I'm very excited to see the successes of Portland’s new approach to the homelessness crisis, as described in Danny Westneat's article "Portland goes where Seattle won’t on homelessness" on January 18, 2025, in the Seattle Times. At the same time, however, the description of Portland’s plan makes me very nervous because great ideas can be permanently stained by poor execution. I worry that Portland may be setting itself up for a type of failure that people will be able to use to unfairly criticize all kinds of shelter programs around the country.

One properly-funded and well-staffed shelter where people can feel safe, have some of their own space, a place to store belongings, options to bring their animals, on-site connections to resources, and, critically, timely access to appropriate and attainable housing is more effective and valuable to a community than several half-supported shelters with mats on floors tended by well-meaning volunteers. 

Not only will the latter in that comparison not serve our vulnerable unhoused neighbors well in the long run, but it will also be taken out of context and used as an example for how ineffective shelter beds are to justify the desires of many jurisdictions to provide fewer services. This could have a devastating effect, making it harder for communities to implement well-run shelters when they do find traction.

Plans like the one Portland is implementing must thoughtfully take into account the reasons people give for not making use of shelter facilities. The reasons are as innumerable as the people who share them, but some that I've heard include:

• Not feeling safe at a particular location

• Past traumatic experiences like abuse

• Dangerous/unhealthy relationships with people at the shelter or in the area around the shelter

• Importance of staying with family or their community who may not be able to go to the shelter for any of the reasons listed here or others

• Many shelters separate mothers from sons if they are over 13 years old

• Shelter pulls them too far away from where they have employment

• Importance of staying with their animals

• Active bans at shelters

• Often, but not always, from some behavior issue related to the reason the person is unhoused in the first place - mental healthcare failing to properly diagnose and treat people who require much more assistance than they’re receiving

• Legitimate fears of crowds, sanitation, and even simply being indoors - it can take time to get used to being in a confined space after spending so long outside and vulnerable.

• The number of times people have been in and out of shelter systems without being connected to the effective services and subsidized housing resources they need to get safely and sustainably off the streets.

These are just a few of the important reasons why “only about a quarter of people offered shelter by outreach teams in Seattle take it and leave the street,” but these reasons never seem to be factored into any decision-making about how shelters are used or what resources are needed in a community; the critiques always stop at “we reached out, but they didn’t want the resources.” 

Treating this crisis as a full-on emergency is what MUST be done. The point here is that “success” for this new shelter network must not be inextricably connected to how many people get housed directly from these facilities - the lack of housing needs to be recognized and emphasized every single time this discussion hits the public consciousness. Shelter is not housing. Shelters are vital tools that people need access to on their journey back into housing. Without housing to move people into, shelter networks are doomed to failure. It doesn’t matter how fantastic the shelter people have access to. If housing remains as unattainable as it currently is, the homeless crisis will continue to grow rapidly. 

I sincerely wish Mayor Wilson every success with his plan. To find that success, I hope that he listens intently to counsel from boots-on-the-ground service providers in his area because they know, in their very bones, what needs to happen to help the people they care for. They know where the waste is in the system, and they know what stands in the way of people making progress towards treatment, employment, and housing every single day. Politicians and NIMBY community members have no clue about anything beyond their own front door and will derail every effort they can for no reason other than it makes them feel important. The service providers are the key to driving these programs toward success. The causes of homelessness are immeasurably complex because people are complex, but the solutions, as the service providers well know, can and should be simple.

As the article points out, Seattle’s response to this crisis has been single-minded: all housing-first (which I support as properly implemented) with completely lacking temporary shelter solutions until that housing becomes available. It’s a ridiculous approach. My hope is that Portland’s new response does not swing the pendulum too far the other way and hyperfocus on “solutions” that are meant to be temporary for our vulnerable neighbors. Any actual, long-term solution MUST be well-rounded and create a complete network, including various temporary shelter options, treatment, education, supportive housing, subsidized housing, and a healthier overall housing market that doesn’t continue to feed the system.

Harrell’s sweeps in Seattle have accomplished nothing - they are not making people safer or easier to serve or connect to resources. They have contributed to the increase in unhoused people and have tortured countless of our neighbors, wasting resources and destroying more of the city. It’s just easy to point to a place and say, “look, there had been x number of people there and so many of them overdosed or had conflicts last year and now we kicked them all out so those numbers are all zero.” That gets applause from an exhausted and myopic community because they have blinders on to all the places people end up after they’re swept away and forgotten. The only reason there is no “political will” for a ban on “camping” in Seattle is because the math so overwhelmingly does not add up. In most cities, it’s less painfully obvious that there are not nearly enough beds, but in Seattle it’s a joke - not to say they won’t try it eventually anyway…

I love Mayor Wilson’s drive and especially his creativity in making use of the spaces available in his city to prioritize his vulnerable constituents. I have not very often seen that kind of creativity and willpower to get things done among the politicians I have met and worked with. I do very much worry that his response will be too superficial, too reactionary, and under-supported both financially and systemically to be successful. Failure of any kind will not only be bad for the people of Portland, housed and unhoused alike but also for the state-wide movement we need to see toward more compassionate service networks that incorporate ALL of these tools including various shelter models.