Bud Clark Commons could be a zoo
Here's a fascinating story about who's going to be moving into lifetime free housing at Portland's new homeless facility down by the Greyhound station. Apparently, the more messed up one is, the better chance he or she has of getting in. Alcoholism and other drug addiction are a plus for admission, as is propensity for fighting and memory impairment.
And the folks running the place are planning to allow boozing. According to the Trib, "Because of the way the tests measure vulnerability, tenants will include people who are trying out recovery living next to those still using drugs and alcohol, and those prone to violence next to longtime assault victims.... McCarley says the commons will be full of intravenous drug users, who generally scored high."
Good luck with that formula, Nick Fish.
| Posted at 1:17 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (13)
That formula will work for those planing to buy Portland's real property at even greater reduced prices.
Posted by Abe | May 5, 2011 6:53 AM
"could be a zoo"?
Already is a zoo is more like it.
Had ! to go downtown yesterday to see the CPA, and I counted 4 large mounds of rubble, that were people sleeping on the sidewalk, at noon, in less than 2 blocks between Broadway and 6th on Alder.
If those folks can be inside, it will improve things. But I venture to guess that there will just be more of them waiting to get into the new Hotel De Lux for the homeless.
Posted by portland native | May 5, 2011 8:59 AM
Interesting article. I'm curious to find out how this place works out.
Only issue is that we spend tens of millions to build it, fill it with 130 people, and there are just another 130 people behind them. Not sure we can build enough housing, so how much do we spend trying?
Posted by Snards | May 5, 2011 10:07 AM
There was an article that I saw last week on a place similar to this in Wisconsin, or Minnesota that seems to be somewhat beneficial. Don't recall the source, but maybe it was The N.Y. Times Sunday magazine.
Posted by Evergreen Libertarian | May 5, 2011 10:08 AM
But aren't you glad they spent the extra money to ensure that the building will be LEED certified?
Posted by MJ | May 5, 2011 10:39 AM
"But aren't you glad they spent the extra money to ensure that the building will be LEED certified?"
Why strive for LEED certification for a building full of residents allowed to marinate in toxins and alcohol? Who cares about off gassing and product life cycle? The more fumes, the better! Perhaps with a bit of stability and rehab the residents could get a human version of "LEED certified" clean and sober? Wishing them the best.
Posted by SKA | May 5, 2011 11:11 AM
Someone who's addicted to narcotics and alcohol need to be isolated from the urge to use those substances.
I'm befuddled as to why chronically addicted people need to get treatment in the city where they can come and go as they please, let alone be in a facility that, well, facilitates this behavior by allowing it to happen?
Also, given that Portland is spending lots of money to "deal" with homelessness, I think it's time for the city to run public campaigns urging the public to NOT give money to panhandlers. It just makes their addictions worse.
I get more angry at the enablers who give the panhandlers money in the first place than those camping outside of businesses. They wouldn't be there if they didn't make money from panhandling...
Posted by ws | May 5, 2011 11:15 AM
Why are we worried about an "iconic" welcome to Portland from Vancouver, when those that will be arriving on the "high-speed rail" Amtrak trains at Union Station (or the few losers that use the vastly more fuel efficient Greyhound bus...but...it's a...GAWD!...BUS!!!!) will open up the front door and gawk at this city-owned drug haven?
Posted by Erik H. | May 5, 2011 12:13 PM
$54 million and the building houses only 130 people? Can that be right?
Posted by Stuart | May 5, 2011 2:28 PM
As the article makes clear, these highest-scorers are in fact seriously ill individuals who almost certainly don't have long to live.
So I'd say that invoking the words "lifetime free housing" is, if technically correct, meant purely to incite the many readers already disposed to hatred of the downtrodden and the inconveniences they impose on we the winners. Nice.
Posted by PG | May 5, 2011 3:50 PM
Places like Rescue Mission and Union Gospel do more to help the homeless and addiction. Their philosophy is to separate the addicted from access to their addicted substance. I don't buy into our tax dollars being used in the manner Nick Fish is advocating. I never knew that our taxpayer's $47 Million dollars were going to be used in this manner and for only 130 people. Astonishing.
With Nick Fish's recent vote on the new Portland Tree Regulations, his vote on Portland to LO Trolley, his vote on the South Waterfront ICE Jail and now this, his re-election is in jeopardy if any viable candidate recites these and several other positions he's taken.
Posted by Lee | May 5, 2011 7:53 PM
PG:
I don't think anyone takes issue with housing for the severely mentally ill.
It's tough for some to grasp for free housing for people who willingly inject themselves with drugs. I have a tough time saying anything nice about that "group", but that does not mean I don't want them to seek out services for their issues, and I wish we had well funded substance abuse programs.
I just don't see the need to enable that group by allowing them to continue their bad habits as this appears to do. Housing for substance abusers needs to be awarded to those showing steps towards sobriety.
Accountability really goes a long way.
Posted by ws | May 5, 2011 8:11 PM
Perhaps it needs to be converted to this type of residence:
http://tinyurl.com/6emq7wf
Posted by PMG | May 6, 2011 3:17 PM