Portland’s District 3 council candidates on sweeps and affordable housing

Street Roots asked candidates:

1. The city has faced criticism for its reliance on homeless encampment sweeps (removals, as the city officially refers to them), which cost the city tens of millions each year, don’t reduce homelessness and are shown to result in higher homeless mortality rates. To what degree do you support this tactic, and do you believe the city should instead spend that money on other homelessness responses?
2. Some Portlanders and recent reporting question the city’s affordable housing programs, which primarily produce housing targeting earners making 60%-80% Average Median Income — $53,940 to $71,900 for a one-person household. Data shows housing is most scarce for those making less than 51% AMI, and the current structure ensures the vast majority of affordable housing residents pay rent that is technically unaffordable. To what degree do you support this approach, and do you believe the city should redirect its affordable housing efforts?
3. What is the most crucial issue facing your district left unaddressed by elected officials, and how will you address it?

District 3 primarily includes inner-Southeast and Southeast Portland, with portions in Northeast. Tiffany Koyama Lane, Steve Novick and Angelita Morillo currently represent District 3, and each are running for reelection. 

District 3 includes the following neighborhoods: Ardenwald-Johnson Creek, Beaumont-Wilshire, Brentwood-Darlington, Brooklyn, Buckman, Creston-Kenilworth, Foster-Powell, Hosford-Abernethy, Kerns, Laurelhurst, Madison South, Montavilla, Mt. Scott-Arleta, Mt. Tabor, North Tabor, Richmond, Rose City Park, Roseway, South Tabor, Sunnyside, Woodstock.

---

1. The whole Homeless / Houseless Situation must be turned over to Multnomah County. In 1983 the citizens of MC passed Resolution “A.” In which the county tool (sic) over the jails, bridges and all social wellfair (sic) services. This would cemtralize (sic) it. And, give a better picture of the total situation. There are people being imported into our area, by bus and by plane. We need to get a handle on it. This must not become a perminat. (sic)
   
2. We must check the income level that we want to serve AND build to that price. IKEA, does that and it works. We can not build “McManionions (sic) for everyone. There are many new plans for less expensive homes ready for building. Now!
   
3. Do things once. The city is doing some streets disrupting bussiness (sic). And, then comming (sic) back to do some more and disrupting bussiness (sic) again. We need better planning.

1. I don’t believe repeated encampment sweeps are an effective solution to homelessness. They displace people without addressing why they are unhoused, disrupt connections to outreach workers and medical care, and can put vulnerable people at greater risk. Portland spent nearly $12.9 million on campsite removals in FY 2024–25. We should be able to demonstrate what that spending accomplished beyond moving people from one location to another.
   
   I support targeted responses to immediate health and safety hazards, including trash removal, sanitation, and keeping sidewalks accessible and removals should not be our primary homelessness strategy. I’d redirect funding where possible toward permanent supportive housing, rental assistance, low-barrier shelter, and outreach that helps people move into stable housing.
   
   I would also push for transparent reporting that tracks the full cost of removals and measures outcomes whether people are connected to shelter or housing, whether they remain housed, and whether the same locations require repeated removals. I believe we need to evaluate these policies by whether they reduce homelessness and save lives, not simply by how many camps we dismantle.
   
2. I don’t think we should abandon housing for people earning 60–80% of AMI, but we need to do much more for people earning below 50%, especially those below 30%. These are the people with the fewest options, and the consequences of not having housing they can afford can be devastating.
   
   Portland’s own City Auditor found that our Inclusionary Housing Program has largely served moderate-income households rather than those facing the greatest economic disparities. We need to take that seriously. A unit isn’t meaningfully affordable if the people who need it most cannot qualify for it or still struggle to pay the rent.
   
   I would push to direct more resources toward deeply affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and preserving existing low-cost apartments. I would also review how we structure affordability requirements and eligibility rules to ensure lower-income households can actually access the housing we’re funding.
   
   We need to track who benefits from these investments, at what income levels, and whether people can realistically afford to stay housed. Our goal shouldn’t just be to produce units labeled affordable; it should be to get people into stable homes they can afford.
   
3. One issue I believe deserves more attention is how difficult it can be for residents to get action when they face serious, ongoing problems in their housing. This year, I helped a tenants union whose residents had been living with a broken elevator for two and a half years. I helped connect residents with the Mayor’s Office to bring attention to their situation.
   
   Whether it’s me or my staff working through these issues, I believe that addressing individual cases can lead to broader change. When we identify why a problem went unresolved for years, we can work to fix the underlying process so the next tenant doesn’t have to fight the same battle. Each case is an opportunity to identify systemic failures, improve coordination, and hold the right people accountable. I want my office to be a place where residents can turn when the system isn’t working and where solving one person’s problem can help prevent the same thing from happening to others.

1. The current policy of sweeps that destroy important paperwork, medication, and mementos and further destabilize people without homes is cruel and ineffective. People from swept encampments are not being routed into a clear path to stable housing, and are instead being shuffled into camps in different locations, increasingly traumatized with each move. As long as this is the situation, encampment sweeps are not a data-supported strategy to solve our homelessness crisis. Public safety issues arising from camps should be addressed by the correct response team. Portland Street Response, CHAT, and the housing and behavioral health navigation programs that receive public dollars are critical to addressing the situation on our streets and should be well-resourced and well-coordinated.
   
   Public funds should be spent on dedicated navigators who are actually able to guide people through the horribly complicated system to get housing. They should be spent on support staff who can make sure housing includes the wraparound services people need as they recover from trauma and acclimated to a new situation. They should be spent on eviction prevention and affordable housing so that we halt the inflow into housing. Sweeps and criminalization will never solve this crisis.
   
2. There are so many indicators that our current system is not working, whether it is the thousand-plus so-called affordable units sitting empty, or the thousands of people on our streets, or the tiny percentages of people who are offered a real pathway from shelter settings into housing. Continuing to rely on the market and private developers to set the cost and availability of housing will not solve this problem. That is why I co-sponsored the resolution to direct the city to create a study of implementing social housing in Portland, and subsequently supported the Keep Portland Housed package that included real funding to move this from an idea into a reality. I will also continue to advocate for robust rental assistance programs, better coordination between the City and County, and rethinking zoning requirements that treat affordable housing as an add-on to buildings developed to maximize private profit.
   
3. My priority is public goods for people, and that is why my ideal city budget will always focus on the communal things that enable all Portlanders to live with dignity. The continual stripping away of basic goods from our communities–whether in the form of transportation cuts, school closures, cut hours for community centers or summer camp programs, or reduced emergency services–while the wealthiest people in our country grow richer and richer is an indication that our society is out of balance. While council doesn’t control all of these things, our work needs to continually work to restore that balance and prioritize the people over the wealthy few. 
   
   In terms of more granular Portland issues, I have heard from many Portlanders who are frustrated by vacant and underutilized lots and vacant properties that could be filled with housing or other community spaces. I support a land value tax to disincentivize letting lots sit empty, which is something that would need to happen at the state level. At the city level, step one is having clear, current, public data about these lots. An inventory was carried out under the previous commission system, but it has not yet been released to the Planning Commission. I want to see this data become public and available so that we know where we are starting from and where we need to go to turn eyesores into usable spaces.

1. I support encampment removals when they are connected to a real pathway to shelter, treatment, housing, or other services. I do not support spending tens of millions of dollars repeatedly moving people from one location to another without measuring whether it improves outcomes.
   
   Portland needs to shift from a cycle of removal to a strategy focused on housing stability, behavioral-health services, addiction treatment, shelter capacity, and prevention. We should prioritize getting people indoors and addressing the reasons they became homeless in the first place.
   
   Every homelessness dollar should have measurable outcomes: How many people moved into stable housing? How many remained housed? How many received treatment? How many returned to homelessness?
   
   I would also push for greater coordination between the City and County. We are spending public dollars through multiple systems, and Portlanders deserve to know where the gaps and duplication are. The goal should not simply be managing homelessness it should be reducing it.
   
2. I support affordable housing, but I do not believe Portland can solve its housing crisis by focusing primarily on households at 60–80% of AMI. The people facing the greatest housing insecurity are often those earning substantially less.
   
   We need to redirect more resources toward extremely low-income households, supportive housing, and preventing people from becoming homeless in the first place. At the same time, Portland needs to build substantially more housing across the income spectrum.
   
   My approach would be “build more, target better, measure results.” We should evaluate every housing program based on who it serves, what it costs, how quickly units are produced, and whether residents can actually afford to remain there.
   
   We also need to reduce permitting delays and unnecessary costs so the private market can produce more housing. Government cannot subsidize its way out of a supply shortage.
   
3. The most important issue I believe remains unaddressed is Portland’s ability to deliver basic services while remaining financially accountable to residents. District 3 has tremendous potential, from small businesses and commercial corridors to neighborhood organizations, schools, and community institutions. But residents and businesses need a city government that works better and makes better use of every dollar.
   
   I would bring a financial and operational mindset to City Council: identify duplication, measure outcomes, find savings, and prioritize services that residents actually need. I also want to strengthen small businesses, fill vacant commercial spaces, improve housing supply, and make our neighborhoods safer and more welcoming.
   
   My approach is simple: listen to the community, bring people to the table, and make decisions based on results & not ideology. Portland has the resources and talent to improve. We need to manage them better.

1. It’s a case by case thing, obviously there are places where it’s less appropriate to camp. What is most important is that we stay focused on the final solutions which is building new permanent shelters, where homeless have there (sic) own permanent rooms where they can put their belongings. I also have short term solutions in the form of havens, where the homeless can camp indefinitely that will have electricity, porta-potties, possibly porta showers. I have several locations for this, and am possibly working on turning the expo center into a giant haven in the short term as it has extensive parking, and indoor areas that can be filled with beds, and access to light rail and is out of the way. The convention center can absorb all the expo center’s events.
   
2. I will be heavily focused on using government ownership to lower rent. Most data shows 30-40% of rent is profit. With government ownership this can all be eliminated, greatly decreasing rent. It will take some time to transition, as apartments must be purchased and management transferred. Ideally this will go smoothly and quickly and current employees that manage apartments will simply start working for the government. But this all must be done tactfully to ensure we maximize savings, and ensure the property is managed properly.
   
   There (are) also ways to decrease the cost of houses, although some of them are more complicated than others. All these solutions can be found in my book entitled Economics. Some simpler ways of decreasing costs at the local level are by potentially eliminating building fees which make up 5-10% of the cost of construction, potentially using government owned development companies which may eliminate extra profits made in the private which often reach 20% of the cost of construction, potentially using government owned real estate companies which often take 6% of the sale of pre-existing homes, as well as just building smaller and using more efficient construction processes.
   
3. There are so many issues and I’m the only (one) who can solve them.

1. I don’t support indiscriminate sweeps of homeless camps, but I do think the City needs to continue to clean up the most hazardous camps, as defined by objective city criteria. Some camps pose a hazard to their residents and need to be addressed. I support the work of Portland Solutions, which includes street outreach, shelter programs, and the Portland Environment Management Office, or PEMO, which assists Portlanders with things like street lighting and activating public spaces for everyone. If you have specific ideas on how you think the current criteria for deciding whether camps should be changed, I would be happy to hear them.
   
2. We need more housing of every type and for people making below 51% of AMI as well as people closer to AMI. We need to be investing in deeply affordable housing and doing what we can to attract private investment in housing for people at higher incomes. It’s very important that we support deeply affordable housing paired with treatment and other services that help people stay stable in housing, and Multnomah County’s Housing Services Department is focusing on this. I am vocal in calling on state and county partners to make significant investments in mental health and addiction treatment so that people with severe problems aren’t placed into housing without appropriate supports. 
   
3. I offer realistic assessments of our problems, which include the housing crisis, public safety and property crime, using the Clean Energy Fund to benefit more Portlanders, and reducing gun violence. So it’s difficult to select a single most crucial issue. That said, I think one critical need that cuts across all of these topics and guides my work is the need for responsibility with public money. I am committed to spending public dollars the right way and on the right things.

For example:

• I’ve fought to cut the bloated budgets that Council voted for its own offices – $1.45 million apiece! I’ve returned much of my office budget to the city and spent some on community needs, like fixing parks bathrooms. 
• I’m fighting for a fair deal on the Moda Center where we get as much out as we put in. 
• I’m working with the State to get Medicaid to reimburse for the healthcare services Portland Street Response provides.
• I’m working to ensure that unarmed responders, instead of more expensive armed police, take over responses to “welfare check” calls.
• And I will continue to be vocal against spending from future reserves that we may need to protect city services later.

1. We must understand the reality of a situation before developing meaningful solutions. Allowing camps to become established on sidewalks or beside vacant buildings for days, only to sweep them away, is both unacceptable and cruel. Restricting public camping is controversial, especially when people struggling with addiction or mental illness have nowhere safe to sleep. This perpetuates a cruel cycle. I believe access to safe sleep is a human right.
   
   We need to intervene before camps become established, offering and requiring those in the camp to move to immediate alternatives such as designated campgrounds, safe parking areas, or simple indoor sleeping facilities. These spaces should operate 24/7, with on-site staff and trained security to ensure safety and accountability.
   
   When I was young, I lived in a rundown van for a while. I would have gladly paid for a safe parking space with access to a restroom and electricity rather than sleeping on the streets. Yet I never considered myself “homeless.”
   
   I believe the broad label “homeless” traps us in an ideological oversimplification, preventing us from recognizing people’s very different circumstances and responding appropriately to their needs as well as to the community’s needs.
   
2. I think too much of our housing system is being designed by the upper-middle class for the upper-middle class, rather than for Portland’s working class and working poor. We need innovative housing options that serve people at every income level. I personally could not afford, nor would I want to pay the rents required for many apartments designated for households earning 60–80% of Area Median Income (AMI).
   
   What do I mean by innovative housing? Simple, affordable options: small cottages with site shared kitchens and bathrooms, new single-room occupancy hotels, and managed group homes where 5–10 people live together. Residents could rent or own a private bedroom within a shared household.
   
   We should be exploring housing options at monthly price points of $100, $350, and $650, with opportunities for those unable to pay to contribute through work exchange. The tiny-home model is one of the most promising approaches I have seen because it addresses fundamental human needs for safety, independence, privacy, and security. Portland has an exciting opportunity to lead the nation in creating a new generation of innovative, efficient, and genuinely affordable housing.
   
3. Affordable housing preservation. I am concerned that thoughtless, lobbyist-driven policies such as the Inner Eastside Rezoning Project will displace residents renting older homes and apartments while disrupting the local businesses that make our historic main streets so distinctive and vital to our economy. Neighborhood commercial districts such as Hawthorne, Belmont, 28th Avenue, Burnside, and Clinton could lose their unique character as older, human-scaled buildings are replaced by corporation-owned, big box apartment developments. These changes could deeply affect the small businesses, tourism, and neighborhood vitality that make these districts special

1. I support keeping sidewalks, parks, and doorways open and safe, but removals alone are not a homelessness policy, and paying for them without measuring results is exactly the waste my plan targets. Specifically, I would: Ask the independent City Auditor to audit removal spending: total cost, cost per site, how often the same people are displaced, and what happened to them afterward. Require that no removal proceed without a concrete offer of shelter or treatment, consistent with Oregon’s “objectively reasonable” standard (ORS 195.530). Protect what keeps people alive and connected: IDs, medications, phones, and medical records must be stored and returned, and outreach workers must record health needs before a site is cleared. Publish a quarterly dashboard showing removals, shelter offers accepted, exits to housing, and deaths among people living outside. Shift money from repeat removals of the same sites to what the audit shows works, such as treatment beds, shelter with case management, and rent assistance, and fund each by cost per person housed and still housed a year later. Enforcement and services are not opposites. But if we spend millions, we should be able to show it moved people indoors.
   
2. I support the goal but not a structure that leaves most residents rent-burdened and the deepest need unmet. My plan says to pay for results, and the result that matters is a household that can afford its rent. I would: Measure every City housing investment by cost per unit and by residents’ actual rent burden, reported by income tier. Shift City subsidy toward households below 50% of area median income, where the market will never build on its own, and pair those units with long-term rent assistance, including regional supportive housing services funds, so rent tracks income. Let regulatory reform carry more of the 60–80% AMI market: clear and objective approvals, decisions well inside the state’s 120-day limit, pre-approved plans for ADUs and middle housing, and fee reductions for small multifamily projects. Review development fees and system development charges that raise per-unit costs, since every dollar of City-imposed cost is a dollar not spent on deeper affordability. Sunset programs that miss their targets and expand those that hit them. Public money should go where the market can’t reach. Supply reform should handle the rest.
   
3. In District 3, the most neglected issue is City services on our commercial corridors: 82nd Avenue, Foster, Powell, Division, Hawthorne, Belmont, Stark, and the Central Eastside. Neighbors and businesses from Montavilla to Brentwood-Darlington face illegal dumping, graffiti, broken sidewalks, and empty storefronts, and no one at City Hall can say who is responsible or how long a fix should take. I will push for published service standards: biohazards cleaned within 24 hours, graffiti within 72, and priority debris the same day, with monthly response-time reports for District 3. Fund recurring inspection and maintenance cycles for our corridors instead of complaint-only response, starting with 82nd Avenue, which the City now owns and must maintain. Create a Small Business Fast Track: one portal, one coordinator, and consolidated inspections for businesses filling existing storefronts. Offer temporary fee reductions and expedited licensing for long-vacant storefronts in high-vacancy corridors, using objective eligibility rules. Enact a Small Business Bill of Rights, including a chance to correct minor violations before fines. Report District 3 results on a public Performance Dashboard so residents can hold the Mayor’s administration, and me, accountable.
   A clean, open corridor brings jobs, foot traffic, and safety.

1. I oppose removals that relocate people without services or safer alternatives. Leaving people in dangerous, unsanitary conditions isn’t compassionate. We owe unhoused people and neighborhoods compassion and safety. As Commissioner Dan Ryan’s Chief of Staff, I helped establish seven Safe Rest Villages, working with unhoused people, providers, neighbors, and businesses. Listening to International School of Portland families and leaders and developing a Good Neighbor Agreement transformed opposition into a mutually beneficial relationship. In the program’s first full year, nearly half of those exiting entered temporary or permanent housing, including 35 people who had experienced chronic homelessness.
   
   I support removals for serious health, safety, or accessibility concerns, especially near schools and children’s routes. They require outreach, appropriate shelter or housing offers, protection of belongings, and follow-through.
   
   Rather than eliminate the removal budget, I would scrutinize spending, strengthen county and provider coordination, and prioritize measurable results.
   
   My longtime Street Roots vendor and beloved Woodstock neighbor, Nettie Johnson, shares candid, firsthand perspectives on encampments, villages, and services. I’m grateful for her wisdom, which keeps unhoused people central to my decisions.
   
   My goal is fewer people living outside, fewer unsafe encampments, and more people moving into stable housing. We need to measure all three.
   
2. I support housing across income levels, but affordable housing investments must better serve Portlanders with the lowest incomes. “Affordable” on paper doesn’t always mean affordable to those who need it. As a single mother and renter, I experienced housing insecurity and know the fear of stretching a paycheck to stay housed. Today, homeownership feels increasingly unattainable for my adult children. While helping oversee the Portland Housing Bureau, I worked on affordable housing priorities, including helping secure permanent staffing for the North/Northeast Preference Policy, connecting displaced Black Portlanders and their descendants with affordable housing. We need more deeply affordable housing for people earning 30% of area median income or less, alongside homes for working families and middle-income Portlanders. Capital investments must be paired with rental assistance and operating support. We must preserve affordable housing, prevent displacement, and improve permitting to reduce unnecessary delays and costs, working with community housing organizations and developers to remove barriers. I would require public reporting on homes produced, affordability levels, and whom they serve. Success means more than dollars spent or units approved: it means people can afford to move in, stay housed, and build stable futures here. That is the standard I would bring to Council.
   
3. Portlanders repeatedly tell me city government isn’t working for them. Unsafe school routes, permitting struggles, neglected parks, and unaddressed encampments leave residents frustrated by slow responses and few results. As a District 3 resident, I share that frustration and haven’t always felt represented. Small business owners tell me their concerns aren’t heard or prioritized. I’ve spent years navigating these challenges: bringing bureaus together to improve permitting, helping establish seven Safe Rest Villages, expanding access to parks and recreation through partnerships, and turning community ideas into results.
   
   Portland doesn’t have an ideas problem. We have an execution problem. Constituent service will be central to my office. Residents and businesses will receive timely responses, know who is responsible, and get help navigating city offices. I’ll use Council’s budget and oversight authority to establish measurable standards for emergency response, permitting, street maintenance, parks, and neighborhood safety, with public reporting on response times, outstanding requests, and whether problems get resolved. I know how to bring people together and overcome obstacles. I’ll put that experience to work for District 3. People shouldn’t need a City report to know Portland is improving. They should see it in their neighborhoods, businesses, and everyday lives.

1.  I am opposed to homeless camp sweeps. Moving people and their belongings from one block to another does not resolve homelessness, and I do not think millions should be spent primarily on a top-down enforcement model.
   
   I would shift those resources toward a shared-power model. Portland could expand programs like Ground Score Association’s trash collection work, paying people living outside to maintain public spaces while pairing paid employment with transitional housing so people have somewhere to go immediately instead of another waitlist.
   
   I would also create a sanitation request line people living in camps could use to request garbage pickup, supplies or cleanup support without asking the City to remove the camp.
   
   We can still use the City’s trained cleanup workforce, but change its role. Workers with expertise in hazardous waste, sanitation and de-escalation could work alongside peer workers to provide equipment, training and safer site maintenance.
   
   Park workers have told me they are often working alone in areas with frequent encampments or behavioral-health calls. I want peer workers available to support them, and I would expand Portland Street Response for higher-acuity situations. Portland should seek regional funding to support this model.
   
2. I would redirect more of Portland’s affordable housing investment toward people earning 0–30% of area median income. That is where the need is greatest, and producing an apartment labeled “affordable” does not accomplish much if the people most at risk of homelessness still cannot afford the rent.
   
   I would set clearer income targets for city housing investments and require projects receiving public dollars to show how many homes are actually affordable to extremely low-income households.
   
   I also want Portland to expand the types of housing we fund. I have proposed using limited-equity cooperatives to create permanently affordable, resident-owned housing for people at 0–30% of area median income. Rather than spending public money indefinitely to subsidize rent while residents build no equity, we should test models where some of that investment can help people gain an ownership interest over time.
   
   That does not mean eliminating housing for households at 60–80% of area median income. Portland needs housing across income levels. But our public subsidy should be deepest where the private market is least capable of meeting the need.
   
3. One of the most important unresolved issues in District 3 is slow emergency response, especially when people need help but do not necessarily need a police officer or an advanced-life-support ambulance.
   
   I want Portland’s emergency-response system to function more like one system. I would bring civilian crisis responders, including Portland Street Response, under the same operational umbrella as 911 so dispatchers can send the right responder based on the actual call. I would also work with Multnomah County to change the ambulance contracting model. Right now, the system relies too heavily on a single ambulance provider for emergency hospital transport. I want dispatchers to have more options, including multiple qualified transport providers and, for medically screened lower-acuity calls, appropriately staffed civilian medical teams.
   
   The goal is not to replace ambulances. It is to stop tying up the most intensive emergency resources on calls that can be handled safely another way.
   
   That would mean faster responses for people in crisis, fewer unnecessary police responses, and more ambulances available when someone is having a heart attack, stroke or other life-threatening emergency.

1.  Sweeps as a whole are a waste of time and resources. The government is engaging in a city-wide game of whack-a-mole and the destabilizing effects it has on people ensure they’ll never get out of the vicious spiral. While I do not support sweeps as a generalized tactic, I do believe violent and anti-social behavior needs to be dealt with. Campsites that are creating dangerous conditions for neighbors need to be directly addressed, but in these cases, we would be criminalizing the behavior, not the act of simply being homeless. We need more wrap-around services and a holistic approach that treats addiction, provides transitional housing, and job training. Organizations like Blanchet House and Central City Concern offer a good model and the approach we need, one that mixes accountability with compassion.
   
2. The AMI needs to be lowered here. 60 – 80% AMI are not the most housing insecure population. The net result of this is cutting off the bottom rung to the ladder that can prevent one from falling into homelessness. We need to ensure that we are keeping people out of the cycle before they fall into it. Where I really want to move toward is true social housing that compliments market rate housing rather than having a patchwork of “affordability” regulation. Social housing would be truly affordable and exist as an option for those who couldn’t afford market rate housing. The question of where the money would come from often comes up, and I feel like increasing the PCEF surcharge to build green eco housing would be an excellent use of these funds and fulfill its mission and purpose.
   
3. I think the environmental problems facing our region are easy to kick the can on, but they are intertwined with issues of economic and social justice. i5 is still a wounded scar on Albina and the Waterfront. While a proposed draw-down is in discussion for the CEI Hub, the plan doesn’t go nearly far enough to mitigate a potentially calamitous disaster. The Algae Bloom at Ross Island is making our rivers unsafe to swim. And when 40% of our emissions come from transportation, the fact that we aren’t doing everything in our power to bring about incentives to shift away from single-occupancy driving seems like a missed opportunity. We need to deal with these issues now while they are still solvable.

1.  Sweeps are wrong and should stop. If the garbage is being managed, the camp is clean, and the public right of way is ADA compliant; the camp should be left alone. Public safety, drug related crimes, and property crimes are not directly related to camps or encampments.
   
2. There needs to be a pathway to housing and there needs to be a pathway to self-reliance. Call it transitional housing, call it supportive services, call it subsidized housing; at the end of the process every Portlander needs a chance to be their best self. Individually it could be a long process, but there should not be a fear of being returned to homelessness because some metric or goal has been met.
   
3. The 3 faces of homelessness are most critical and have been addressed, they have not been fully addressed and declaring victory or changing focus in any one causes systemic failure. To me the 3 faces are homeless (no place, no security, no address), Health/ mental health. And policing.

This article appears in October 21, 2026.