Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Betsy Johnson's website was down just now, but I went and looked at the other two again. While Kotek does say more, it's basically the same thing that's been said for the last ten years. Housing is expensive, blah, blah blah. Yes, housing is very expensive, but I would say that normal people will do whatever it takes to keep a roof over their head. People whose survival instinct is short circuited by addiction will not. Kotek makes no mention of the addiction crisis in relation to the homelessness and crime, while Drazan does connect the two. I think that is a more realistic way to view the issue.
Yeah my concern is that none of them are really going to do anything about this. None had plans that are concrete enough for me.
Like you said, Kotek analyzes the problem a lot, expresses a lot of compassion, and has detailed plans. But her plans are what the Democrats have said for years and they don't actually DO the plans at the scale needed. They do a small piece of those proposals and help like 500 homeless get off the street while 2500 more go on it. When those measures are inadequate they will say "it's complicated" and "not enough funding."
Their compassion-first approach will chase the tail of the problem indefinitely.
Drazan, like most Republicans, doesn't have much of a plan for anything. Especially not ones that are viable in what will be a blue legislature. Okay addiction is part of the problem... what will you DO? The Oregon GOP is truly clueless in my opinion, similar to the GOP in California. Too conservative. They are not realistic in what they need to do to actually win a blue state like this. I was shocked Knute Buehler did not run; this would have been a good year for him.
I'm probably going to vote for Betsy Johnson. Her homeless plan is also too vague for my taste, but she prioritizes stopping the camping. I agree that the FIRST thing we have to do, is enforce the anti-camping and vagrancy ordinances. These people simply cannot be allowed to camp in public right of ways in perpetuity. It's not good for them, not good for the public. I don't care if it's not compassionate; neither is letting them rot on the streets.
She also says that she wants to illegalize hard drugs again, so it looks like she and Drazan are on the same page there.
In fact, after scrutinizing the websites again, Johnson and Drazan are saying a lot of the same things. Which probably means they're going to split the Republican vote and Kotek is going to win easily.
Last edited by redguard57; 09-04-2022 at 10:29 PM..
I would argue all day long that Biden isn't as vile as Trump was. It's not even remotely close. Just because he's saying something you don't want to hear doesn't make him wrong. All he said last night was that these people want to subvert the will of the people, baselessly denying an election that they lost, which undermines democracy. That's 100% true. And he was careful not to place all Republicans in that basket because many did not participate in the big lie.
What Abbott is doing is completely messed up. Shockingly unprofessional, and, in my opinion, akin to human trafficing. Using the lives human beings to score political points. It would be different if they were buying Greyhound tickets to the locality of their choice, but he's just trying to hurt places he perceives as liberal, using human beings as the ammo. It's an embarrassment and it's immoral.
The nice thing about Reagan was that he was a genuinely nice guy, and he always was willing to negotiate with Tip O'Neill to solve problems. This was the era before cable news and radio pundits controlling the base so he had the space to put country before party. Bill Clinton was similar in that way (too bad he messed up his legacy so bad.) I don't know if either party could produce another candidate like that, but it should be noted that of all the Democrats primary candidates in 2020, only Tulsi Gabbard was was positioned to Biden's right. The rest were far to his left.
In Oregon, I'm on the verge of considering voting for Drazan, which for me is a major stretch. I actually kind of believe, in a general sense, that Republicans are better at local government while Democrats are better at national leadership. All I know for sure is that the situation on the streets is intolerable and more of the same rhetoric about compassion and high housing costs will not fix a thing. As long as she doesn't express some of the insane anti-democratic views of some of todays GOP, and is laser focused on restoring order and safety (and doesn't play the pointless rural vs. urban political game), she'll probably get my vote.
Disagree- Biden is vile, full of hate, not a person of moral character and the epitome of a lifelong Washington insider. Zero moral compass. Words are cheap. He ran as a middle of the road centrist and yet his presidency has been nothing but borderline illegal executive actions and big government interventions. He is owned by the enviro-nazi movement, unions and left wing lunatics. His recent speeches are nothing but political grandstanding trying to divert attention away from his disastrous presidency. (BTW-it probably is working)
Democrats are leaders at using people as pawns so it makes no sense to getting all riled up at Abbot for doing a little of the same thing. If NY, DC and Chicago were smart, they would have huge welcome wagons embracing the buses thus probably stopping them. Instead they whine about it and thus draw attention to their own hypocrisy as "Sanctuary Cities".
While I would like to see party change in Governorship, unfortunately I do not think it will actually mean much to real QOL in Oregon. People here are not really that interested in change. They still cling to naive thoughts about Gov't. Kotek will likely easily win because the other two will essentially "cancel each other out." Don't hold your breath people for a lot of positive change in Oregon, likely ain't happening. Hope I am wrong.
Disagree- Biden is vile, full of hate, not a person of moral character and the epitome of a lifelong Washington insider.
Hate for who? People who would falsely claim with no evidence that he stole his election via an unrealistically vast conspiracy? People who would try (and fail) to blackmail foreign leaders into investigating his son in an attempt to smear his family? People who would summon a lie addled mob to storm the capitol to try to interrupt the constitutional duty of the Congress and the Vice President to count the electoral votes that he won? And you say Biden lacks moral character? If that's true, what does that say about his opponents?
If anyone treated you and your family like that, you'd hate them too.
I've lived in Oregon long enough to remember when it was impossible to find a decent job here. When housing was cheap because there was no economy. In many ways, things are better now, but the rapid degradation of the street scene in the City of Portland makes all of the gains a moot point. I do think its a mixture of a failure of leadership and a misapplication of compassion. I kind of hope Drazan wins to shake up the political scene here and direct Oregon on a more moderate course. Unfortunately for Drazan, Betsy Johnson will probably end up being her Ralph Nader, and we can expect more of the same. As a previous poster said, I'm also surprised that Knute Beuhler didn't run. I think he could have won this time around.
I spend a fair amount of time in Portland, to be honest, the downtown city areas has been sliding for quite awhile. Today it looks dirty and disheveled, a mirror image of the dirty and disheveled denizens who roam the streets in search of the next high. We have a huge drug addiction problem in America and instead of coming together to remedy that, we find ourselves surrounded by political extremists trying to make it into a left-right tug of war with the addicted stuck in the middle and not caring who pulls the hardest.
Homelessness, crime, failing social infrastructure, are all problems that have grown in scale, and they seem to be pervasive in our large population centers. Budgets are shrinking at city hall as persistent inflation coupled with a decades long diminishing dollar value reeks it's havoc on municipal expenditures, but the howl of pain from taxpayers prevents a realistic realization from ever presenting itself. It isn't that the political leadership doesn't know the difficulty involved, they know all too well the pitfalls of trying to "serve" the hugely diverse constituency who have failed miserably when attempting to protect their own self interest.
The Ninth Circuit Court Boise VS Martin decision has laid out the parameters that would allow for removal of sidewalk campers:
*The ruling held that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available for their homeless population.[2][3] It did not necessarily mean a city cannot enforce any restrictions on camping on public property.
We talk of freedom, but we don't always agree on the court definitions of what the individuals obligations are in conjunction with the granting of their rights. In the Martin case, it appears that the city has a clear path when it needs to remove campers from the streets. But what isn't so clear is the fact that the majority of these campers are hopelessly addicted to all manner of harmful drugs, and we face that as a people who've been in a "war on drugs" for over fifty years. We lost that war a long time ago, but we still hear the old and tired refrain of "get tough" on drug use, "get tough" on the cartels who have become wealthy and more militant. So where do we go from here?
My own guess is that we will need some difficult decisions to be made with regard to present legal restraints, we will need an army of professional people to staff the huge facilities we will need to build, we will need to expand the municipal budgets beyond anything we thought was reasonable in the past, a war time type of public effort that will include a mass consensus among disparate interests, a multi pronged approach that can address both the present day drug addicted population, as well as addressing the need to have real prevention measures in place that can slow the spread of such addiction.
So, where's the money going to come from? Who can afford that huge undertaking? Not the working class, they are already paying the freight for most of America's woes at present, the rich? Don't bet on it. The corporate combinations? Yeah sure.. So there you have it---A nation mired in the citizens self interest, and everybody has a plan--Until, they are asked to pay for it. It's not a political thing, it isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, but it most certainly a money thing and that leads us back around to politics and party allegiances. Looks as though those who really want some hard answers are going to have to lay down their tired old political cliches and actually begin to think. And that will be a real challenge, start the process, build the housing, staff the facilities, provide the path that leads beyond the economic/social barriers. Oh, but what about the money, where's the money??
Not quite. Biden ran as a middle of the road Democrat, in the curent configuration of the party. He was actually pretty clever in how he positioned himself in the middle between Bloomberg to his right and Warren & Sanders to his left. If you paid attemtion to the primaries, Klobuchar was to his right too and in some cases Buttigieg on certain issues. Biden cleverly outmanuevered them by subtly taking Warren-like positions when he needed to.
Because he is an old school white male who talks like one, and doesn't call himself a socialist, he "seemed" centrist. But he wasn't. Only in the context of the Democrats now having a real left wing again now that Sanders has a bloc, is Biden a centrist.
If you read Biden's website, he took pretty left positions, clearly a few steps left of Obama, on almost everything. On climate in particular.
Quote:
While I would like to see party change in Governorship, unfortunately I do not think it will actually mean much to real QOL in Oregon. People here are not really that interested in change. They still cling to naive thoughts about Gov't. Kotek will likely easily win because the other two will essentially "cancel each other out." Don't hold your breath people for a lot of positive change in Oregon, likely ain't happening. Hope I am wrong.
I have no idea why Betsy Johnson has decided to tack conservative, but that's what she's doing. And yeah it's a stupid move, allowing Kotek to consolidate her side while she and Drazan fight over a smaller pool of voters.
Buehler should have run again, but it's not clear he could have won the R primary.
The Ninth Circuit Court Boise VS Martin decision has laid out the parameters that would allow for removal of sidewalk campers:
*The ruling held that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if they do not have enough homeless shelter beds available for their homeless population.[2][3] It did not necessarily mean a city cannot enforce any restrictions on camping on public property.[quote=jertheber;64093380]
You are overthinking this issue. Fence off a vacant lot in middle of nowhere, throw in some porta potties and viola - you created "shelter beds" for the homeless. Then clear the streets and put them in there. If they come out - put them back in.
Or ignore a court. Private citizens, gov't and businesses do it all the time. It would take years to sort out and in meantime, the real customers of city gov't. (i.e.the taxpaying, law abiding citizen) are properly taken care of.
Why do so many folks in Portland assume it is the role of a city gov't to solve the societal weaknesses (drug addiction) of some people, many who are not even from here. This always amuses me. Where is that written into a city charter? Liberal cities always overthink their role.
I lived in Arlington Heights IL, a fairly well off suburb of Chicago. Great city council and mayor. When "do gooders" wanted them to enact more BS social crap, they were very clear that there job was to represent taxpayers of the town- period. Local police ran scumbags out of town as soon as they showed up. No leniency towards homeless or panhandlers lest they get the idea they are welcome. It was a nice place to live.
It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit being filed by the 10 disabled plaintiffs, concerning their lack of access to sidewalks in Portland will go. They want the tents removed because their access of getting from point to point, is being completely hindered by tents and homeless campers citywide forcing them into the streets.
I'm surprised this type of lawsuit against the city of Portland has taken all this time. Mobility Scooters, blind pedestrians, people in wheel chairs. I can understand how tents and camps all over the sidewalks, would force the disabled into the streets. A relative of mine that is disabled moved out of Portland over to an assisted living in Vancouver, because she was afraid of all the problems in Portland. I was talking to her yesterday and she doubts, even with the lawsuit that things will change very little in Portland. That the homeless have all the rights at the taxpayers expense.
I don't blame the disabled people at all for filing their law suit. I hope they win.
What I do wonder though. Isn't a number of the problems associated with Portland's deterioration being intentionally allowed to happen? I don't believe for a moment Portland's decline is just how it is, or Covid was very hard on the city. Baloney the City Gov't is definitely allowing many of the problems to get so out of hand, that the residents finally say Enough is Enough and file lawsuits. I just can't figure out the Why to letting Portland intentionally fall apart as it has.
Hate for who? People who would falsely claim with no evidence that he stole his election via an unrealistically vast conspiracy? People who would try (and fail) to blackmail foreign leaders into investigating his son in an attempt to smear his family? People who would summon a lie addled mob to storm the capitol to try to interrupt the constitutional duty of the Congress and the Vice President to count the electoral votes that he won? And you say Biden lacks moral character? If that's true, what does that say about his opponents?
If anyone treated you and your family like that, you'd hate them too.
.
Geez- If you believe that Biden should hate Trump for those things (most of which all political parties do), I gotta believe you must have a lot of sympathy for Trump, given the hating crap the media and Democrats heaped on that guy and his family.
What pants peeing, Biden has endured is NOTHING compared to what the media, Hollywood and Democrats heaped on Trump and his family for: 1) the two years prior to his election, 2) the fours years of his Presidency and 3) the two years since. TDS is most definitely real in these people.
For all the lunacy/idiocy Biden brings to the Presidency; once he is gone, no one will care nor ever even mention him again.
It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit being filed by the 10 disabled plaintiffs, concerning their lack of access to sidewalks in Portland will go. They want the tents removed because their access of getting from point to point, is being completely hindered by tents and homeless campers citywide forcing them into the streets.
I'm surprised this type of lawsuit against the city of Portland has taken all this time. Mobility Scooters, blind pedestrians, people in wheel chairs. I can understand how tents and camps all over the sidewalks, would force the disabled into the streets. A relative of mine that is disabled moved out of Portland over to an assisted living in Vancouver, because she was afraid of all the problems in Portland. I was talking to her yesterday and she doubts, even with the lawsuit that things will change very little in Portland. That the homeless have all the rights at the taxpayers expense.
I don't blame the disabled people at all for filing their law suit. I hope they win.
Agreed. It is a valid issue they have. The public right of ways are not for camping!
Quote:
What I do wonder though. Isn't a number of the problems associated with Portland's deterioration being intentionally allowed to happen? I don't believe for a moment Portland's decline is just how it is, or Covid was very hard on the city. Baloney the City Gov't is definitely allowing many of the problems to get so out of hand, that the residents finally say Enough is Enough and file lawsuits. I just can't figure out the Why to letting Portland intentionally fall apart as it has.
Yeah, I used to defend it as Covid related. It's true Covid did damage the city significantly. But after spending more time in PDX it seems like more damage was self-inflicted than I realized. And we're now out of covid, and the city is being inexorably slow at cleaning up compared to lots of other places.
At this point I would call it willful negligence. Similar to your friend I wonder why the homeless get all these protections and they get to flaunt the laws the govern right of ways, etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
