Coos Bay/ North Bend, Oregon living. (Portland, Eugene: school, professionals, vs.)

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by mostie

I stumbled in here trying to find out more about the homeless situation in Coos Bay/North Bend (my question was: why do there seem to be so terribly many in comparison to other places, or is it just me?) -

The homeless problem in the Coos Bay Area is a fraction of what it is in other places. It's a national problem, not a Coos Bay problem. Reasons for it being. 1. A complete and total lack of mental health services. 2. Lack of affordable housing. Once those two problems are taken care of, the homeless problem will be solved.

As for the tsunami signs, they are nothing but sign pollution. And for earthquakes, virtually anywhere in the US has a greater earthquake danger, then the Oregon Coast.

[Tulippsy]

Originally Posted by Cloudy Dayz

The homeless problem in the Coos Bay Area is a fraction of what it is in other places. It's a national problem, not a Coos Bay problem. Reasons for it being. 1. A complete and total lack of mental health services. 2. Lack of affordable housing. Once those two problems are taken care of, the homeless problem will be solved.

As for the tsunami signs, they are nothing but sign pollution. And for earthquakes, virtually anywhere in the US has a greater earthquake danger, then the Oregon Coast.

I lived in Gold Beach from 2017 to June of this year. I don’t recall seeing any homeless in town. Infrequently I would see small structures on the beach that appeared to be lived in, but they would be dismantled fairly quickly. Perhaps it’s an enforcement issue?

[mostie]

Originally Posted by Tulippsy

I lived in Gold Beach from 2017 to June of this year. I don’t recall seeing any homeless in town. Infrequently I would see small structures on the beach that appeared to be lived in, but they would be dismantled fairly quickly. Perhaps it’s an enforcement issue?

I wondered about that myself- I've seen people asleep on a public sidewalk, I mean in the middle of a sidewalk on a main street in town, zipped up in a sleeping bag several times, and I've never seen the police stop or anything else. Usually you would see people being told to 'move on' in other cities, so to speak, but not here- it's like...one giant crash pad, lol.

[Cloudy Dayz]

Originally Posted by Tulippsy

I lived in Gold Beach from 2017 to June of this year. I don’t recall seeing any homeless in town. Infrequently I would see small structures on the beach that appeared to be lived in, but they would be dismantled fairly quickly. Perhaps it’s an enforcement issue?

Enforcement has nothing to do with it. Law Enforcement can't make the homeless go away. California has been trying to do that for the last 80 years with zero success.

You won't see many homeless people in the Coos Bay Area either, except around Downtown Coos Bay and the area around the Walmart. Most of the homeless in Coos Bay live in tents out in the woods. I live in a housing project, and I have never seen a homeless person with in a mile of where I live, except maybe a few of them walking along the highway, once in a while.

[haggardhouseelf]

Originally Posted by mostie

I wondered about that myself- I've seen people asleep on a public sidewalk, I mean in the middle of a sidewalk on a main street in town, zipped up in a sleeping bag several times, and I've never seen the police stop or anything else. Usually you would see people being told to 'move on' in other cities, so to speak, but not here- it's like...one giant crash pad, lol.

mostie - I'm a Dallas girl myself. I'm a many generations Texan... 7th or 8th or something, I forget. Anyway - the homeless situation is very different here than it is in Texas. Not just in how bad it is, and how out in the open and in your face it is, but also how people's attitudes towards it are, and how the local governments deal with it. Where I grew up in Texas, the homeless (out here some people prefer to call them the unhoused) would be more or less around the areas where they would receive food ("soup kitchens"), and you would see them in long lines along the buildings where they would receive food and/or sometimes shelter at. There were like designated areas for them to go. And as long as they stayed in those areas things were fine. They left others alone and got their needs met (at least food, warmth, and shelter) and they got left alone unless they needed something. You didn't see homeless people in other parts of towns. But here, on the west coast (I've lived in CA, WA, and OR) people and governments in general seem to either ignore them entirely, or they simply move them around the town a bit when neighbors start complaining a lot due to the property crime or trash or smell. They will move them to a different block or park or area until people living in and trying to do business in those areas start complaining and suffering losses. There are some things being done, like tiny house villages and things like that, but they seem to be small grassroots kind of efforts. Not like what we've seen in Texas.



The problem was bad before pot was "legal", so that is not why the homeless is so bad here. I think there are a lot of reasons. It's not just one thing. It's almost as if each case is unique as to why that person ended up on the streets. That is why the problem is so hard to tackle if you try to come at it from an individualistic point of view like people seem to want to do here. Which is fine, it just makes it a lot harder of a riddle to solve. Also, I was surprised to meet a few homeless people who I never would have guessed were homeless who told me that they were "unhoused by choice" because they did not believe in owning property and also did not want to give their money away to other property owners. There's really all sorts of people homeless, you can't really say it's because of a, b, and/or c. There wouldn't be enough letters in the alphabet to explain all the reasons.



Just don't believe the people that tell you "they are harmless, don't be afraid of them". When we moved out here and we started asking why there were so many homeless here, that's what people told us. But we know now that's not good advice.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by mostie

I wondered about that myself- I've seen people asleep on a public sidewalk, I mean in the middle of a sidewalk on a main street in town, zipped up in a sleeping bag several times, and I've never seen the police stop or anything else. Usually you would see people being told to 'move on' in other cities, so to speak, but not here- it's like...one giant crash pad, lol.

The 9th Circuit Court ruled awhile back that the homeless have the right to sleep on public property. You can read more about that here:

https://thesiuslawnews.com/article/c...-public-spaces

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

The 9th Circuit Court ruled awhile back that the homeless have the right to sleep on public property. You can read more about that here:

https://thesiuslawnews.com/article/c...-public-spaces

Well, not exactly.

What the 9th Circuit ruled was the homeless could not be evicted or banned from sleeping in public spaces if the city in question does not provide alternate shelter or accommodation. In other words, people have a human right to sleep someplace.

The politics about providing homeless shelter and alternative camping accommodations are so dysfunctional on the west coast that in effect, homeless do have a right to camp in public. Because no cities are managing to provide sufficient alternatives.

[Metlakatla]

Originally Posted by texasdiver

Well, not exactly.

What the 9th Circuit ruled was the homeless could not be evicted or banned from sleeping in public spaces if the city in question does not provide alternate shelter or accommodation. In other words, people have a human right to sleep someplace.

The politics about providing homeless shelter and alternative camping accommodations are so dysfunctional on the west coast that in effect, homeless do have a right to camp in public. Because no cities are managing to provide sufficient alternatives.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that part, probably we don't have shelters where I live so it's pretty moot. I think it also has to be that the shelter is within reasonable distance and has to have room. There's a local group who's been advocating for a homeless shelter for years, and I'm a little torn on that because there's no real path here for homeless people to transition back to a normal life. Few jobs and no affordable rentals. On the other hand, we're starting to see derelict RVs that are obviously used as living quarters parked on city streets, so it might be time to think about it.

[texasdiver]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that part, probably we don't have shelters where I live so it's pretty moot. I think it also has to be that the shelter is within reasonable distance and has to have room. There's a local group who's been advocating for a homeless shelter for years, and I'm a little torn on that because there's no real path here for homeless people to transition back to a normal life. Few jobs and no affordable rentals. On the other hand, we're starting to see derelict RVs that are obviously used as living quarters parked on city streets, so it might be time to think about it.

The courts are saying that communities need to decide whether: (1) they want to accommodate homeless in adequate shelters, or (2) accommodate them on the streets/parks. Those are your options.

Too many west coast communities would rather just take the do-nothing approach or descend into a morass of NIMBY dysfunctional "process." It doesn't have to be like that. Some cities like San Antonio actually do manage to produce adequate homeless shelters with lower taxes to boot, and don't have nearly the same number of vagrants on the streets. There will always be some, but they have a lot less.

Honestly I think even providing camping space would probably be enough to meet the court's requirements. Set up camping areas with sanitation so you can roust people out of parks and neighborhoods. But even that can be difficult to do in today's NIMBY politics.

[haggardhouseelf]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

...we're starting to see derelict RVs that are obviously used as living quarters parked on city streets, so it might be time to think about it.

Recently started counting how many of those were over by the post office every morning. It started with one old car missing a wheel. Then an RV. Then an SUV covered, sorta, with a tarp, that smelled really funky. Then another RV, and another... until I finally counted 12 RVs/vehicles, some of which I really don't think even ran because they were missing parts. Then one day - POOF - they were all gone! But then I was in another part of town and recognized many of those same vehicles lining up on another street. The issue just gets moved around, nothing ever gets dealt with.


Along W. 11th in Eugene, along an area that I think are wetlands and may or may not be owned by the Nature Conservatory? I'm not sure... but they have found a very rare butterfly near the area and it is pretty sensitive area for the butterfly and the one type of flower that it needs for its survival. Anyway - there is a very visible "no camping" sign, and yet - one tent, two tents, blue tents... and now I've lost count of how many tents are there with people camping. There is even a sign asking for cans. At that Walmart that is right there, they've had to lock away some items like socks because so many were getting stolen.