This question is practically built for this race—the race to replace Erik Sten, who’s at the center of the storm:

Stakeholders in Old Town Chinatown—homeless advocates, the Chinese community, residents, business owners, developers, the PDC—have been at odds over where to site a homeless day access center, raising issues about process and power as they debate future development in the neighborhood. How would you, as city commissioner, handle such a hot button issue? What’s the solution for siting the homeless day access center?

First up is Middaugh:

Jim Middaugh
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: middaughforportland.com
Public financing status: Received initial certification letter

I’ve covered this topic on the Mercury Blog before but some of my thinking warrants restating. The truth is we need an access center and the place we need it is Old Town.

Everyone agrees that the decision process that initially resulted in a focus on Block 25 could have been communicated more effectively. That said, the siting of the access center is important and can not legitimately be considered a surprise. Substantial effort was made to find an alternative without success – until the Council decided to act. Only then was it possible to find a potential alternative.

Transition Projects and the Blanchet House need to replace antiquated facilities that no longer serve their clients or the surrounding neighborhoods. Both organizations rely on private donations and volunteers and need to maintain their separate identities. Improving client access to current services and reducing the impact of queuing on the neighborhood is a high priority for them and for me.

Over the years, these non-profit organizations have dedicated significant time and resources to reach out to their neighbors to help them understand their missions and visions. As required by the City, TPI will work with neighbors to develop and maintain a Good Neighbor Agreement. There will be ample opportunity for neighbors to continue to participate in that process. When I’m on the Council I will work to ensure the agreement is carefully monitored and enforced.

I also think that the PDC and Council discussion that has caused the focus to shift to Block U demonstrates that the Council will listen to reasonable and implementable alternatives to pressing needs. No one wants to impose something on a neighborhood. That said, the Council is charged with representing the entire City. Sometimes the Council must lead. That is what is happening with the access center. There would not be the level of agreement about Block U without leadership from the Council.

The challenge of leadership is pushing when necessary but listening when it results in improvements. I think we’ve struck the right balance on the access center.

The development of a more functional center to replace the current Glisan street facility is a key component of Portland’s ten year plan to end homelessness. I am a very strong supporter of the ten year plan. The characteristics of a successful center include having a design that not only eliminates the queuing on the streets by incorporating an interior courtyard but also one that has space to provide necessary services that will help people end their homelessness.

The center will improve the neighborhood.

Providing affordable housing above the center makes sense because it allows for replacement of low income housing that is being lost to redevelopment and ongoing rent increases in the immediate neighborhood. It also will ensure that new development in other areas can serve higher income tenants.

The city has explored numerous other possible locations to replace the old TPI access center and men’s shelter. Despite substantial time and effort, none of the other sites worked out until the City was moving forward on Block 25. Block U emerged as an alternative only when the Council made it clear that a decision was imminent. I’m pleased that additional effort to consider Block U appears to be working and I will support moving the new facility there should a final agreement be reached.

As I’ve said before, I pledge to ensure that the center will be a superior design which will galvanize the re-emergence of OTCT as a safe, livable, diverse and exciting neighborhood. The neighborhood’s participation in the process will help me succeed. The continued involvement of the neighbors and business owners of OTCT will guarantee that this facility will reflect Portland’s pride in our distinct neighborhoods and in our reputation of being a national leader in ending homelessness. In short, the process – while bumpy — is working.

I’ll never shut people out of the decision making process. On the other hand, I won’t shy away from difficult decisions when they need to be made — even if they make people unhappy. I will be honest, transparent and direct with supporters and opponents alike.

Ed Garren
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: edforportland.com
Public financing status: Participated, did not qualify

I have a neighbor who works at one of the centers in Chinatown that serves the homeless. Also I have a 30+ year career providing social services to a lot of different types of folks, including homeless persons.

By the way, I am NOT a Psychiatrist (improperly reported elsewhere). I am a Psychotherapist, Licensed Marriage Family Therapist, with a Master's Degree in Rehabilitation. So my training and background is very specific to the needs of the homeless population. One of the reasons I am running for this seat is that I am tired of tax dollars being spent in ways that often serve everyone except the people they are trying to serve.

The discussions in this issue have centered around land use issues, some "NIMBY" fears, speculations about redevelopment, etc.

Has anyone considered that having one large facility might not be be the best solution? Homeless people have social needs and circles, just like the rest of us. One aspect of those needs has to do with not wanting to associate with a certain group, or individuals. If the solution offered is one large facility, many people will not come for services because people they don't like are there. Also, the management needs of dealing with a large group of people with mental health and addiction problems might prove challenging. One large facility might become an albatross, or worse, have constant chaos and internal management problems.

We know that schools with large classes don't work very well. What kind of day care would you take your child to, a large one with many children, or a smaller one where your child will have intimate contact with a few caring people? It's the same idea with social services. Smaller more intimate agencies, where there is genuine contact between staff and clients, work better.

The people who are making decisions in this process should consider that if the city has to give away 311 million dollars ($311,000,000) to make it happen, something is basically wrong with the project.

Might the needs of the homeless be better served by a few smaller facilities that are spread around the edges of downtown? A centrally located management and referral office could then triage persons to an appropriate facility which has a focus for the needs of a particular situation.

I've also proposed that the city needs to encourage the creation of more Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) facilities. Specifically I have said that these facilities should not be built exclusively for the homeless or those on public subsidy. They might instead be integrated private sector, non-profit facilities, which also serve the large population of single people in the city who just want a place to stay and are not interested in a large living space. A percentage of units in each of such facilities could be dedicated units which offer housing for "emergency" uses, those on assistance, seniors, etc. But the bulk of the facility would be affordable market rate rentals for "regular" people.

What I've learned from three decades of doing social services work is that no large problem is ever solved by one big solution. Resolving human problems takes creating situations which involve the formation of productive relationships. When a facility gets too large, it is no longer providing human services. It becomes a "factory" and it's ability to serve the people who come for help goes away.

Instead of government creating large solutions that look good, but are not always responsive to the actual needs, government should be encouraging innovation and facilitating multiple smaller solutions.

While many homeless persons are homeless because of economic circumstances, which is why I am proposing Rent Stabilization, many more are in need of mental health and addictions treatment. Such treatment rarely works well in a large impersonal facility.

A simple example of this are the different needs of homeless youth (who are often GLBT or have "graduated" the foster care system) vs the adult homeless who may have chronic mental health or addiction issues. A large facility which tried to serve both populations would probably be less effective than two or three smaller facilities which could focus on the special needs of each group. A smaller facility would be much less objectionable to any neighborhood.

The one over-arching constant for most homeless people is that they don't like to be in large situations with a lot of people they don't know. A large facility would be handicapped from day one for this reason. Does the city really want to take a $311,000,000 gamble that way?

With $311,000,000 a lot of good services could be provided. Moreover, they can be provided by a variety of service providers that can do good work with the nuances of a wide variety of people with different needs.

I would suggest that leadership in this city reconsider this current approach to the issue and try to consider a more multi-faceted approach utilizing and funding several smaller facilities.

$311,000,000 is a LOT of money.

Ed Garren, candidate for Portland City Council, seat #2
www.edforportland.com and www.edgarren.us

Harold C. Williams Two
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: none
Public financing status: Not participating in program

First, I have to ask the question “Have these groups set down and talked face to face?” and if they have not I think to do so would be a good start.

Second, I suggest that the Homeless Day Access center temporarily be place at City Hall, until we worked out a long term solution.

-Harold C. Williams Two
Candidate for Portland City Commissioner position (2)

Nick Fish
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: nickfish2008.com
Public financing status: Not participating in program

There is a lesson to be learned from the way City Hall handled two highprofile issues impacting Old Town Chinatown: the proposed renaming of 4th Avenue in honor of Cesar Chavez, and the siting of the day-access center for homeless people. To summarize: the longest distance between two points is a shortcut. Regrettably, most of the conflict could have been avoided.

I attended the February 14th Portland Development Commission hearing on the siting of the day-access center in Old Town Chinatown. No one spoke against the access center. Rather, a number of community members expressed concern about the proposed location (Block 25), the concentration of homeless services in their neighborhood, and the process brokered by the City.

During the hearing, the nonprofit operator of the access center, Transition Projects, Inc., expressed a desire to move to Block U – across from the post office on North Broadway. After talking to many of the stakeholders in Old Town Chinatown and the River District, I support moving the access center to Block U, and expanding Blanchet House on its current site, Block 25.

I have 20+ years of experience building coalitions to get things done. As City Commissioner, I will (1) work hard to make sure that all voices in our community are heard before decisions are made, and (2) insist that the Council follows its own rules.

Tamara DeRidder
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: home.earthlink.net/~tdr4pdx
Public financing status: Participating, no contributions reported yet

Did not respond by deadline

Nick Popenuk
Position sought: Commissioner #2
Website: popenukisportland.com
Public financing status: Participating, 15 contributions as of 1/22

Did not respond by deadline