Portland’s Disgraceful Anarchy(city-journal.org)
city-journal.org
Portland’s Disgraceful Anarchy
https://www.city-journal.org/html/portlands-disgraceful-anarchy-15606.html
12 comments
Fellow SOMA resident chiming in. Calling this the result of "anarchy" is silly and deflects responsibility.
The cops manage where the homeless folks end up. They chase the homeless here, away from businesses north of Market and richer neighborhoods. Talk to enough cops and one will be honest about it.
Any time I hear how powerless the city is to do anything, I point out that they can't do anything about the total population, but they can and do ensure the bulk of the homeless population lives in SOMA. San Francisco does have a serious homeless problem, but it isn't due to a lack of government.
Quality of life on my block varies over time. Some months it is downright pleasant here; others, my street is an open sewer. I have a phone tree with some other nearby residents; through trial and error we've found a combination of calls to make that seems to reliably get action when things get awful.
OP: Consider coming to a "Better SOMA" meeting. That group actually has moved the needle. (There's just still a lot of gauge left for the needle to move across.)
The cops manage where the homeless folks end up. They chase the homeless here, away from businesses north of Market and richer neighborhoods. Talk to enough cops and one will be honest about it.
Any time I hear how powerless the city is to do anything, I point out that they can't do anything about the total population, but they can and do ensure the bulk of the homeless population lives in SOMA. San Francisco does have a serious homeless problem, but it isn't due to a lack of government.
Quality of life on my block varies over time. Some months it is downright pleasant here; others, my street is an open sewer. I have a phone tree with some other nearby residents; through trial and error we've found a combination of calls to make that seems to reliably get action when things get awful.
OP: Consider coming to a "Better SOMA" meeting. That group actually has moved the needle. (There's just still a lot of gauge left for the needle to move across.)
As a non-local, I had to look it up, but presumably you're talking about the Mission District ("The Mission") and South of Market (SOMA) neighborhoods in San Francisco, correct?
Yep, that's what he was talking about. Here's the San Francisco poop map - showing where people pooped in the streets the most there: http://mochimachine.org/wasteland/
Is the author aware that by cracking down on homelessness, all you're doing is spending taxpayer resources to move them somewhere else?
It's not like you enact some anti-homeless policy and the homeless throw their hands up in disgust, defeated by the swift arm of the law, then pull a resumes out of their back pocket, and then land some middle-class job.
It's not like you enact some anti-homeless policy and the homeless throw their hands up in disgust, defeated by the swift arm of the law, then pull a resumes out of their back pocket, and then land some middle-class job.
I wish we had real data on the population. I bet a non-trivial percentage in fact could pull a resume out of their pocket and get a job, though probably a working class thing (warehouse / restaurant) not "middle class" (whatever that means). A non-trivial percentage are probably batshit crazy and should just be taken care of nicely for the rest of their lives. We just don't know, and talking in generalities just exacerbates the partisan bullshit wrecking the country.
In my mini-Portland (Olympia WA), I observe the 100 or so "homeless" who hang out downtown. I bet the percentage is about 50/ 50.
P.S. : To be honest, I wish we cracked down on anti-social behavior in public generally, and funded a lot more public housing.
In my mini-Portland (Olympia WA), I observe the 100 or so "homeless" who hang out downtown. I bet the percentage is about 50/ 50.
P.S. : To be honest, I wish we cracked down on anti-social behavior in public generally, and funded a lot more public housing.
Your comment assumes that relocation 1) is bad, and 2) is the only step being taken to fight homelessness.
In response to the second one, the city may be taking a number of steps to fight homelessness. Shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab programs, and counseling can all help the issue without relocation.
Also, I'm just not sure relocation is completely a bad thing. Portland is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, with rent being prohibitively expensive to the lower class unless several people congeal in a single apartment. Not everyone can do that. How is it bad if they are relocated to a cheaper part of the country?
In response to the second one, the city may be taking a number of steps to fight homelessness. Shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab programs, and counseling can all help the issue without relocation.
Also, I'm just not sure relocation is completely a bad thing. Portland is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in, with rent being prohibitively expensive to the lower class unless several people congeal in a single apartment. Not everyone can do that. How is it bad if they are relocated to a cheaper part of the country?
> Your comment assumes that relocation 1) is bad, and 2) is the only step being taken to fight homelessness.
Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Yes, technically, mass-relocation of homeless could solve Portland's homeless problem, but it simply shifts the burden somewhere else.
Second, the article specifically mentions the mayor's inaction to utilize the police and to enforce a ban on tent cities. It doesn't talk about shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab, or counseling.
Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it. Yes, technically, mass-relocation of homeless could solve Portland's homeless problem, but it simply shifts the burden somewhere else.
Second, the article specifically mentions the mayor's inaction to utilize the police and to enforce a ban on tent cities. It doesn't talk about shelters, mental health facilities, drug rehab, or counseling.
> Relocation does not solve the problem, it simply moves it.
Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?
Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?
>Why didn't you argue against my point that the cost of living varies massively between regions? Why shouldn't we send homeless to a lower cost of living area?
Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.
Why shouldn't we send you somewhere that you don't want to live? They're people - not cattle.
lwhalen(1)
Contact is good. When the well-off just get to export away the ugly byproducts of their society, they're liable to produce more of them. Portlanders need contact with these homeless so that they will build a Portland which is either (1) better to the homeless or (2) doesn't produce as many of them.
Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.
Besides he did make a point against your argument. Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland? We've got our own homeless to take care of so you can keep yours, thanks.
Portland already is better to the homeless – that's why they're there!
But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness.
> Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland?
Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free?
And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places.
I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
But, generally, I've never come across a compelling argument or solution about homelessness.
> Why should people in Nebraska and Oklahoma and Idaho have to deal with the homeless of Portland?
Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless? Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want? Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free?
And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places.
I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
>Why shouldn't they have to deal with the homeless?
They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland?
>Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want?
I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland.
>Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free?
Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free?
>And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places.
I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be).
>I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.
They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland?
>Or why shouldn't homeless people be able to demand, and receive, free housing wherever they want?
I know you don't believe this, because if they could then they'd just demand housing in Portland.
>Surely some of the homeless in Portland now weren't born there. But even if they were – is there a real right to be able to live wherever one was born, forever, for free?
Perhaps we could widen the scope of the question and then you could answer it: Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free?
>And surely some degree of economic efficiency should be considered. The more cheaply housing or other accommodation can be supplied the more can be helped. Certainly it seems ridiculous to provide free housing in the most expensive places.
I actually don't agree on the economic efficiency. For all the whining about NIMBYs when it comes to real estate costs on HN, everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless. Besides like I said the point is contact (no matter how expensive that contact might be).
>I suspect there are no good answers, generally. Conflict is inevitable!
Of course - that's the point of contact. Contact -> Conflict -> Resolution. If your resolution is just to remove contact then I think you're failing on a societal level.
> They already do, that's my point. The question is why should they deal with the homeless of Portland?
Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality?
> Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free?
Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right?
> everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless
I don't think that's literally true and I think that's an important distinction. Someone would probably allow homeless people to camp on their property, were they allowed to do so.
But, just like the opposition to mobile home (RV) parks – tho considerably more intense! – there are vanishingly few places where living so 'rudely' is legal or even de-facto allowed. Even cities, like Portland, that do allow tent cities typically don't allow them to remain in the same place for decades.
Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality?
> Is there a real right to be able to live anywhere, forever, for free?
Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right?
> everyone's a NIMBY when it comes to the homeless
I don't think that's literally true and I think that's an important distinction. Someone would probably allow homeless people to camp on their property, were they allowed to do so.
But, just like the opposition to mobile home (RV) parks – tho considerably more intense! – there are vanishingly few places where living so 'rudely' is legal or even de-facto allowed. Even cities, like Portland, that do allow tent cities typically don't allow them to remain in the same place for decades.
>Are you not aware that homeless people don't live and die in the cities of their birth? That in fact the homeless aren't owned by any particular municipality?
Obviously, I'm not sure the relevance though. They may not be 'owned' by a municipality but they exist in one. Why should expensive areas be able to just export the homeless to cheap areas? If anything expensive areas like Portland have the tax base to take care of them better than rural Nebraska.
>Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right?
Well you and I just fundamentally disagree but to engage here: By this token why push the burden of the homeless onto us Midwesterners? This makes it seem like you're putting on us either (1) the positive right to take care of them which you won't provide or (2) the ugliness of letting them die in the streets which you're unwilling to tolerate.
So once again, they exist in Portland, if you don't think they have a right to life, then they can die in Portland, we want no part of it.
Obviously, I'm not sure the relevance though. They may not be 'owned' by a municipality but they exist in one. Why should expensive areas be able to just export the homeless to cheap areas? If anything expensive areas like Portland have the tax base to take care of them better than rural Nebraska.
>Personally, no, of course no one has a right (a 'positive right') to anything as that would logically create an obligation on the part of someone else to provide it. Who gets to decide who's enslaved to provide everyone else with what's theirs by right?
Well you and I just fundamentally disagree but to engage here: By this token why push the burden of the homeless onto us Midwesterners? This makes it seem like you're putting on us either (1) the positive right to take care of them which you won't provide or (2) the ugliness of letting them die in the streets which you're unwilling to tolerate.
So once again, they exist in Portland, if you don't think they have a right to life, then they can die in Portland, we want no part of it.
You can't tackle homelessness at the city level; a city doesn't have enough resources once word gets around and homeless folks start moving in to take advantage of your effort. Until we have better support at the national level, any plans that have ending homelessness as the end goal (or even just warehousing huge numbers of them in shelters, as in pdx's case) is doomed.
Despite the title, this has nothing to do with anarchy in Portland. Disorder, perhaps, anarchy, no.
At several points, the wording also appears to suggest that being homeless is in itself a criminal act. There may well be a big problem, but this active seems quite callously written.
It's written by an Ayn Randian conservative think tank, so I wouldn't be that surprised by the tone.
They sell all those Rand books in Portland, at Powell's. Every one of them. It's no wonder that Portland is a hotbed for libertarian thought and free market propaganda. It's awful. Don't move there.
What you did in this thread is vandalism in its own right. Trying to defend one community by dropping crap in another doesn't seem very civil. Neither is the ingroup/outgroup subtext that seems to me to underly this sort of posting.
Edit: since you've done this before on HN, I've banned this account for trolling. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the site rules in the future.
Edit: since you've done this before on HN, I've banned this account for trolling. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the site rules in the future.
It is important to consider the lives of the homeless, but if mass homelessness is causing societal disruption to the point that economic development stops and causes bright flight and capital flight, wouldn't that just amplify homelessness in the long run?
Surely homelessness is, in and of itself, a symptom of a much deeper rot? I'm not trying to excuse the behaviour of these people, but if you feel that society has shat on you, and robbed you of your dignity, might you not want to return the favour? Homelessness is rarely a chosen situation; every homeless person has a story, often a dire set of circumstances that landed them on the streets. It may be personal problems, substance abuse, or mental issues - all things people need help and treatment for. Many of these things are, at the root, down to lacking education or social support structures; symptoms of a society that doesn't care.
Don't get me wrong, the affected businesses are justifiably angry, but their anger is misdirected; sometimes the perpetrators of crime are not the root cause. In small part, maybe they are part of the root cause.
Don't get me wrong, the affected businesses are justifiably angry, but their anger is misdirected; sometimes the perpetrators of crime are not the root cause. In small part, maybe they are part of the root cause.
So, would you be okay with someone shitting in front of the front door of your house or apartment? What would you do, personally, to help resolve the root issues that led to that shit.
[deleted]
Is it really this bad in Portland? (I've never been)
Based on the number of people moving there and the hype, I can't believe open defecation and rampant crime are tolerated? Is it really so bad? (And is it getting worse?)
Based on the number of people moving there and the hype, I can't believe open defecation and rampant crime are tolerated? Is it really so bad? (And is it getting worse?)
Yes, Portland is both growing very fast (high rise condos are popping up everywhere) and descending into a hell hole (Google springwater corridor) at the same time.
Portland has established itself as a safe haven for homeless and down trodden folks due to it's mild weather, abundance of services, and general lack of enforcement. I've lived here under two mayor's and both have been horribly ineffective at tackling this issue. I'm not sure there is another downtown metro area as bad as Portland when it comes to homelessness.
Portland has established itself as a safe haven for homeless and down trodden folks due to it's mild weather, abundance of services, and general lack of enforcement. I've lived here under two mayor's and both have been horribly ineffective at tackling this issue. I'm not sure there is another downtown metro area as bad as Portland when it comes to homelessness.
Anecdotally, I worked in SOMA in SF for 2 years, and now I've been working downtown in Portland for a few months...while it seems there are significant problems here, it's definitely not comparable to the problems in SF in my opinion.
I think the issue here is Portland used to be a small-ish "big city" and now it's a medium-ish city and the growth has happened incredibly fast. For people on the ground, it feels like everything's spiraling out of control. Growing pains and the challenges the come with being a major American city that people want to move to (both middle-class and transient groups) are to some extent inevitable. But I'm optimistic that progress can and will be made.
(But I could easily be wrong. As I said, I've only lived here for a few months.)
I think the issue here is Portland used to be a small-ish "big city" and now it's a medium-ish city and the growth has happened incredibly fast. For people on the ground, it feels like everything's spiraling out of control. Growing pains and the challenges the come with being a major American city that people want to move to (both middle-class and transient groups) are to some extent inevitable. But I'm optimistic that progress can and will be made.
(But I could easily be wrong. As I said, I've only lived here for a few months.)
I've only spent a little time in Portland but I wouldn't be surprised. I moved out of SF because I was fed up with the "Cloud Corridor" (aka Tenderloin) for the same problems -- public defecation, drug use, mentally unsound people wandering into the lobby, etc.
Oh it's terrible. There are no toilets. Even though open carry is legal there's crime everywhere. It's horrible. The suburbs are so much better. Lake Oswego is a nice place. None of those dirty anarchists or loud musicians or street thugs. Portland is what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum. It's awful. They'll steal your laptop, key your Tesla, spit in your latte, and defecate on your front lawn, if you can even find a house. Otherwise you'll be in a condo where 8 people in a rock band live next door, smoke pot all the time, and play loud guitars. And the weather is terrible. It's awful. Don't move there.
Better solutions for homelessness are badly needed. The best evidence based solution is called "housing first", pay to get people into housing then address their needs. It works out to be cheaper and also is more likely to fix the problem w/o the quality of life issues talked about here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
San Diego is dealing with a huge Hepatitis outbreak caused by open defecation around homeless encampments, 20 deaths last I looked.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-hepati...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First
San Diego is dealing with a huge Hepatitis outbreak caused by open defecation around homeless encampments, 20 deaths last I looked.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/sd-me-hepati...
> Meanwhile, the city has been reluctant to deploy the crime-prevention resources that it already has at its disposal to address the homelessness wave.
...
> She added that, “the police came and then he came back four minutes later after they left.”
...
> She added that, “the police came and then he came back four minutes later after they left.”
The Bay Area's finest export. Rising property values and the accompanying homelessness. Why not build some toilets? Has anyone tried? There are designs for public restrooms that are essentially self cleaning (hole in the ground with high pressure water nozzles in the ceiling). If you can't even have enough decency to build a place for someone who has been thrown out by every other part of society to poop, it seems entirely fair that they choose to do so on your stoop.
> Why not build some toilets? Has anyone tried?
Yes: http://theloo.biz/
Yes: http://theloo.biz/
No toilets anywhere. They are into that composting thing and they think it's all fertilizer. It smells like a mix of rotting feces, pot, and body odor. Horrible place. Don't move there.
City Journal is published by the Manhattan Institute.
> The Institute's research seeks to develop and promote free-market ideas.
> [The institute] argued that the welfare state had fostered a culture and cycle of dependency that was to the detriment of both welfare recipients and the United States as a whole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Poli...
> The Institute's research seeks to develop and promote free-market ideas.
> [The institute] argued that the welfare state had fostered a culture and cycle of dependency that was to the detriment of both welfare recipients and the United States as a whole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Poli...
How is this relevant? How does this fact invalidate any of what the article stated?
Funny how attribution brings out defensiveness. Do you also think all bylines should be removed from articles?
It doesn't appear to me that the OP was saying anything about invalidation.
It doesn't appear to me that the OP was saying anything about invalidation.
People naturally form us-vs-them tribal mentalities, and the fact that this is the top comment of this post indicates that its a tribal mentality that's leading it to be upvoted.
It's like saying on a Roy Moore post that the investigation was carried out by CNBC: it leads to Republicans invalidating any finding of the investigation. This default of ignoring any information from the Other Side is what almost got Roy Moore elected.
This us-vs-them mentality needs to be noted. The fact that this comes from a think tank does not immediately mean they don't raise a good point.
It's like saying on a Roy Moore post that the investigation was carried out by CNBC: it leads to Republicans invalidating any finding of the investigation. This default of ignoring any information from the Other Side is what almost got Roy Moore elected.
This us-vs-them mentality needs to be noted. The fact that this comes from a think tank does not immediately mean they don't raise a good point.
I thought the article lacking in some regards, which other commentors have already noted (the general "crime is out of control" narrative without comparison to historical data; implying connection between specific robberies and homelessness without providing supporting evidence).
I was curious about who wrote it, and felt it was worthwhile to share what I found.
That being said, if one wishes to attack the article, I think a strong argument could be made that this is not real research, but a cherry picking of anecdotes that fit the existing viewpoint of the author. It may be true that crime is out of control in Portland, and that the homeless are to blame, but a more convincing argument for this could be made with real statistical research.
I was curious about who wrote it, and felt it was worthwhile to share what I found.
That being said, if one wishes to attack the article, I think a strong argument could be made that this is not real research, but a cherry picking of anecdotes that fit the existing viewpoint of the author. It may be true that crime is out of control in Portland, and that the homeless are to blame, but a more convincing argument for this could be made with real statistical research.
I agree that tribal bullshit has hit a dangerous fever pitch. I also agree that the product of think tanks are not inherently incorrect.
But, if you wanted to bet me I couldn't guess what Americans For Prosperity thinks of the tax bill without reading anything from them about it, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.
You don't fix this by ignoring attribution or yelling at people for noting it. You also don't do so by attacking strawmen.
But, if you wanted to bet me I couldn't guess what Americans For Prosperity thinks of the tax bill without reading anything from them about it, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat.
You don't fix this by ignoring attribution or yelling at people for noting it. You also don't do so by attacking strawmen.
How about just, you know, addressing the points the article made?
- Because nobody ignores attribution.
- Not only is life it too short to pretend outfits that exist to promote a particular agenda are, in fact, neutral arbiters this time around, but doing so is actively empowering bad actors arguing in bad faith.
Puzzle me this: a person you know to be con-artist wants you to do something. You can't figure out an angle, but it is a weird-seeming thing to ask.
Do you ignore what you know about this person in making your decision?
- Not only is life it too short to pretend outfits that exist to promote a particular agenda are, in fact, neutral arbiters this time around, but doing so is actively empowering bad actors arguing in bad faith.
Puzzle me this: a person you know to be con-artist wants you to do something. You can't figure out an angle, but it is a weird-seeming thing to ask.
Do you ignore what you know about this person in making your decision?
The wonderful thing with multi-user forums like this is the crowd-sourcing aspect.
Conservative think tanks are well known to lie to promote their agenda.
That's sound like anything political and not just conservatives. Speaking of conservatives (and to bring things back to the article), I remember reading on HN that salt lake city, Utah is one of the best at handling homelessness.
Credible concrete arguments for why some article might be flawed or biased tends to carry a lot more weight than just attacking the place it was published in for its political views.
"Credible concrete arguments for why some article might be flawed or biased tends to carry a lot more weight than just attacking the place it was published in for its political views."
That all depends. When it's been hidden, I think it's essential to know the ethos of the organization that paid for the work to be done and disseminated. It isn't plain in the piece that it was brought to us by the Manhattan Institute, which is one of many think tanks producing "journalism" that has never, ever found a problem that the "free market" wasn't the precise cure for.
Context is super-important.
That all depends. When it's been hidden, I think it's essential to know the ethos of the organization that paid for the work to be done and disseminated. It isn't plain in the piece that it was brought to us by the Manhattan Institute, which is one of many think tanks producing "journalism" that has never, ever found a problem that the "free market" wasn't the precise cure for.
Context is super-important.
Why are you taking it as an attack? He's just giving context to the piece.
Perhaps, given the topic, I jumped too quickly into confrontational left-vs-right thinking.
Anyhow: I quite dislike it when articles and arguments are dismissed with simple labeling tactics ("they said this other thing before, so what they say now carries no weight").
I should have written "dismissed" rather than "attacked".
Anyhow: I quite dislike it when articles and arguments are dismissed with simple labeling tactics ("they said this other thing before, so what they say now carries no weight").
I should have written "dismissed" rather than "attacked".
I thought the article was poorly argued, so I looked up the authors and thought it was worth sharing the info and to let others draw their own conclusions.
My own suspicion is that this "research institute" hasn't really done true research into whether crime is out of control and the homeless are to blame. Maybe it really is out of control, but I suspect that the authors don't truly care to investigate, seeing as they simply chose some anecdotes that fit the views they have held for decades.
Sorry you're getting downvoted.
My own suspicion is that this "research institute" hasn't really done true research into whether crime is out of control and the homeless are to blame. Maybe it really is out of control, but I suspect that the authors don't truly care to investigate, seeing as they simply chose some anecdotes that fit the views they have held for decades.
Sorry you're getting downvoted.
Sorry, but I think you should have spent that effort refuting the arguments - instead you just spread some kind of implicit-guilt-by-political-leaning ("look, this a right-wing site - obviously it's not even worth your effort to refute the claims"). That's not productive.
> Sorry you're getting downvoted.
Thanks for that.
> Sorry you're getting downvoted.
Thanks for that.
But even now what you're arguing against is attribution. His original comment is just attribution, there's no guilt attached. Readers may choose to attach their political opinions to attribution and you may think that's fair or not but it seems ridiculous to me to be calling out someone for posting about the interests behind a story.
So let's cut the crap and be real here, this article is basically propaganda. The entity responsible for producing it will never produce a politically unbiased article examining some critical issue because their raison d'etre is to produce politically biased articles. What you're saying is that it's on us an individuals to line by line refute all the crap propaganda that gets spewed out. There's no way to do that in the 21st century, there's too much information. We need to be able to attribute and write-off when necessary. This article was written by a right-wing think-tank who's explicit mission is to promote free market ideals? Why would I read that? You and I both basically already know what is in it and that the writer is a complete partisan.
So let's cut the crap and be real here, this article is basically propaganda. The entity responsible for producing it will never produce a politically unbiased article examining some critical issue because their raison d'etre is to produce politically biased articles. What you're saying is that it's on us an individuals to line by line refute all the crap propaganda that gets spewed out. There's no way to do that in the 21st century, there's too much information. We need to be able to attribute and write-off when necessary. This article was written by a right-wing think-tank who's explicit mission is to promote free market ideals? Why would I read that? You and I both basically already know what is in it and that the writer is a complete partisan.
I'm not a big fan of labeling things as left and right wing.
In this case, the article is about homelessness, and I found it interesting to know that the institute has for decades held a fixed opinion on individual responsibility.
I have no idea whether the rest of the institute's positions could be neatly categorized.
In this case, the article is about homelessness, and I found it interesting to know that the institute has for decades held a fixed opinion on individual responsibility.
I have no idea whether the rest of the institute's positions could be neatly categorized.
You shouldn't have written "dismissed" either -- the OP just posted a link and noted that they were conservative. Maybe "implicitly dismissed", but even that is pretty paranoid; though, to be fair, that is probably what the OP meant. (I think the partisanship in this country is shameful, dangerous, and rather silly -- just saying.)
Portland is terrible. Don't move here. There's nowhere to park. There's homeless everywhere. There's no real tech companies. There's no VC. And the air smells like pot.
Don't move here. Trust me. Stay in California. You think it's bad but you have no idea what happens here. Your children may be kidnapped by Sasquatch.
Did you know that meat might even be illegal in Portland by 2019? And they still listen to rock music, cassettes, and guitars. Don't move to Portland.
Disgraceful anarchists. Car hating thugs. Dirty homeless people. It's terrible. The author has no idea how bad it is.
They don't fluoridate water. You can't pump your own gas. They shut down roads for cars and only allow bikes. It's going to be illegal to drive your own car. You can't do anything to your property if there's trees in it.
And there's hippies. Real smelly granola types. They all smoke pot all the time.
Don't move to Portland. It'll ruin your life. The homeless are everywhere.
Don't move here. Trust me. Stay in California. You think it's bad but you have no idea what happens here. Your children may be kidnapped by Sasquatch.
Did you know that meat might even be illegal in Portland by 2019? And they still listen to rock music, cassettes, and guitars. Don't move to Portland.
Disgraceful anarchists. Car hating thugs. Dirty homeless people. It's terrible. The author has no idea how bad it is.
They don't fluoridate water. You can't pump your own gas. They shut down roads for cars and only allow bikes. It's going to be illegal to drive your own car. You can't do anything to your property if there's trees in it.
And there's hippies. Real smelly granola types. They all smoke pot all the time.
Don't move to Portland. It'll ruin your life. The homeless are everywhere.
That's it.. NOW I'm moving.
SOMA is So Mach Better than Portland. You can meet other people who work in your field. No one looks at you weird when you get on the bus for work. You can get a real burrito. You can find a bathroom. Don't move to Portland. It's awful.
[deleted]
Sensational title, and the article does not provide insights from other business owners to show any sense of pervasiveness.
A friend of mine manages a large business on the outer edge of Portland. He pulls into work early one morning to find a couple of the homeless living in the community behind his office dragging a decent amount of power tools into the vegetation of the greenbelt. We're talking weed-eaters, chainsaws, etc..., that type of stuff. All rather expensive kit, organized and arranged in a very methodical manner, maybe 20 items or so. A call to the police results in a transfer to a third-party mediation team, as the police can't directly interact with "campers" in a situation of this type. There are several articles out there commenting on the "legal quagmire" that are Portland's policies dealing with the homeless community.
That may be the case, but I was talking about the article.
Did you know it's legal for anyone to sleep on your sidewalk in Portland? And where are they going to the bathroom? It's terrible. Don't move there. Go to Beaverton if you need to move to Oregon. But you'll be sorry. Stay away from Portland. They'll take all your stuff and the police won't help you. They are in cahoots with the street criminals. It's awful. Don't move to Portland.
Anyway, I have to agree, we do live in a crime-ridden, feces smeared neighborhood.
But there's a couple of positives too. First, the crime is almost all non-violent. And, second, the city cleans up the poo very quickly, if you call them.