I live about a block away from The Oxford Street Shelter (OSS), in the green area above. In 2017 Councilor Ray facilitated a meeting requested by OSS abutters like myself, where leaders from many city departments gathered to listen to residents’ concerns. We discussed strategies to minimize the various externalities associated with hosting a cluster of social service providers that are scattered yet concentrated into a single neighborhood.
It’s now 2019, and in the last two years I’ve seen improvements to my quality of life. Where there have been specific efforts, I can point to specific results. I see this as a microcosm of the new kind of model planned for the homeless service center to be built in Riverton. The current location cannot support many of the intended best practices.
The OSS shelter is now open 24 hours a day, so there’s no need to eject clients directly into a residential neighborhood on the clock. Shelter staff regularly sweep nearby streets for both security and cleanup, as well as responding to direct calls. That has reduced litter including needles, trespassing and inappropriately stashed belongings, and public elimination.
The yellow area I call the “one-house radius” from the shelter. Unfortunately not much seems to have changed there. The Oxford-Cedar intersection is still often obstructed by antisocial loiterers. Some residents in this area fear reprisal if they complain too much, and say they have to keep their windows closed else let in spice smoke, etc.
The area in red is not directly related to the OSS, but has often been the poster child for what people fear near the new service center site (and prior proposed sites). The Preble Street Resource Center and Soup Kitchen are clearly overwhelmed, and in addition seem to consider community concerns outside their mission. If anything, things are worse here than two years ago. They’re basically maintaining an open air drug market, passively waiting for individuals to become ready to seek help.
Building Progress
In November 2017 Councilor Ray facilitated a meeting requested by abutters of the Oxford Street Shelter (OSS). Leaders from many city departments gathered to listen to residents, and discussed strategies to minimize various externalities associated with hosting a cluster of social service providers that are scattered yet concentrated into a single neighborhood. In many ways this meeting marked a baseline for measuring progress on such community concerns.
Many of the same categories raised as agenda items at that meeting have come up again in recent discussions around where and how to build a better service model. With the city council selection of a site to build a new homeless service center, and committee members starting to dig into policy details to be implemented there – this seemed like a good moment to take stock. Where have adjustments to operations already made a positive difference? What areas need attention while the existing model awaits an infrastructure upgrade? Are there lessons we can learn to make the new model even better? How can we ensure advances in Bayside survive after the OSS staff relocates?
In 2017 Bayside residents brought up issues falling into six categories:
- I. – Community Relations
- II. – Crime / Intimidation
- III. – Substance Issues
- IV. – Outdoor Overflow
- V. – Excess Refuse
- VI. – City Domain
I’m ranking current progress on a three-value color scale (Red–Yellow–Green), with outliers available for special cases.
| Best – Consistently or Systemically Normalized / Solved | |
| Good – Clear Improvement | |
| Okay – Mixed Results or Partial Improvement | |
| Bad – Worse or No Improvement | |
| Worst – Dangerous or Emergency Situation |
Taking Score
| I. COMMUNITY RELATIONS | 2017-2019 Progress |
| Generally Dismissive Culture | |
| Neighbor Outreach | |
| Single Point of Contact |
In 2017, OSS abutters felt nobody cared or wanted to listen, reporting a perception of general dismissiveness from all levels. Since then, improvements have gradually infused dealings with various entities, coming from the top down. Many changes have been made, with mixed results overall.
We’ve seen increased coordination of various bodies within a “non-system” originally exemplified by everyone ostensibly doing their own job, but in an insular way that previously hadn’t added up to progress. There is still no such thing as “active” community outreach, but people at a high level now make themselves available to those who go looking, and they have often provided creative, implementable solutions when so engaged. In general, a spotlight has been shone on Portland’s response to homelessness and all its surrounding issues, which has led to a wider conversation and seemingly the will to act.
The specific strategy of providing an “Abutter’s Hotline” (AKA “bat-phone”) did for a time provide a single point of access for those most affected, which was always staffed by someone versed in appropriate responses to the various types of situations one may encounter living adjacent to homeless services. However, socialization was left to residents, adoption was always low, and as fewer calls have gradually been required (due to other improvements below), the phone appears not always to be staffed when it is actually needed now, in times and seasons of higher activity. Some abutters are still fearful that frequently calling for service of any kind will make them targets of the alleged offenders.
Other affected residents don’t happen to “share an alley” with the OSS, and first contact for them is usually the police, if anyone. In 2017 a community liaison position was discussed but never materialized. Casting a wider net could potentially prepare some party that can remain available in Bayside after the OSS closes.
| II. CRIME & INTIMIDATION | 2017-2019 Progress |
| Trespassing / Burglary / Theft / Damage / Graffiti | |
| Antisocial Behavior / Harassment / Assault |
Calls for police service in Bayside are generally down. This is largely due to concessions by police command that the current reality in Bayside requires unique approaches which may not be relevant across the whole city. In addition, the OSS hired new dedicated, permanent security staff, provided better training, and implemented neighborhood sweeps which have helped immensely in most of the areas they patrol. Unfortunately the homes that are literally contiguous with the shelter (one even sharing a parking easement) have not seen much benefit. In addition, visibly much worse results are obvious around other providers which have not made the same efforts as the city.
The introduction of new illicit drugs onto the street has lead to more aggressive and less predictable behavior, and this is the only area marked as “worse” or “dangerous” (Bright Red) when comparing current trends to the initial baseline. This is especially true in that immediate “one-house” radius of the shelter (and other providers). In this particular realm it would help to ensure vertical consistency in police response – we’ve been told by leaders that the department needs to know when residents see obvious drug deals happening, but dispatch and responders sometimes push back on calls that don’t provide a specific opportunity to take action.
| III. SUBSTANCE ISSUES | 2017-2019 Progress |
| Public Drug Use / Drinking | |
| Secondhand “Smoke” (spice etc) | |
| Public Drug Dealing | |
| Needles / other potentially dangerous paraphernalia |
Although the security efforts mentioned above have reduced general incidence of all types of adverse neighborhood interactions in the middle distance from OSS (i.e. beyond directly adjoined properties and within the area that staff patrol), we do not appear to have made a dent in any problems stemming from substance abuse. Improvements in policing and sentencing strategies have not kept up with the opioid epidemic, or with increased availability of other substances such as spice, meth and fentanyl.
We need new solutions at all levels (not just the city) that can help those who are ready to recover from addiction, and also protect bystanders from core offenders such as drug dealers. We recognize this is an especially hard nut to crack, since your average drug deal is a moment in time, and police require direct evidence to remove those concealing such activities. Creative sentencing was discussed at the 2017 meeting, including ideas to utilize existing laws, but if any of these have been pursued there has been no visible effect. There is a critical need to craft solutions dealing with those who refuse service but still hang about, often preying on shelter guests, and as a byproduct anyone else who happens to find themselves nearby.
The one area marked as clearly improved (green) in the “now” column has to do with the reduction of dangerous paraphernalia littering streets surrounding the OSS. Shelter staff have really made a difference with regular pickup rounds. Again this sadly has not helped much in the critical ring right next door. And while the OSS has made valiant cleanup efforts, there are other providers that visibly have not, which are likely to remain a Bayside problem unrelated to the location of the city’s shelter intake hub.
Recommendations:
• City leaders can work closely with our more sympathetic state administration to find viable solutions to substance issues affecting Portland neighborhoods.
• OSS and Portland Police, perhaps in conjunction with the DA and/or judges, can craft a specific strategy for actively reducing the kind of entrenched predatory behavior that’s still commonplace in Bayside. This is likely to remain a locus of such activity after the transition to a new city service center elsewhere.
| IV. OUTDOOR OVERFLOW | 2017-2019 Progress |
| Loitering | |
| Obstructing Public Ways | |
| Noise / General Disturbance | |
| Public Elimination / Indecent Acts |
With the advent of twenty-four hour service last year, shelter clients no longer had to be ejected directly onto residential streets en masse by the clock. The security improvements already mentioned above have also helped reduced general loitering and disturbance, except in the small territory adjoining the shelter itself. That smaller circle unfortunately does include several homes, as well as the Cedar-Oxford intersection which remains obstructed during busy times and seasons. Newly installed bathrooms have reduced public elimination, leaving only a few noncompliant individuals. Other areas of Bayside require attention unrelated to the OSS, specifically the more dangerous traffic obstruction frequently present on the intersection of Preble and Oxford.
Recommendations
• Determine what can be done to improve outdoor disturbances that still occur proximal to the OSS itself
• Determine what the city can do about public disturbances in Bayside that are unrelated to OSS, and likely to continue after it closes.
| V. EXCESS REFUSE | 2017-2019 Progress |
| Litter | |
| Stashed Belonging | |
| Street Maintenance / Cleaning |
OSS staff sweeps for both security and cleanup have greatly increased general cleanliness, and lessened the impact of general litter as well as inappropriately stashed belongings, which guests can now keep in onsite lockers. At times incentive programs have involved service users in cleanup and other benevolent activities. As with many issues, there is a small locus abutting the physical OSS shelter which remains unimproved, and a separate area of influence directly around another particular partner location that demonstrates worse problems.
Recommendations
• Find ways to enforce containment similar to those already helping nearby streets, but targeted for the homes directly touching or across the street from the OSS, perhaps reintroducing or expanding incentivized cleanup.
• We’d like to see the city work with other providers in Bayside to limit their impact in the way the OSS has.
| VI. CITY DOMAIN | 2017-2019 Progress |
| Police Response | |
| Inspections | |
| Housing | |
| Economic Development | |
| Infrastructure | |
| Property Depreciation |
Some issues transcend shelter policy but are intertwined with many of the problems Bayside residents had complained of in 2017. Specific areas looking up in Bayside at this checkpoint in 2019 include the beginnings of a relevant policing strategy rather than laissez faire attitude, and infrastructure improvements such as lighting, crosswalks and parking. A comprehensive transportation plan has been in the works and will soon go before the council.
Some areas do still need attention in Bayside. The inspections department does not appear to respond in a useful way to mitigate the presence of abandoned or dangerous buildings, and we need a more comprehensive way of dealing with absentee speculators who buy up property then neglect it. Housing developers continue to ghettoize low-income options into this district. Efforts into economic development have been poor to mixed, and increased property taxes are not reflected in market value. After the failed midtown project, the sale of city property was only a partial success, with one purchaser who promised to build offices now holding a sale agreement that would install yet more social services into the proverbial Bermuda Triangle we’ve been trying to break up.
Recommendations:
• Continue and extend the types of city programs that have had success in Bayside, from policing strategy to infrastructure improvements.
Moving Forward
| SUMMARY | ||||||||
| 7 | ||||||||
| 9 | ||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||
In two years the number of items ranked “bad” or “worst” has decreased to a third what it was in 2017. A lot of good work has gone into this trend for the better on the ground in Bayside. We have much work still ahead to “clear the red” from this ledger — at the OSS while the old model persists, and to counter established patterns in Bayside for the foreseeable future. Given the measurable advancements, willingness to make hard decisions, and continued attention, all this seems really possible to win for perhaps the first time.
Community Relations
Improved somewhat in Bayside.
Crime / Intimidation
Calls for service are down in Bayside.
Substance Issues
have gotten worse in Bayside.
Outdoor Overflow & Excess Refuse
Direct residential neighbors of OSS are still affected, but those in a wider radius have seen relief where there have been specific efforts. Other providers in Bayside have done little to reduce their negative impact.
City Domain
Issues unique to Bayside have gotten some attention that we hope continues.
Many types of improvements have been implemented over the last two years in Bayside, and we interpret the positive vector as a microcosm of things to come. Real progress is obvious in many areas, and we do expect to see more. Nay we demand it! We hope that sharing our experience in detail can be valuable in the ongoing effort to develop the best policy and practice for everyone. Together we can make it happen.