Support Local Journalism!      

Link to Owner Dr. Robert B. Pamplin Jr.

FONT & AUDIO

MORE STORIES


The newspapers submitted five questions to the candidates for Portland City Council Position 3; not all responded.

What is the best and quickest thing the City Council can do, as soon as possible, to reduce the number of people living in minimal shelter outside?

Ed Baker — We need to think bigger. We need teams of compassionate people to go out and attempt to reach each person living on the streets of Portland. We need to learn their story. We need to personalize their action plan. We need to let them know that they are valuable and that people care about them. We need to get them back to having a passion for life. We need to take advantage of churches and other volunteers to help provide some of the things needed to help them. Ultimately we need to think very big. I want to see a large facility that can offer longterm shelter for people. At this facility I would like to have everything they need to live successfully. Hygeine items, individual and group Counseling, Medical care, advocates and case managers to help with paperwork, Recreation, Entertainment, Education, Meals, Laundry, Hair cuts, Exercise, showers, etc.

Rene Gonzalez — Immediately expand emergency shelter options — plain and simple. This includes traditional shelters, as well as safe sleeping and parking options for RVS. Such an approach may require us to redirect funding from long-term permanent housing to the construction of large emergency shelters where we can congregate addiction and mental health services.

The expansion of shelter, sleeping, and parking options that offer safety and basic services will allow us to enforce existing laws against unsanctioned camping, on the books since 1981, and begin permanently clearing the camps and RV sites occupying parks, sidewalks, and streets across the city. This will also allow us to concentrate much needed services — the data shows 80% of the unsheltered are suffering from some form of disability, the largest segment of which is addiction followed by mental illness. Many suffer from both.

What we are allowing to transpire on our streets is simply inhumane, as well as unfair to the city and its residents. No solution will be perfect, but we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good and we need to start cleaning up our city, now.

Jo Ann Hardesty —

1. Audit the over 14,000 vacant rentals and to identify opportunities to immediately house up to 3,000 houseless persons.

2. Immediately setup Safe Park and Safe Rest Villages as planned, and expand if needed into additional publicly available properties.

3. Refocus affordable housing new development in the 0-60% median income range.

Dale Hardt — Open RV and trailer parks with full service at low income prices. Rv's and trailers are becoming a permanent alternative for home ownership at minimal cost.

Kim Kasch — Open up the Safe Rest Villages, which were approved so the houseless could be moved quickly. But many months later we still haven't seen them open up. I would like to see them open for service.

Of course, my stance is that moving people off the streets isn't the only objective. We need transitional health care including a focus on substance use and mental health components because if the goal is simply to move people off the street, it won't take long before they are back on the streets. We need a holistic approach over the longer term to help people be successful. With my B.S. from Portland State University and my many years of working in the legal field and with the Morrison Center, Hand-in-Hand program, as a Treatment Foster Parent, I will partner with organizations to make sure Portlanders get the help they need to stay housed.

Chad Leisey — The best solution is to bring the city and county commissioners together alongside the heads of the wonderful volunteer groups we have thought the community to have an open discussion and come up with a united plan with goals set by all and actually stick to the plan. These groups need to meet on a weekly basis, NOT ONCE EVERY MOTH OR TWO OR SIX. We have a major communication issue within our city. Right now we have the funding to make a huge difference with the 2.5 billion over the next ten years as long as we have a set plan instead of throwing money at a problem hoping it goes away. Not only are we currently throwing money at things, a lot of money is being funneled into improper departments, we need accountability for misused funds and follow the money trail.

Vadim Mozyrsky — People living in our streets are in desperate need of mental health, drug addiction, and housing services. Yet a recent Oregonian survey revealed that the vast majority of the people living outside never received outreach for housing services. We can do better by providing more shelter options which become a gateway for stability and services that can help people turn their lives around. Having people live in shelters is not ideal, but it is better than the current alternative where people are dying on the streets, and suffering from brutality, hunger, heat and cold. Additional shelters will save lives, and while I agree that

shelters are not the ideal long-term solution, I also cannot argue that the current solutions leave too many people literally out in the cold

Part of that is accountability. Holding people accountable without providing them an opportunity to change their lives is punitive. But if you give people an opportunity to change their lives without holding people accountable, that won't work in the long-term. Thanks to ongoing funding, the new Metro homeless services tax, and federal economic relief funding, we are well on our way to providing needed services. Consequently, I am a proponent of incentivizing people to move to shelters as a means to receiving needed services.

In my first 60 days in office I will convene a summit of private and public-sector leaders from businesses, neighborhood associations, nonprofit organizations, service providers, and city and county officials to provide a clear plan for short- and mid-term shelter spaces along Built for Zero principles.

Concurrently, representatives from service providers will convene to outline how to best triage people to shelter options appropriate to their needs.

Peggy Sue Owens — Work closely with our volunteer groups, Portland Rescue mission, Jean's place, Transition Projects , My fathers house just to name a few. These groups have far more experience working with the homeless population than anyone on the counsel. Utilize unused city properties, targeted rental assistance for families.

Joseph Whitcomb — It would be to bring our local government together, the city and county commissioners, with volunteer groups who already have set plans on how to help our homeless. Where we have a regular community meeting with an open forum to discuss and build a concrete plan with goals made by those who actually understand how to help our homeless, then follow said plan. This group of volunteers and government should meet once a week for follow up and to check on the progress of the plan. I believe there is a large budget in place for the crisis in front of us and if we put together a concrete plan, we will have the funding to change how our cities are looking, instead of putting dollars towards programs with no results or just don't work. With a plan that has resolution, we find transparency for funds received and how that money is used.

What is the best and quickest thing the City Council can do, as soon as possible, to reduce gun violence?

Ed Baker — I would ask the Police Bureau for their recommendations. I would do my best to give them the funding necessary to achieve the goals. I am not for punishing anyone who hasn't committed a crime. There shouldn't be any changes to the laws or rights of those who haven't done anything wrong.

Rene Gonzalez — Funding police, in particular specialists in gun and gang violence. Our city council — through budgeting decisions and the "defund police culture" it reflects - have allowed our city to reach a historic low in the ratio of officers to population, which makes our streets much more dangerous.

While police count is important, assuring adequate funding for specialist in gun and gang violence as well as community policing are equally so. The former are experts at preventing retaliatory shootings, by deescalating escalating conflicts between gang members; the latter are essential in collaborating with non-police social services, preventing violent situations from occurring.

To recruit and retain police officers, we also need to change the rhetoric coming out of city hall. We have somehow allowed an important national conversation about race, police accountability and oversight to devolve into endless demonization of police, which has led to a collective breakdown of public confidence in law enforcement here in Portland. We have all been the worse for it.

It emboldens would-be criminals and casts doubt on the willingness or ability of the city and its residents to respond, driving vigilantism and privatization of police functions. Changing this tone is the first and most impactful step toward assuring stable law enforcement staffing and building a first-class justice system in Portland over the longer term.

Jo Ann Hardesty —

1. Fund additional outreach to neighborhoods interested in comprehensive violence prevention strategies similar to what we achieved in the Mt.-Scott Arleta Neighborhood combining police, parks, and transportation bureau efforts.

2. Fully implement the voter-approved police accountability measures, increasing community trust and engagement in any future focused police intervention units.

3. Enact state new sensible gun control laws.

Dale Hardt — Strip every budget of any non essential items and redirect the allocated funds to the police force. Allow the chief to determine where the money would best be applied.

Kim Kasch — I will support more funding to bring back the Police Bureau's Gun Violence Reduction Team, which was eliminated in January of 2019.

The city of Portland also defunded the police by $15 million dollars. And, "for Portland, 2021 was the most violent year on record, reaching the highest number of homicides in one year the city has ever documented."

I would also offer more funding to the police which will include mental health and substance use services for Portlanders.

I would also expand pre-arrest intervention and diversion programs and partner with local businesses to empower people affected by the lack of transitional healthcare.

With my B.S. in psychology from Portland State University, I'll continue supporting those affected by addiction, especially due to houselessness and poverty as well as by increasing safety funding and mental health partnerships.

I will also require an extensive investigation into the justice system's release of dangerous offenders. I will also work to expand Portland Street Response, and work to create more support and resources for The Portland Police Bureau to utilize while responding to volatile situations: such as:

1. Have an on-staff therapist/social worker available at all times to answer questions posed by the police while they are in the field;

2. Have a staff certified therapist who can ride along with police officers to assist in de-escalating volatile situations; and,

3. Provide more training to officers.

Chad Leisey — COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE CITY… Funding for the police departments, to be clear there needs to be a rule with the funding that no money shall be used for tanks and other military style equipment. Our Commissioners and city employees also need to start treating our officers like humans rather than dogs. Like any job, if you are treated horribly, you will quit or take your frustration out on the people you serve. Community involvement and building a relationship of trust between the PPB and the citizens. Holding our city attorney responsible and forcing them to charge criminals, along with suing the county attorney forcing them to do their job as well. I have many long term ideas that may work for the PPB as well.

Vadim Mozyrsky — To reduce gun violence we need both intervention and prevention. First, we need to remove illegal guns off the streets. Since the Focused Intervention Team has had a measurable impact on reducing gun violence and confiscating illegal firearms. We need to build upon this effort by utilizing officers on Neighborhood Response Teams. The City should at the same time hold listening tours in key neighborhoods to better understand the challenges of past gun violence units and provide additional training, supervision, analytics, and risk monitoring to ensure these teams work with communities.

We need to maximize existing resources and place more officers on patrol in key neighborhoods.

To do so, we should review current staffing utilization to find efficiencies and re-allocate officers from desk and staffing events where possible.

We need to expand strategic partnership with state police and federal partners to share critical information and intelligence.

Mental health and public safety are related. Gun violence stemming from our homeless community needs to be better addressed, and we should focus existing community mental health services on areas of direct need for those experiencing homelessness.

Peggy Sue Owens — Increase the police presence!!! Learn to treat our police officers with respect, provide them with the resources necessary to do their jobs. Whether it's manpower, training, etc.

Joseph Whitcomb — Fund our Peace/Law Enforcement Department! If you haven't notice, criminals DON'T follow the law or rules. Next, our government need to start respecting and supporting our Peace Officers who put their life on the line to protect theirs and ours. These officers are being shot at, are involved in high-speed chases, or dealing with criminals resisting arrest; so, they need support and the equipment to get the job done. Remember criminals do NOT obey rules and laws.

Let's bring back programs where Peace Officers go to schools to meet students and build a relationship. Have the officer's hand out sport cards (i.e. Trailblazers, Winterhawks, Timber, Thorns) from their patrol cars, again to build a relationship.

Also, making sure when an Officer brings in a suspect for arrest, does all their work properly, the DA will actually prosecute the criminal. How defeating it must be to an officer to arrest a criminal, only to arrest the same criminal two days later committing the same crime. This is a slap in the face of law enforcement. Bad choice by those officials.

Do you support or oppose a freeze on Portland Clean Energy Benefit Fund spending until questions raised about its management by the City Auditor's Office and much higher than predicted tax collections are resolved? If so, what are your reform proposals?

Ed Baker — I don't know enough about this at this time. The way this is worded leads me to believe a freeze would be appropriate. I would rely on input from a number of people who are up on this.

Rene Gonzalez — A short-term freeze and some refinement make sense. Like so many ballot measures pushed through recently, the program was poorly conceived and execution has been lacking. In particular tose identified by the City Auditor: defining clear goals and developing oversight and accountability systems to address unpredictable revenue and unclear administrative costs.

Adopting public procurement principles is a given — it makes no sense that we put public contractors through extensive procurement scrutiny, but Clean Energy Fund grant recipients receive no such scrutiny.

I would like us to consider pivoting the Program to focus on local environment concerns, including resiliency to global warming, illegal dumping, and improving air quality and water quality. Focusing on what Portlanders can most directly impact — our local environment — is the best use of locally raised dollars. Initiatives focused on building our tree canopy, which cools our city during summer heat; promoting EV use; and weatherizing buildings are venerable uses of these dollars and align with the fund's purpose. While our Bull Run water is some of the most pristine in the world, it can be corrosive to older pipes; including initiatives that efficiently address lead levels in our water, particularly for those in older buildings, should be considered.

Jo Ann Hardesty — I oppose a freeze. The vision behind PCEF was to directly invest in those who are first impacted, worst impacted, and least resourced to manage the increasingly catastrophic, existential threat of climate change.

Prior to over 65% of Portland voters approving the Portland Clean Energy Fund, the Director of Finance for the City of Portland estimated this fund would bring in around $30 million. There was a plan to build the program based on that assessment.

During my first year on Council, it became clear there were some unintended consequences with revenue collection, such as taxing construction when we need to rapidly build more housing. Mayor Wheeler and I worked with the PCEF coalition and Portland Business Alliance to reach a resolution on exemptions. That was the kind of partnership and collaboration I expected moving forward from Portland Business Alliance, but instead we now have an opportunistic attempt to sabotage one of the most innovative new programs in the country after it received its first ever audit.

After making those exemptions, we later learned that the revenue forecast for PCEF exceeded original expectations due to the skyrocketing profits of the wealthiest corporations during this pandemic. Recently an audit highlighted common issues with new start up programs, with the Auditor stating to OPB that, "What you're seeing is something that should be expected." The audit provided recommendations for improvement that I agree with. I know Council and the PCEF Committee are up to the task of getting this right and we are working to make sure systems are in place to help with this unanticipated extra revenue. This additional revenue provides exciting new opportunities for further community investments and creating a new green groundbreaking new City program from scratch.

Council will be responding to the recommendations outlined in the recent audit and we are willing to work with anyone that is seriously interested in solutions.

Dale Hardt — If there is even the slightest hint of a problem within an area not absolutely essential to the city's operation then that operation should be suspended without action due to the current state of emergency. Every available resource should be focused on the current emergency until it is resolved to the people's satisfaction.

Kim Kasch — New programs always need to have very clear objectives, with clearly stated goals and benchmarks to achieve success. These clear objectives, with stated goals and benchmarks do not currently exist, which is why I support a freeze on the spending until these lacks are corrected and accounted for.

The recent audit found huge lacks in oversight and with over 100 million dollars in grants set to be disbursed in June, which is more than twice the city's expected general fund allotment to the Joint Office of Homeless Services for 2023, and with much higher than predicted tax collections, it is clear we need to slow down to make sure the city is being responsible with the tax funds it is collecting.

We need to also make sure the city is utilizing integrity so that we can count on the future success of the clean energy program itself.

It also appears there are major problems, associated with the legislation as written and approved by voters.

Mostly, we need to make sure the measure has clear oversight. Currently, a committee of volunteers makes funding recommendations and evaluates the program's effectiveness. We need to make sure the committee is sufficiently trained to accomplish its tasks, including providing specific goals and guidelines.

Chad Leisey — I do support a freeze. We are over taxed to begin with, let alone being deceived into passing a bill that would collect far more than we were originally led to believe. I am a huge supporter of taking action to help the environment but not at the cost of deception of the tax payers. The management of the funds need to be reviewed to assure the funds are actually being spent on the things they were intended for rather than funneled into other programs and possibly into political affiliate pockets (I am not making any accusations, simply expressing an issue I believe to be very real possibility). There must be accountability for the use of tax payer funds.

Vadim Mozyrsky — Yes, I support a temporary freeze on PCEF spending until the critical issues raised in the City Auditor's report are addressed. The clean energy fund is greatly exceeding funding expectations, yet in the two years since inception, the fund has not created performance, accountability and equity targets and measurement systems that were promised to the voters. The city auditors actually recommended that exact remedy in the initial draft of the report. To release the expected $100 million in funding this year with adequate accountability measures would further erode voters' trust in our governmental institutions.

I would enact the six recommendations contained in the Auditor's report. Further, to ensure transparency and accountability across all bureaus, I would propose a review of all bureau grant and related ethics protocols to ensure uniformity and best practices. We need to make sure that the public is confident that the lapse that occurred in PCEF's grant process is not occurring in other governmental entities. Our commissioner form of government insulates bureaus and allows for disparate grant processes and accountability measures. Better uniformity and high standards will allow our government to make expenditures while maintaining the trust of voters.

Peggy Sue Owens — Yes, all government agencies are supposed to work for and with the public. No additional taxes should be collected until a complete audit of current collection practices and spending can be evaluated.

Portland voters will be asked to vote on a City Charter reform measure this November that could include hiring a professional city manager to oversee the bureaus; having the mayor elected at large but the other council members elected in geographic districts; and adopting an election process other than winner-take-all. Which charter changes do you support or oppose?

Joseph Whitcomb — Taxation without representation comes to mind. Yes, a freeze is a must. Portland residents are overtaxed and to be coerced into accepting or passing a bill that would be a tax burden on the citizens/voters of Portland at this time is unacceptable; especially, with the cost of living rising faster than the annual income. However, I believe that we need to be diligent and continue working for improved programs which result in better clean energy. As long as they don't destroy the work force. This is a fine thin line . If Portland cannot work, we cannot survive. We must be careful not to cut our own livelihoods. We need better transparency from the City Auditors office and local government before we can promote spending on programs that can deflate the economy in Portland.

Portland voters will be asked to vote on a City Charter reform measure this November that could include hiring a professional city manager to oversee the bureaus; having the mayor elected at large but the other council members elected in geographic districts; and adopting an election process other than winner-take-all. Which charter changes do you support or oppose?

Ed Baker — I believe in working within the system that is in place. That said, I could see a benefit to voting each of the four City Council people in by district. I am open to things like "rank choice voting."

Rene Gonzalez — Charter reform is long overdue. Currently, city commissioners are tasked with both executive and legislative responsibilities, unnecessarily complicating their roles and responsibilities without requiring any executive leadership or management experience. This means that the bureaus inevitably suffer, as do the legislative demands of the position due to onerous and often unqualified bureau leadership. Professionalizing oversight of bureaus is an incredibly positive step.

I also support having the mayor being elected at-large and having other council members elected in geographic districts. There should be a clear leader accountable to the city as a whole.

The at-large system presently in place for the four commissioners is a real problem and is perhaps the most impactful element of change proposed in the upcoming Charter reform measure. Right now, no one really knows where their core constituency is to whom they are directly accountable. Similarly, no one in the city knows exactly which commissioner is "theirs."

This gap has been filled by special interests and explains in large part the weak and ineffectual functioning of city government in many respects. Replacing this system not only restores democratic accountability between elected officials and the communities they serve, it also promises to push out special interests that have filled that space - ideally forcing them to engage with local communities directly instead of circumventing them in an outdated system that needs reform.

Finally, ranked choice voting would be an excellent way to ensure both streamlined costs in elections where a clear winner is evident in November, instead of stretching on through two cycles in the same year. If someone can be a second choice, a coalitional mindset that is positive, locally focused and inclusive gains strategic and practical value.

Note - legal and financial review of the proposed charter changes are underway; I look forward to reviewing their analysis and, based on that review, refreshing our evaluation of the proposed changes.

Jo Ann Hardesty — I was outspoken when I joined the council in 2019 that we have diverse voices on the commission, and they are fully funded to do the work they need to do. I am proud of helping recruit and appoint an incredibly talented group of Portlanders and will support what they recommend. My job as a sitting commissioner is not to influence them before they have issued their formal recommendations, and uphold their independent process. I have every confidence that they will put a well thought out proposal before the voters, and then voters will have the opportunity to decide.

Dale Hardt — I absolutely support any changes that will bring a single leader to the table. We need accountability.

Kim Kasch — Only a few years ago, everyone in the country wanted to move to Portland and every Portlander was proud to call Portland their home.

Unfortunately, I have seen policies and procedures implemented that have eroded the success Portland enjoyed for over a century.

I believe we don't need to recreate the system. I believe we need to restore the system to what it was when it worked well.

We can return Portland to a thriving community by simply returning to the policies and programs that were so successful in the past.

For example:

1. I want to bring back Fareless Square, which was a hugely successful program for 37 years in Portland. The city cut Fareless Square in 2012, which was created to help people get to work and ride around the entire downtown core for free, on mass transit.

2. The city also eliminated the safety teams that used to ride on mass transit to make sure all Portlanders were safe.

These programs were paid for by the Tri-Met business tax.

I would also like to see more funding and support, as well as communications and publicity for the Neighborhood Associations, which have existed for decades.

Portland's current form of government was established in 1913 and worked very well until an exerted effort was made by some local leaders to eliminate the Neighborhood Associations. The Neighborhood Associations fought back and they were not completely eliminated; however, they used to play a much bigger role in keeping all Portlanders informed of what was happening inside the city and what the local leaders were working on to keep Portland productive and successful.

An entirely new system will cost a lot more money to establish and will need to be adjusted and evaluated to see where it needs alterations and adjustments.

It is my belief that we do not need to recreate the wheel, we simply need to pump it back up to what it was only a few years ago when Portland was thriving.

Chad Leisey — I support keeping or changing the local form of government, this should be left to the will of the people. However, either direction the local government may go, we need to start electing people that will take personal responsibility and stop the blame game onto others. Large changes will take time to adjust and our current leaders appear to not be capable of adjusting to current or new changes.

Vadim Mozyrsky — As a member of the Charter Commission, I support the current goals pending city attorney and budgetary reviews. However, I have made my concerns evident during the meetings about possible negative externalities surrounding implementing multimember districts together with rank choice voting. This combination has not been tried, as proposed, anywhere in the United States. While we have received research that there may be beneficial aspects of this proposal when it comes to diversity of representation on City Council, I have not seen definitive proof that the benefits are greater than if we had the same proposed number of seats arising from single-member districts. In any case, I would hope to ensure that the electorate are aware of both the theoretical benefits and any possible negative side-effects of this unique proposal.

Peggy Sue Owens — I will support whatever the public decides. The current system does not accurately represent the various district.

Joseph Whitcomb — I support the current form of government we use. By changing the way our local government is operated, it will place another tax burden on the voters/citizens of Portland. As, I said before, Portland residents are overtaxed and what this new charter will do, is increase taxes to pay for more officials in this city. I believe that the citizens of Portland want to see some resolve in this city before they start giving more taxes and before electing another bureaucrat to office. With that, another issue is, city officials who do not own their mistakes, we need to start electing people who will take ownership of their action; unlike what we have been seeing. As of now, local government needs to show some form of improvement, the type that the majority of Portland citizens will and can support before we get to far into charter changes.

What is the biggest problem facing Portland that no one is talking about?

Ed Baker — Hate directed at people who support President Trump. I have personally been threatened many times for wearing a MAGA hat while walking to the grocery store or riding Tri-Met. I have had more people come up to me and complement my apparel than have been rude about it. Many of them share that they would like to wear something like that, but are afraid to. I am called a Racist frequently. That is very inaccurate and frustrating. I feel that if I were to be assaulted and I would defend myself, I would likely be the one prosecuted in this city. That is a very uncomfortable feeling. We need to have law and order. Those who commit crimes need to be punished for them.

Rene Gonzalez — We forgot that livability was our strength, and that experimentation was a means to that end - not an end in itself.

Recent examples included Measure 110, an unproven model to addiction, largely funded by out-of-state donors who don't face the ramifications of failed policy and placed incredible burdens on our health care system during the pandemic. This has led to horrific outcomes — untreated addiction on our streets and a drug culture that appears to be attracting addicts to our "anything goes" approach. This Measure was adopted over the strenuous objections of local addiction service providers and law enforcement and has perpetuated the perception that Oregon and Portland tolerate any behaviors for addicts, even if destructive to oneself or to others.

Other experiments - the Clean Energy Fund; Preschool Tax; Affordable Housing Bond; tenant protections that are punitive to landlords; inclusionary zoning, infill mandates - all adopted in recent years with little thought to impacts on ordinary citizens and neighborhoods, our tax base, much less how to execute the program and unintended consequences.

The city of Portland has, and can be, an incredible place to live. But the city needs stabilization, not endless experiments from social engineers.

Jo Ann Hardesty — Traffic deaths. Particularly in East Portland due to the lack of infrastructure and high speed crashes.

Dale Hardt — Ghost vehicles that drive around with no license plate and no accountability. These vehicle are assisting in the rise in crime making it extremely difficult to quickly track down owners. They are not insured, safe, or legal to be on the roadways. Yet they are everywhere.

Kim Kasch — Our population, including all of Oregon, has been devastated by the pandemic, including the lack of understanding regarding the long-term impacts of loneliness and social isolation.

We need to bring all Oregonians together again and create community bonds that will help the entire state thrive again. This will include concerted efforts to revitalize small businesses and with the 2021 1.9 billion dollar surplus in the State of Oregon, we can offer tax breaks to small businesses for the next two years and work to create travel and tourism initiatives to help revitalize the city and the state.

Chad Leisey — We have a major sex trafficking and drug distribution issue. This is a problem that needs to be talked about more and addressed.

Vadim Mozyrsky — In my conversations with government officials, developers, business associations and small business owners, there appears to be a noticeable exodus of businesses and more affluent individuals to the suburbs or Washington state. While many are discussing this in terms of the future vitality of Portland, few are discussing the possible tax revenue effects that would have on the city. It is quite possible that as expenditures need to increase to address the crises in homelessness, crime, and affordable housing availability, the revenue streams might decrease due to capital outflow and decreased tourism dollars.

This could lead to a vicious cycle where low livability standards, decreased government services, and high taxes result in even a greater outflow.

To avert this, we need to quickly address livability standards and incentivize the retention of businesses as well as attract small business to Portland, particularly in fields that will see growth in the next decade.

Peggy Sue Owens — Mental and physical health. Covid has changed the way people interact with their doctors. It has become increasingly difficult to seek help. In five years, people will be dying of treatable diseases because they weren't able to get an earlier diagnosis. Depression is on the rise due to any number of factors.

Joseph Whitcomb — It is between child sex trafficking and/or Portland legalized drugs, where the city is giving the addict the tools and/or the funds to do those drugs!?


You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.


Have a thought or opinion on the news of the day? Get on your soapbox and share your opinions with the world. Send us a Letter to the Editor!

Go to top