't take the bus because it means there are a couple fewer cars ahead of me during my commute to work (when I still worked). Maybe it comes down to how much are we willing to kick in to get miscreant filthy drug addicts and insane people out of the way so we can use streets and sidewalks safely. Among those are some who can be "fixed" through rehabilitation, but a lot of them probably are beyond fixing. Those I suppose we "warehouse." Partly for their benefit I suppose, but mainly for our collective benefit to get them "out of our way." If Inslee's housing bond were codified as a plan to demonstratively warehouse unfixable homeless humans, I might be able to support something along those lines. It would be the "stick" that follows the carrot. Some drug addicts and shiftless louts just don't want to work for a better life. However, the negative attributes of being a "warehoused" human might encourage a few to improve themselves through rehab or other means to get out of being warehoused. And some will remain warehoused permanently. Because that's just how it is. Not everyone is savable.
 
Brand new here, been sick and haven’t hit the river in weeks, just found the forum this morning. That said, this is going to be a rough first post, but please bear with me.

“As a society, we are defined by the way we treat the least of us.” Long ago a close friend shared this sentiment with me, but the root of the quote is sometimes (incorrectly) attributed to Gandhi, or indirectly attributed to VP Hubert Humphrey. Regardless of its origins, I believe it to be accurate and core to determining what to do about the homelessness crisis. I’m heartened to see so many insights shared here, and the relative civility of the discussion in light of many opposing views. However, some of the comments hurt my soul.

I am an elected leader in the Willamette Valley, and a significant portion of my work is dedicated to addressing homelessness. As noted by others in this forum, homelessness is a complex issue with many causes, and as such it requires a robust and multifaceted approach to fixing it. Simply put, there is no single “fix” to homelessness. Homelessness also looks very different in different communities… with a notable divide between urban and rural areas (if you live in a small town and think that homelessness doesn’t exist there, you are in for quite a surprise… it just looks different and upon opening your eyes you will be astounded). At all levels, lack of affordable housing, the worsening economic disparity in our country, substance abuse, and mental illness are key contributors to homelessness.

I’ll tell you that some in government *are* failing us. Oregon’s new Governor seems to have a metro-centric approach, without much emphasis on prevention. I’ve gotten into arguments with lawmakers regarding some of the bills pending in the upcoming legislative session, one in particular that is merely a cash grab created without any input from those with lived experience of homelessness.

All this said, there are many governmental, religious, and nonprofit entities that are doing fantastic and meaningful work. Support your local food banks. Volunteer with the Point In Time (PIT) Count happening in a couple weeks. Connect with a local church or nonprofit to help a few times a year. I see many calloused attitudes here on this forum, please try giving yourself a first hand experience at being part of the solution, only then will you open the door to building some form of empathy.

Yes, some homeless people “game” the system. This happens at every level of society… tell me that you’ve never been speeding in a neighborhood, exaggerated on your taxes, taken advantage of the system? Yet I don’t see anyone saying speed limits don’t matter, or that all middle class families cheat on their taxes. We all get some form of assistance (homeowners tax credit, anyone?). Please, don’t be so quick to label all homeless as abusers of the system, and therefore undeserving.

How do we fix things? I don’t have any magic answers, but here are some concepts to build upon: 1- look at and address the causes of homelessness in our communities. We need to turn off the faucet (sorry, if your answer here is “immigration,” “entitled traveling youth,” or “busses from PDX or Seattle” then I need you to dig a little deeper and try again. It’s fact that the majority of homeless in rural areas have some tie directly to that spot). 2- people deserve empathy, respect, and dignity. Whether you choose to give others this is more a reflection of you than of them. 3- effective answers must be created with meaningful input from those with lived experience… there’s a reason nearly all football coaches played at some level themselves prior to coaching, and it’s the same here. 4- the magnitude of this issue means that you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. There are meaningful ways, however small, for everyone to help. Please find one. 5- (this last is more my opinion than established fact) more waste comes from the top than the bottom, meaning that poorly crafted programs and abuse of power creates more taxpayer loss than people in need “gaming the system.” Educate yourself and contribute your voice, we need to work together to create local answers that work.

Part of me doubts anyone will have read this whole thing, but if so you have my thanks.
Tight lines.
 
Blue Lines said:
“As a society, we are defined by the way we treat the least of us.” Long ago a close friend shared this sentiment with me, but the root of the quote is sometimes (incorrectly) attributed to Gandhi, or indirectly attributed to VP Hubert Humphrey. Regardless of its origins, I believe it to be accurate and core to determining what to do about the homelessness crisis.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Matthew 25:40-45.

www.biblegateway.com

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 25:40-45 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You who are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, for I...
www.biblegateway.com www.biblegateway.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak
Blue Lines,

Welcome to PNWflyfishing! Sorry you were ill but glad you're doing better. Don't be surprised at the civility; it's how we do things here, for the most part anyway. Regarding the quote you led with, I was going to say that I think it comes from the Bible, but I see that Zak beat me to it. Given that you work with the homeless issue, your input can be most valuable. My post this morning may be one of those which hurt your soul. If so, I hope you'll forgive me for I was at my most redneck at the time. Quite possibly because our governor acts like (tax) money is the cure for everything. And because I was raised in a redneck blue collar working class community where poverty and near poverty was not unknown.

I think most of us agree with you that the causes of homelessness are several and that any fix is likely complex. And the thoughtful among us agree that identifying and treating the root cause of a problem leads to the preferable and best fix. I'm a casual student of the topic, so my understanding is limited. It is my understanding that the leading causes of homelessness (in order of numbers) are 1. drug addiction, 2. mental impairment (often or usually associated with drug use), 3. shiftless louts who prefer life on the street to holding down a job, 4. people down on their luck, for example living paycheck to paycheck and then hit with a medical or other emergency that functionally bankrupts them, leaving them homeless. If I've gotten these out of order, or they are not the leading causes and you can correct them, then please do.

Not all moral compasses point the same direction. Regarding the notion that solutions must include meaningful input from those with "lived experience," I'm not sure what that looks like. In order for the input to be meaningful, it better look different from, "Give me a break; let me sleep in doorways; let me defecate in doorways and on sidewalks; let me pitch my tent on public property (or private) wherever I want; get me my next drug fix; . . . you get the idea.

Coming from redneck ville, for groups 1 and 3 I'm perfectly OK with warehousing so long as the warehouse is cheap and inhospitable, in hopes of providing incentive to the inhabitants to demonstrate they are willing and able to live civilly among society. Group 2 are ". . . the least of us . . ." you describe in your leading quote. Society is willing to care for them (I think), but the ACLU says they cannot be held involuntarily. This is a legal and social conundrum for which their is no fix absent a legal reconciliation. But when they break laws, and they do, they can be held involuntarily, at least for a while. Still not a long term solution. Group 4 needs a "hand up" and not a hand out. There are existing programs to help with this, and to the extent more is needed, I think most among us would support that. When I was a young redneck, that is what we expected state welfare to do, help people get back on their feet, but those who expected to live off welfare long-term were loathed by the community, and rightly so. I do hope that my comments don't hurt your soul. Seriously. I want to be a problem solver.

Salmo
 
Dear @Salmo_g
This morning I think you and I were typing at the same time- I hadn’t read your post when I wrote mine. Regardless, rest assured I try to focus my negative feelings at issues, not people.

I appreciate your reply, and the time and thought put into it. Frustratingly, homelessness is different everywhere, and I couldn’t speak to the ranking of your numbers 1-4 in your area. Where I am I find that #4 (some form of down on their luck) has a place much higher on the list but this only holds true when we remember that the original cause of someone becoming homeless is often different than the reasons they remain homeless. Often times one of these conditions leads to another… such as laid off when already living month to month, now homeless and experiencing trauma, leading to mental illness, resulting in drug use… or falling out with parents and choosing to live on the streets temporarily, bad luck, trying drugs, trauma, mental break… or drug use, trauma, bad luck, lost housing, mental illness, choosing to live on streets.

You’ll notice that I inserted “trauma” into all these scenarios. Most people experiencing homelessness have, through that, been exposed to all manner of unthinkable trauma. When you have no safe space you become an open victim to incessant fear, witnessing death, starvation, abuse, forced sex work, human trafficking, and numerous other things that the rest of us are rarely exposed to. This regular exposure harms and changes people.

Regarding solutions including input from people with lived experience, this applies more to policy level decisions than day to day interactions. Programs (be them state, church, or nonprofit) that are crafted and run with input from people that have experienced homelessness will always be more successful than those without. Homelessness being so complex we need input from those with lived experience to help make certain we aren’t missing things. As a member of the community you can help make sure we are looking at things from this important angle by asking lawmakers, church program leaders, and nonprofit board members if they have included voices of lived experience when creating or running programs.

I’m sure I haven’t addressed all your questions, for that I’m sorry. Please know that I do appreciate you and the discussion.
 
Salmo_g said:
Problem ownership. It's one of the rules I try to live by. Who owns the problem of homelessness if it isn't the homeless? Is there any obligation whatever in the human social contract (however constructed) for the housed to do something about homelessness? If so, why? and what?

Gov. Inslee is proposing that the Legislature pass a $4 billion bond to provide homes for the homeless. I haven't seen it, so I have no idea what details, if any, it includes. This bond will be subject to a vote of the people, and Inslee says he is sure voters will approve it. Will they? I don't plan to vote to approve it unless and until I see some clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that it is truly in the public interest to do so. My initial thought upon hearing Inslee's proposal was, great, one more magnet to attract additional homeless drug addicts to WA state. Like legalizing drug use wasn't magnet enough. (Don't get me wrong, I think all drugs should be legal, just like I think it should be legal to shoot any druggie or other perp who attempts to assault me or break into my home, car, etc.) Back to the point, doesn't the provision of housing create an incentive for people who live at society's margin to become homeless and apply for this free public housing?

Stupidity should hurt. Another rule I try to live by and extend to others as much as I am able. A natural axiom of life would appear to be that if you want something in life, then you work for it - food, clothing, shelter, family, friends, transportation, right on down to more fly rods. Plain and simple.

Among the homeless there are likely two significant groups, those who want a better life and are willing and able to work for it, and those who, for one reason or another, are not. As has been posted previously in this thread, the first group is pretty easy to help by lending a hand, and they hardly need a solution from the governor and the Legislature. In that second group are a lot of people whose highest priority in life is their next drug fix, and that looks to be a larger as well as more troublesome group.

Why do we want to do anything about that second group? Probably because some of us are compassionate bleeding heart liberals who would do anything for those who need help, whether they deserve it or not. Some of the rest of us just want to get them off the sidewalks and downtown store entrances where they sleep and defecate so that our towns are usable to the majority. It's kind of like how I support public transit even if I don't take the bus because it means there are a couple fewer cars ahead of me during my commute to work (when I still worked). Maybe it comes down to how much are we willing to kick in to get miscreant filthy drug addicts and insane people out of the way so we can use streets and sidewalks safely. Among those are some who can be "fixed" through rehabilitation, but a lot of them probably are beyond fixing. Those I suppose we "warehouse." Partly for their benefit I suppose, but mainly for our collective benefit to get them "out of our way." If Inslee's housing bond were codified as a plan to demonstratively warehouse unfixable homeless humans, I might be able to support something along those lines. It would be the "stick" that follows the carrot. Some drug addicts and shiftless louts just don't want to work for a better life. However, the negative attributes of being a "warehoused" human might encourage a few to improve themselves through rehab or other means to get out of being warehoused. And some will remain warehoused permanently. Because that's just how it is. Not everyone is savable.
Click to expand...
You are assuming that people in crisis make decisions based on the same logic that you do. From my experience they don't. That is part of what makes it so hard. I mean If sleeping in a tent and begging is not a good enough disincentive, then it's clear to me that the person is not using their brain in manner where the weigh incentives and disincentives like you or I do. It stands to reason that for that portion of the population increasing the severity of the disincentive is a fools errand.
Like you, I have no issue warehousing a portion of the homeless population. I think that may be one portion of any system to reduce homelessness and the impact the homeless have on everyone else. It is done by jail in a portion of the US. The west coast does not encarcerate the same. The downside seems to be increased property crimes and litter/ blight. The upside seems to be fewer in jails and lower violent crime rates.
 
Charles,

An aside (just when did you become so compassionate instead of the ardent asshole?)

I don't assume that people in crisis make decisions based on the same logic that I do. Refer to the rule of problem ownership. The logic or lack of logic they use is not my problem. A key thing here is to avoid enabling self destructive behavior. We can't prevent it, but we sure as heck shouldn't be enabling them. The best example of the lunacy is Seattle's decision that shoplifting, if done while being in poverty, is no longer a crime. The very predictable result is more shoplifting, to the point that a significant number of stores have closed because of it. All this while the poverty-stricken shoplifter (because I identify as poor) takes their loot and drives away in a Lexus SUV.

I understand that increasingly severe penalties do not deter irrational and other decision making since replacing capital punishment with prison terms does not prevent murder from happening. But that doesn't mean penalties should be the same for all offenses. Experience typically shows that enabling or rewarding negative behavior invariably begets more negative behavior. And that is what I want to avoid.
 
Salmo_g said:
Charles,

An aside (just when did you become so compassionate instead of the ardent asshole?)

I don't assume that people in crisis make decisions based on the same logic that I do. Refer to the rule of problem ownership. The logic or lack of logic they use is not my problem. A key thing here is to avoid enabling self destructive behavior. We can't prevent it, but we sure as heck shouldn't be enabling them. The best example of the lunacy is Seattle's decision that shoplifting, if done while being in poverty, is no longer a crime. The very predictable result is more shoplifting, to the point that a significant number of stores have closed because of it. All this while the poverty-stricken shoplifter (because I identify as poor) takes their loot and drives away in a Lexus SUV.

I understand that increasingly severe penalties do not deter irrational and other decision making since replacing capital punishment with prison terms does not prevent murder from happening. But that doesn't mean penalties should be the same for all offenses. Experience typically shows that enabling or rewarding negative behavior invariably begets more negative behavior. And that is what I want to avoid.
Click to expand...
As I’ve said… in it’s simplest raw form… accountability… BIG carrot or BIG stick. There must be resources to help those integrate or reintegrate in society, and there must be a means to “warehouse” as many have put, those who continue to cause harm. We must also look at addressing how to reduce the next generation from going down this path.
 
Last edited:
Scottybs said:
As I’ve said… in it’s simplest raw form… accountability… BIG carrot or BIG stick. There must be resources an to help those integrate or reintegrate in society, and there must be a means to “warehouse” as many have put, those who continue to cause harm. We must also look at addressing how to reduce the next generation from going down this path.
Click to expand...
Get rid of the welfare system…
That system as grown like a generational cancer.
 
You get what you tolerate. You enable by tolerating. Behaviours not met with negative consequences are repeated. We don't feed wildlife as to not create problem interactions with them. Why is any of this so hard to understand. We have squalor, crime, and crazy shit happening because it's tolerated.

This isn't a complex problem. This is a problem of simply being overly tolerant and permissive consistently and for far too long. Everybody talking trauma and complexity is overcomplicating the problem. As a society we should not tolerate rampant crime, squalor, and a population of people preying on others. Seattle and Portland are a direct result and example of what happens when you do. If you want more of it keep doing the same failed action and inaction.
 
"Trauma" is cleaning up the bathroom after a bum has locked himself in, shot up heroin, sprayed blood on the wall and didn't get the shit in the toilet. So I'm not too sympathetic.
 
wife's brother was recently released from a voluntary 30 day inpatient mental health stay`.
He's a retired sales executive who worked for several large plumbing companies. Made millions. Smart as hell, college educated, as nice a guy as you can ever hope to meet, with a highly supportive family. And he has been deeply bi-polar his entire life. He'd be going along fine, doing well, than crash and burn, would have to take extended leaves from work. When he crashed, it usually happened because the multiple meds he needs to take daily were suddenly not working, or the doc's changed them up and it sent him spinning.
Now take the same bi-polar illness in someone without a supportive family, no financial means to get the best possible medical support for a mental health crisis, neither the skills or education to find employment easily, cannot afford the meds to keep them reasonably balanced = poster child for the homeless.
Mental illnes is not a matter of will, or of character. It is an extremely debilitating disease that can profoundly impact perception, cognition, motor skills, anger control, personality, etc. And in it's milder forms, an inability to cope with the everyday pressures those of us unafflicted take for granted and plow right through.
 
Last edited:
Salmo_g said:
Charles,

An aside (just when did you become so compassionate instead of the ardent asshole?)

I don't assume that people in crisis make decisions based on the same logic that I do. Refer to the rule of problem ownership. The logic or lack of logic they use is not my problem. A key thing here is to avoid enabling self destructive behavior. We can't prevent it, but we sure as heck shouldn't be enabling them. The best example of the lunacy is Seattle's decision that shoplifting, if done while being in poverty, is no longer a crime. The very predictable result is more shoplifting, to the point that a significant number of stores have closed because of it. All this while the poverty-stricken shoplifter (because I identify as poor) takes their loot and drives away in a Lexus SUV.

I understand that increasingly severe penalties do not deter irrational and other decision making since replacing capital punishment with prison terms does not prevent murder from happening. But that doesn't mean penalties should be the same for all offenses. Experience typically shows that enabling or rewarding negative behavior invariably begets more negative behavior. And that is what I want to avoid.
Click to expand...
My point is that people don't use logic like this when in crisis. The enabling/ reward model does not apply. To make policy based on this model is illogical.
The trick is to keep a person who is not yet using crisis thinking. I would really like to know if that would cost like 7,500 bucks.
As far as being an asshole goes, I am trying. I chose not to give the entitled whining moralist the feedback that I wanted to today. The checkout line at Fred Meyer is not the ideal place for that sort of thing.

See you on the big river.
 
Dustin Chromers said:
You get what you tolerate. You enable by tolerating. Behaviours not met with negative consequences are repeated. We don't feed wildlife as to not create problem interactions with them. Why is any of this so hard to understand. We have squalor, crime, and crazy shit happening because it's tolerated.

This isn't a complex problem. This is a problem of simply being overly tolerant and permissive consistently and for far too long. Everybody talking trauma and complexity is overcomplicating the problem. As a society we should not tolerate rampant crime, squalor, and a population of people preying on others. Seattle and Portland are a direct result and example of what happens when you do. If you want more of it keep doing the same failed action and inaction.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I firmly disagree. The problem is complex.

Perhaps what you are referring to as simple is the state of being homeless. Even if you instantly house everyone through a combination of incarceration, institutionalization, and giving people housing it is nothing more than putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. Homelessness is the result of other things wrong on our society, it’s a symptom of other issues.

I do, however, agree wholeheartedly that we should not tolerate it. We should do all we can to prevent the human suffering and indignities occurring in our towns, and on our rivers. Let’s all be part of the solution.

Food for thought- the majority of homeless adults experienced homelessness at some point in their childhood as well.
 
FinLuver said:
Get rid of the welfare system…
That system as grown like a generational cancer.
Click to expand...
Does that include welfare for the richest, such as
No more tax welfare for Amazon and all the other mega-corps not paying their fair share of taxes?
No more offshore accounts the rich use to shelter income and gains from taxes?
No more carried interest deduction compensation paid to investment executives in private equity, hedge fund and venture capital management so they can avoid paying yearly income tax on profits?
Or are we just going to put an end to welfare for the poorest?
As it is, if the top 1% just paid their taxes, it would completely cover welfare.
www.nytimes.com

The top 1 percent are evading $163 billion a year in taxes, the Treasury finds. (Published 2021)

A new report makes the case that narrowing the tax gap is part of the Biden administration’s ambition to create a more equitable economy.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
www.usgovernmentspending.com

Analysis of Recent US Welfare Spending

Charts and analysis of welfare spending (including Medicaid) including recent spending, spending history, and breakdown between Medicaid and other welfare spending.
www.usgovernmentspending.com www.usgovernmentspending.com
 
SurfnFish said:
Does that include welfare for the richest, such as
No more tax welfare for Amazon and all the other mega-corps not paying their fair share of taxes?
No more offshore accounts the rich use to shelter income and gains from taxes?
No more carried interest deduction compensation paid to investment executives in private equity, hedge fund and venture capital management so they can avoid paying yearly income tax on profits?
Or are we just going to put an end to welfare for the poorest?
As it is, if the top 1% just paid their taxes, it would completely cover welfare.
www.nytimes.com

The top 1 percent are evading $163 billion a year in taxes, the Treasury finds. (Published 2021)

A new report makes the case that narrowing the tax gap is part of the Biden administration’s ambition to create a more equitable economy.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
www.usgovernmentspending.com

Analysis of Recent US Welfare Spending

Charts and analysis of welfare spending (including Medicaid) including recent spending, spending history, and breakdown between Medicaid and other welfare spending.
www.usgovernmentspending.com www.usgovernmentspending.com
Click to expand...
Oh no no no no no, that's not the welfare my daddy taught me about.... :LOL:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top