From the article regarding vagrants littering the streets... "The rub, Leonard says, is that the city hasn't given the homeless enough other places to go"

The city hasn't given them a place to go? Are you kidding me?

Here's a novel idea, how about to work? How about some temp work? How about some day labor? Addiction? How about going to the places that help with that? Mental illness? There are places for that as well.

When will the city get real and stop this perpetuating cycle of enabling and continue to allow for a pathetic standard of livng for their fellow man and woman.

Putting in showers, toilets, and benches is insulting and does nothing. It also continues with a large presence of unsightly vagrants. Filthy beggars at every corner to greet and make people feel uncomfortable, yes uncomfortable. Last time I checked this is my city as well... I work, pay taxes, and support the city core. Far from my comfort I think about added revenue (health of local economy) from visitors and the like... you read it on travel forums even MSNBC did a special on homelessness is Portland, people are shocked and dismayed at the level of vagrants when they visit here.

Harsh words? I suppose, but from my perspective it's far more harsh and rude to tolerate and accept that level of exsistence, that kind of living. While The Mercury tries to paint a pretty and sympathetic picture of homelessness, the reality is disease, death, rape, murder, fear, hunger, addiction, fights, gangs, and harassment is what is more common for people on the streets.

Unacceptable. Apparently, the Mercury would rather cry foul, hurl accusations, and sing kumbaya than get real about vagrants on the streets. Or blame the Oregonian for hating homeless, or blame the PDC, or blame the PBA...

How about looking in the mirror, you may feel good about kicking down some change or buying a cheeseburger, or a copy of streetroots... like you've done your part, good for you feeling smug and proud... the person you "helped" is shivering in some shrub wasting away. Way to go!

I'm sorry Atlas, I started reading that but dropped off. Last thing I remember I was counting all these sheep with swastikas on their fleeces. Can you sum up what you just said in terms that won't send me to sleep?

To actually answer your questions, Atlas, the ultimate goal--which is now, according to Sten, FINALLY moving forward, but that's been said before--is a permanent day access center that would offer services to get people off the street, with job training and placement, addiction treatment, mental health referrals, and permanent housing options.

For whatever reason, the city decided it needed the Sit-Lie law in place before that much-needed facility opens, so the showers, bathrooms, lockers, et al., are a stopgap measure to make sure people have a place to go and get cleaned up as a trade-off for kicking them off the sidewalks. None of this will "solve" homelessness, and there's still going to be plenty of people who refuse (or are mentally incapable of) a mainstream life.

That said, you've obviously never spent any time volunteering at a shelter or soup kitchen, or a place like Outside In, else you'd know how ludicrously off-the-mark your characterizations are. So, let's talk about you--what traumatic event in your life led to this over-sized hatred of the homeless?

Greek mythology, Scott! Thanks to the tyrant Zeus, he has the weight of the world on his shoulders...

ludicrously off the mark?

oversized hatred? (is there such a thing?)

Sorry I'll keep this short, I donate to charity and do my best to support institutions I perceive to be of consequence. I do not think not tolerating that level of existence equates "hatred" but I can see why you may read my words as such. I use off-putting terms like vagrants, litter, and bums because I do not think as a civilized society painting it rosy does anybody good. It's a shame.

I am reminded of something John D. Rockefeller once said "Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it."

I see far too many people giving charity in a reckless manner. I see Matt Davis earnestly galloping about in all his noble smugness in this light...

I'm collecting insults. Right now I'm liking "nobly smug, self-obsessed thought-nazi" as the best summary.

Thank God Atlas is here to dictate the correct manner in which to be charitable.

It's like the lobbyist for the PBA assuring city council yesterday that there were enough services online to meet the needs of the homeless. Because if there's one organization suited to assess the needs of the homeless, it's the Portland Business Alliance.

But, I'm not sure what Atlas means by "tolerating that level of existence." Is there a minimum level of existence that we can all agree on, and anyone who can't achieve it gets, what?, thrown in jail?

Atlas, have you ever been homeless yourself? Do you have any family members that are? I do, I have an uncle, let's just say he likes the sauce, but he's content living in bus stops and working odd jobs for his addiction. On the other hand my mother has been homeless for about a year now. Not because of drugs or anything, but because her trade outgrew her ability to adapt. (She cut hair) And after 30 years of the same thing, cutting the same peoples hair, those clients started dying off. Eventually she couldn't pay rent or bills and was hardly making due, even with all of the state "help". She's been bouncing from shelter to friends houses ever since.

The truth is, most governments believe if you can't see it the problem isn't there. That's what the sit/lie is trying to do, but in return for the homeless... vacating.... areas during the specific time the city promised a place for them to go. I thing every major city should have a public shower area for simple hygiene reasons. It's a lot easier to find work... even if it's to support a habit... if you are clean. I think the city should have a public laundry facility as well.

In any case, the homeless population can be spilt, roughly, into two categories. 1: people who are content living on the streets and 2: people who are, by their own fault or no fault of their own, down on their luck at the bottom of a hole they may or may not have dug themselves.

In closing (I apologize for the rant) don't be too quick to judge people. Just like I don't judge you for being an idiot.