C'mon Matt. Erik afraid to go head to head with PBA? What's he been doing for the last two years, with PGE and then the race against Burdick and her anti-VOE friends there?

I think it's very unfortunate the delay may well go down to defeat because Sten's not there. But to say it's because he's afraid of taking on the PBA...I have to think that's nonsense.

Torrid, try to get over it.

Erik's effectively made a deal with the PBA agreeing not to critique its role in bullying the sit/lie through, as long as the PBA doesn't try to block his permanent day access center further down the line.

That's why he describes his view on this as "pragmatic." Because he's got bigger fish to fry.

But you know, when it comes down to it, the PBA has bullied its way to get this ordinance. And Randy Leonard is the only commissioner on the council with the balls to get up and make that clear.

Perhaps it's because Leonard doesn't have a long-term stake in the homeless shelter, or because Sten's a shrewd politician—we're the only paper in town to give him shit for this, after all.

But either way, I don't like it when people's dignity is bargained away for some elusive, supposed "long term gain."

It's bullshit, and just because Sten is supposedly "the homeless commissioner," the savior of city hall, blahblahblah, doesn't mean he shouldn't be called on it.

Of course, if Sten manages to get those services in place, and succeeds in his 10-year plan to end homelessness, I'll eat my words. But in the mean time, Portland's homeless are going to be told to get off the streets with inadequate benches, restrooms and a day access center that's already bursting at the seams.

So, yes, I think Sten's "picking his battles" with the PBA.

...at best.

that's only if you assume he was able to get out of the deposition. And there's a difference between taking a pragmatic approach (which I may or may not agree with),and "ducking the PBA" because he supposedly doesn't want to go head to head with them. He's gone head to head with them on any number of occasions.

And last he told me, he was supportive of Leonard's motion.

I would find it deeply peculiar if an elected official was unable to delay such a hearing in order to conduct his official city business.

If he indeed was prevented from being able to do so, that's a new story in and of itself.

"news" not "new"

Torrid, again, try to get over it.

Sten may have told you in private he is "supportive of Leonard's motion," but I doubt he'd be publicly pleased with you for relaying that information. Still, I don't have regular conversations with him, so I could be wrong.

The point is: Sten's aides won't tell us how he would have voted, so he's taken no public position on this. He should be here, but he isn't.

No, Sten told me on the record. In response to the question "Will you agree to seek a delay?" he said:

"Yes, fits my stance all along that the package needs to be complete. I haven't had a chance to fact check Randy's findings, so I want to make sure he's right that we are that far off, but will likely support his resolution."

The question then would be what Sten's "fact check" turned up...

What ever happened to public officials, elected by the ‎majority, fighting for what the people want done regardless ‎of the impact from corporations and "business alliances"? ‎We've come into a time where corporations have more control ‎over politics and policy than the public and it's sad.‎

You should have elected me! The PBA tried to play me for a chump and I called them on it... publicly.

If we'd elected you Dave, would you have a plan for addressing homelessness by now?

:)

(I like ya, but that unfortunate statement from your campaign kinda colors your comments on this topic...)

With all due respect, what you wrote is just crap and could only have been written by someone who knows little about the issues involved or the history of this work.

Torrid,

I've learned a lot, primarily from the emergency room folks at Good Sam. The most critical thing to help the homeless in Portland is a restoration of mental health services. The Good Sam folks figure 70 to 80% of the homeless they routinely serve are mentally ill, and they have no beds for them. They are sending people as far away as Roseburg or Klamath Falls when beds become available.

The city has a huge surplus of cash right now and the county remains strapped. I would work collaboratively with the county to see if we couldn't come up with some restoration of our mental health services.

Then I also think we need to differentiate between the actual homeless and folks that feign homelessness to panhandle and the kids that have homes, but like to hang out downtown and not go home.

That's the nucleus of my thoughts right now... I am sure with good counsel and input I would be able to help craft a good plan

great to see you're working to fill in the gaps, Dave. Seriously--commendable.

Thanks Torrid! I know I look like a curmudgeon, but I'm really not.

Sten just showed up! It's 1.45. Everybody thought the vote would have been done by now! But it isn't! Hooray!

Good, I'm glad Sten made it. I think it would have been a shame to not have the full council assembled for this vote. Can't wait for the result!

And thanks, Rev Chuck Currie, for blogging that while sitting 2 seats away from me in council chambers. I know you're friends with Erik and all, but man, that dog-collar is deceptive! There was I buying the whole "reverend" stereotype from Rowan Atkinson's films.

Kudos to you for starting a confrontation. There need to be more in city hall.