FROM THE EDITOR

Published 12:00 am Friday, March 31, 2017

Inner Southeast has had occasional issues with campers spreading garbage and debris while making a temporary home in public parks, along the edge of McLoughlin Boulevard, and on private property.

However, those who have recently traveled downtown or to sections of outer East Portland have seen how appallingly worse the problem can be; and at least part of the problem is that the city seems paralyzed in enforcing the laws and rules that would prohibit public nuisances.

The city efforts to find a way to offer “affordable housing” is a useful approach to resolving a part of the problem, but certainly far from all of it.

And, to us, the reason for this perplexing paralysis by the City of Portland — and many other cities around the country, even including Los Angeles — in cleaning up garbage and debris on sites (including lots and sidewalks) that have become a blight on the community may be that seemingly all homeless people are being swept into the same category: And that category is the “involuntary homeless” who are unhoused simply due to financial setbacks or financial shortcomings.

That is certainly part of the problem, as living space is becoming increasingly expensive to rent or buy, here and elsewhere.

But, in our view, there are at least three major — and very different — categories of homelessness, and only solutions targeting each category can start to make a dent in solving these problems. And while public policy concentrates mostly on the first category, those that the residents of the city tend to fear most are in the third category. Neither perception is correct, but we can’t get anywhere addressing the issues involved until we are all on the same page.

The first category is the one just mentioned — the involuntary homeless, who have been forced out of their home by rent increases, or job loss, or divorce. For them, affordable housing offers real hope; they simply want to find a place to live and want to get back on their feet again.

The second category is the “voluntary homeless”. It may come as a surprise, but some people LIKE to be homeless. Our own consciousness was raised in this regard a few years ago when a gentleman came, by invitation, to a SMILE meeting in Sellwood to explain that he was homeless by choice, liked the lifestyle, and even had staked out his own semi-permanent quarters on a hillside not far from the west end of the Sellwood Bridge. To make a little money, he sold the “Street Roots” newspaper on area sidewalks, and just wanted to be respected.

He was well-spoken, and reminded us that life on the streets or spent traveling the country on freight trains is hardly new — there have been such vagabonds for centuries: Hoboes, Gentlemen of the Road, etc. Some in this category see nothing wrong in begging, thinking that contributions made to them are voluntary and charitable.

No homelessness initiative is likely to change those in category two, since they are in it by choice, and often simply seek to be unobtrusive.

The third category is the most toxic one, and it has several subdivisions. In that category are the mentally ill, and/or the criminal element, and/or the addicted. They tend to be antisocial in various ways, and may view attempts to help them end their homelessness is an opportunity to take advantage of the system — or an unwelcome intrusion into their personal world. They trash parks, leave needles and human waste about, menace others, and commit crimes both petty and serious.

Society has a responsibility to those in the third category — but it is not a responsibility to put up with them and what they do, but to respond to them appropriately. If they are mentally ill, the city and state have a responsibility to place them somewhere where they will not be a danger to themselves or to everybody else.

If they are addicted and do not seek assistance with their addiction — or if they are simply drawn to criminality — they must be held legally responsible for antisocial actions, which often include the crimes of burglary and theft, rising to attacks against others, and even murder.

These thoughts of the editor may be considered by some to be politically incorrect, but the residents of Portland who have been victimized by those in the third category have been complaining and protesting for legal relief for quite a while, and often without much response.

Relief surely must start by recognizing that there are several completely different types of homelessness instead of just one, and that each type must be addressed separately, if they are to be addressed effectively.

At least, perhaps here we might be starting a conversation that we have not yet heard take place elsewhere on this subject.