Gravel - Cycle Oregon

Willamette Greenway path north of Steel Bridge closed “until further notice” – UPDATED

Posted by on January 26th, 2016 at 11:53 am

Willamette Greenway path closed

Property manager says nearby camp makes path access unsafe for residents
(Photos: J. Maus/BikePortland)

About one-third of a mile of the Willamette Greenway Trail between the Steel and Broadway Bridges is now closed and locked behind a gate with posted signs that read, “Greenway Closed: Detour to Naito Parkway.” This is not an official closure and it’s unclear whether the people who closed it have the legal right to do so.

I confirmed the closure this morning after receiving two tips yesterday from people who were concerned about it. The company that manages the McCormick Pier Condominiums, Community Management Inc., says the McCormick Pier Board of Directors decided at their meeting on January 18th to close the path because of what they refer to as “unsafe homeless activity under the Steel Bridge.” They say the path will be closed, “until further notice.”

Here’s the flyer they’ve posted in common area near the condo’s parking lot:

Willamette Greenway path closed

Advertisement

Here’s the salient part of the notice:

“There has been an increased problem this past year with persons camping under the Steel Bridge and causing security, maintenance, health, and safety issues to McCormick Pier property and residents. The pictures [in the notice] show just a fraction of the damage at McCormick Pier. The police cannot respond the way the should be able to with the Mayors new “stand down” order for anything to do with the homeless or their dogs.

There is no one left to call and it is simply not safe.”

In a separate notice also posted by CMI, they say the closure was needed, “due to unsafe homeless activity under the Steel Bridge.” “We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause,” continues the notice, “however the Assocation is working hard to keep McCormick Pier as safe as possible during this unfortunate situation.”

In addition to urging people to contact Portland Mayor Charlie Hales’ office, CMI wants residents to send them documented incidents they’ve experienced or witnessed, “in order to present a united front to the appropriate authorities and ask that they take immediate action to remove the campsites and clean up the park.”

People have slept along the path just south of the McCormick Pier Condominiums at the western end of the Steel Bridge for many years. But in the past few months, a full-fledged camp has sprouted up. There are currently many people living on both sides of the path as it approaches the McCormick property.

Willamette Greenway path closed

The camp just south of McCormick Pier Condominiums looking east from NW Naito Parkway.
Willamette Greenway path closed

Looking south from the southern end of the McCormick property.
Willamette Greenway path closed

View from behind the locked gate toward the path with the camp and Naito Parkway in the background.

Michael Morrison rides this section of the path regularly. He contacted us via email yesterday and said he understands the concerns about the encampment but that decision to close it, “is not a very civil response.” “A more nuanced response is needed,” he added.

As we reported with a similar situation on the Springwater, Mayor Hales is no longer enforcing camping bans in Portland until there are enough places for everyone to live.

While the City of Portland maintains an easement in front of the McCormick Pier condos, the homeowners association took over official maintenance responsibilities in 2002. In 2010 they used that authority to close the trail to fix damage caused by erosion; but it’s unclear whether they have the right to close the path for something as vague as “unsafe homeless activity.”

What is clear from this closure is that CMI wants to use the closure to pressure the Mayor’s Office to do more to address the camp that’s sprung up just a few dozen feet from their property line. But their move might have crossed a line if they continue to prohibit access to a path the public has a legal right to use.

Many people ride this section of the path because the option is riding next to auto traffic on Naito. This path is also popular for walking and running.

Parks bureau spokesman Mark Ross confirmed for us this morning that the existing trail easement requires CMI to maintain public access from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm. He says Parks is currently inquiring with the Portland Police Bureau to find out if they advised CMI to close the path out of a concern for public safety. If that’s not the case, Parks will likely ask CMI to re-open the path immediately. Ross also said he’s not aware of any specific citizen complaints that have been made around this area.

We’ve contacted CMI for comment but have yet to hear back. We’ll update this post when we do.

UPDATE, 12:24 pm: Lisa Campbell with Community Management Inc. has gotten back to me. She said the McCormick Pier Board of Directors plans to keep the path closed, “Until the mayor pays attention and figures out what to do down there.” Campbell says she’s received about 20 complaints from condo owners in the past week. She said people have had cars broken into and one owner was “assaulted” when he confronted a man stealing a package off his porch.

I asked Campbell if she or any of the board members had tried to talk with the people who live in the camps. She said there has been some interactions, but most people are likely afraid because of how aggressive she says many of the campers have become. Campbell said the Oregon Department of Transportation was monitoring the area and cleaning it up from time-to-time but has recently stopped doing that because the area has become unsafe. “There are some aggressive people over there,” Campbell said, “You’re not going to just hang out with them.”

Campbell said they’d love to open the path, but until “the Board sees some action to clean this up and get some enforcement” they’ll keep it closed. So you’re holding the path hostage? I asked. “Yeah. Kind of,” she replied.

UPDATE, 1:25 pm: Just off the phone with Mayor Hales. He said he’s going to demand that McCormick Pier Condiminiums re-open the path immediately. “I want you to know that I’m not going to permit people to take public right-of-way hostage for political purposes… They just unilaterally occupied this public right-of-way.” Hales went on to share his recent actions to deal with the homeless and housing problems plaguing Portland which include 275 new shelter beds in the past three months and $67 million invested in affordable housing. “We’ve moved quickly to make a difference,” he said.

When I asked him specifically about the issue of homeless camps that are adjacent to transportation corridors like the Willamette Greenway and Springwater paths, he said his office is trying to get all city bureaus on the same page. “We understand that unmanaged homeless camps, unpoliced homeless camps can cause livability problems. That’s why we’re authorizing sweeps and clean-ups when necessary. No one should get the impression that they can just do whatever they want. However, in the short-run, while we’re moving to radically increase shelter space, there are going to be people camping outside. That’s a fact of life. We’re going to make sure that it’s done in a responsible way and where peoples’ safety is assured… both the safety of people in the neighborhood, people who pass through these transportation corridors, and the people in the camps.”

— Jonathan Maus, (503) 706-8804 – jonathan@bikeportland.org

BikePortland can’t survive without paid subscribers. Please sign up today.

Harvest Century is September 23rd
Please support BikePortland.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

259 Comments
  • Adam H.
    Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    The city should not allow a private developer to close the only safe bike route through downtown. This is absolutely unacceptable. Naito is a high-stress route and is not a suitable replacement for the riverfront path.

    We need to address the homeless issue on all fronts, but we should not allow campers to shut down public spaces. That is not how an equitable city should operate. The city’s response to the homeless issue by “doing nothing” is completely unacceptable.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • daisy January 26, 2016 at 12:16 pm

      Adam H.
      We need to address the homeless issue on all fronts, but we should not allow campers to shut down public spaces. That is not how an equitable city should operate.

      This winter I’ve noticed a cluster of tents on the sidewalk on NW Irving at Broadway. I’ve seen one or two people bundled up in sleeping bags but not with tents on the NW Broadway sidewalk where it rises to the bridge. In these cases, it looks like the tents and sleeping bags are pushed against the railing to leave some room for people walking and on bikes to get through.

      I also imagine you get hassled a lot less if you’re not actually blocking the path.

      Is this not happening elsewhere? I understand that trash and enforcement issues can make it seem like the sidewalk or path is off-limits or not somewhere you want to be, but the private property owner closing and blocking a public easement is physically blocking the path, which brings this to a whole different level.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 12:27 pm

        I agree. If the camping is not impacting the ROW or access then it is less of an issue. However, there have been reports of attacks and harassment in parks and trails, and that is still effectively “shutting down” public space. If people don’t feel safe, they won’t use the parks that are supposedly “for everyone”. As is creating a situation that forces the closure of a public space. McCormick Pier is not blameless here, either. Did they talk to the people living outside to explain their problems and find a solution? Or was the path just closed as a knee-jerk response? My bet’s on the latter.

        That being said, I am sure the vast majority of people living outside are not causing a problem. There has to be a compromise that addresses the few problem individuals while allowing the rest of the people that are not causing problems to stay. The hands off, “do nothing” approach isn’t working. If PPB is allowing people to camp, then there should be no issue with them patrolling the areas and address problems when they arise. After all, homeless people deserve police protection too.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:03 pm

      “.. the only safe bike route through downtown.”

      Do you know where this path is?! There is no way you could consider it a route through downtown – let alone the only one.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 1:16 pm

        Yes, I used to ride it from the Steel Bridge to the Pearl every day. And yes, it is the only bike route though downtown that does not constantly have cars encroaching upon it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:34 pm

          OK, so you are aware that the path does not go through downtown, but is a longer alternative route to get from the steel bridge to the old PPB stables.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 1:42 pm

            If your goal is to get to the Pearl from the east side, then this path is effectively going through downtown.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • longgone January 29, 2016 at 1:05 am

              No.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • bernie wick January 29, 2016 at 12:08 pm

          It is only 1/3 of a mile long…hardly a major route through downtown. Though bikers are considerate of the walkers, it is really not a bike path.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • was carless January 29, 2016 at 9:51 am

        I used to live in Northwest, and rode Naito. This path is, quite frankly, terrible for bicycling. It is full of 90-degree turns, is very narrow, and probably twice as long as riding along Naito. And you can’t really go over 10 mph without either crashing, falling into the river, or running over a pedestrian.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • JeffS February 2, 2016 at 1:07 pm

          Have you considered a trip to the doctor? What you’re describing sounds like a serious coordination problem.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Glen January 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

      Adam, that land is privateproperty according to http://www.portlandmaps.com The only leverage the public would have would be a result of a public easement on the private property, but the tax maps don’t appear to show one.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jeff January 26, 2016 at 1:52 pm

      is it “safe” anymore?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • nuovorecord January 26, 2016 at 3:57 pm

      This is the homeowner’s association that has taken this action. In other words, the people that own the property. The easement was granted to allow people to travel through and have access to the river. It wasn’t meant for homeless to dump their trash, shoot up, harass others, relieve themselves, etc. I’d say the city is violating the terms of the easement, if not the spirit of it. And if anyone is taking the ROW hostage, it’s the homeless.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Randall S. January 28, 2016 at 11:10 am

        So the campers were the ones who closed the gate and locked it? I guess I missed that in the article.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    the existing trail easement requires CMI to maintain public access from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm

    Well, that says it all. The hobo encampment is getting big and the mess extends out onto Naito, but that doesn’t change who owns the property. (or easement, at least)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Erinne January 26, 2016 at 12:06 pm

      Can we at least agree to not use to word “hobo”? These are people who don’t have a place inside to sleep at night. Let’s not dehumanize them any more.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

        it’s a proper word to use when referring to homeless people… I don’t see it being any worse than saying homeless…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty January 26, 2016 at 3:18 pm

          I’ve always thought of hobos as more itinerant, riding trains and playing harmonica and stuff, writing in secret codes, and playing hide-and-seek with railroad bulls. I don’t see the word as derogatory, but I don’t think it applies to most of Portland’s campers.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Nick Skaggs January 27, 2016 at 10:30 am

            I thought that there was a definied difference between the terms, “hobo,” “tramp,” and “bum.”

            IIRC, hobos were traveling/migratory homeless workers, tramps would work so they could travel, and bums would refuse to work at all.

            At least, I think I heard that from Woody Guthrie somewhere.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Atkinson January 26, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    I took a new job early last year; since then I’ve ridden through this area every day. I’ve seen a notable rise, even in that time, in the number of people camped in that area.

    These people aren’t living inside. They don’t have a regular place to bathe, to cook, or to stay warm when it’s cold out. This spot they’ve found is covered by bridges so it stays dry in the rain, though, and that’s huge for them.

    In the year-ish I’ve ridden that way I’ve seen messy behavior, littering, and people occasionally crowding the path. I have not yet, in that time, seen a single incident I’d call dangerous or any people who have in any way made me feel unsafe.

    Do you suppose Lisa Campbell is interested in hearing my experience? She’s solicited a call for problems, not for exonerations.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • eli bishop January 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

      I have. They blocked the path and yelled at me. I even called the police, who came remarkably quickly.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 1:45 pm

        I don’t ride through there on a daily basis- thankfully I haven’t had anyone block and yell, but that would scare me.

        I ride NB on Naito about once a week, and there’s garbage drifting onto the street even. Not to mention the 53ft storage container for the homeless/hobos/whatevers that couldn’t be placed because they couldn’t get them to move.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:21 pm

      I bet in the past year you’ve been riding your bicycle through that area, none of these people have broken into your car or tried to steal your mail either.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Paul Atkinson January 27, 2016 at 9:45 am

        Obviously not. Neither my car nor my house is there.

        But that does illustrate one point: this may not be about whether the *path* is safe. If your comment were the nature of the complaint (and perhaps it is), they have an on-site security problem and they’re holding the path hostage to get a fix.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Terry D-M January 26, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Unlike what is going on at the Springwater, this situation though dire and visually traumatizing has never felt unsafe to me.

    It does show that this is a citywide problem. Some in the neighborhood coalition system have been working on a concept whereby there would be a public permit process for tent encampments citywide: An open process of zoning. We have zoning for street trees, parking automobiles and bike corrals but not for tent camps. It is time we make some so we can quickly create short term communities citywide. Hanzelnut Grove is a good model.

    Then, once we bring the problem out of the darkness we will visually see its magnitude while we create a community wide long term solution to the housing crises.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • MaxD January 26, 2016 at 12:28 pm

      Hazelnut Grove is a horrible model! Permitting shanty towns is a way of creating a new, lower class of citizen to whom the laws and protections do not apply equally. The City needs to create temporary housing options, offer addiction and mental health services, and enforce the no camping, littering and drug rules. Permitting camps is effectively giving up on these people. Their are the “homeless by choice” and addicts not ready to treatment that will continue to resist help, but they should not be encouraged to set up and run permanent shanty towns.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dwk January 26, 2016 at 12:38 pm

      Hazelnut grove is a good model for a third world country…
      What are you talking about?
      The “homeless” discussion, problem and no solution in this city is a complete embarrassment.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BeavertonRider January 26, 2016 at 1:54 pm

      Im sorry if I misunderstand you here, but are you suggesting that the City not just tolerate tent camps for the homless, but to formalize this arrangement via a permitting process? In other words, you’d approve of having homeless tent camps sited across the City?

      If so, how do you propose to deal with the obvious sanitation issues? How do you propose to effectively manage crime (not only committed against the general public, but, more importantly, among the homeless themselves (think of the Occupy crime sprees)?

      I am appalled that someone is suggesting that we not just tolerate the camps, but make them official. The tolerant attitude is what has facilitated the current expansion of these camps and the higher incidence of these camps, hence, formalizing the arrangement will merely result in more camps and campers.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 26, 2016 at 3:22 pm

      From what I hear, the neighbors of Hazelnut Grove do not share your opinion that it is a good model. It probably looks better from a distance.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • resopmok January 26, 2016 at 8:24 pm

      At the risk of being harangued myself, I have to say that these responses generally lack the recognition that these camps will continue to exist in one form or another whether the city takes a more hardline stance or not. Homelessness won’t be solved by telling people they’re not allowed to be homeless, and pushing the problem farther underground will actually facilitate more and worse crime. The other things the responses lack is a viable counter-solution. At least Terry D-M, whether you agree with him or not, is attempting to address the issues rationally and compassionately instead of just pointing fingers and hurling insults. Please, we can do better.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • daisy January 26, 2016 at 12:22 pm

    Hey Jon and Michael: I appreciated the time you all took last week to talk to people living along the Springwater. I wonder if you might interview someone locally who is an advocate for homeless folks, to help us get the big picture of the problem and possible solutions. Oh, wouldn’t it be great if you could find someone who works on this issue locally and also bike commutes?

    I know we’re getting a bit farther afield from cycling, but it does seem like the issue of homelessness is touching on everything else in Portland these days, and, in the big picture, this is related to development, infrastructure, cost of housing, and so on.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 26, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      Hi daisy,

      Thanks for the suggestion. That’s definitely on our radar. Not sure if you recall but when we convened folks around the bike theft issue last year we included people who worked in social services. Director of JOIN Mark Jolin and Halley Weaver from Transition Projects where on a panel I put together at the Bike Theft Summit. Thanks again for the suggestion.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • rachel b January 26, 2016 at 11:41 pm

        Thanks for the reportage, Jonathan. I would appreciate hearing more from neighbors. Based on the coverage (over years) by several of Portland’s news agencies, I’m not feeling we’re lacking the voices of the homeless, homeless advocates/agencies at this point–I think that’s the root of some of the frustration you’re hearing, actually. That other voices have been and are regularly being stifled.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Grandpa January 27, 2016 at 6:42 am

          +1

          Owners of nearby properties and renters in nearby properties and businesses are stockholders in this discussion who are conspicuously ignored.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Grandpa January 27, 2016 at 6:43 am

            STAKEholders (Dang)

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RH January 26, 2016 at 12:24 pm

    The issue I have is that other cities are busing their homeless to Portland. They offer the folks a free one way ticket and a “chance to start over” in a “compassionate” city. San Fran, San Diego, Florida, etc.. are all busing folks up here. I estimate there will be twice the number of homeless folks here this summer compared to last summer. And the city will continue to ‘stand down’ for at least 5 years since it will take them that long to get places for everyone to live.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 12:29 pm

      That is a bold accusation. Do you have any evidence to support this?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Racer X January 26, 2016 at 1:04 pm

        And in some communities this action would be illegal too. So please document it, so the authorities can be notified…as best as you can or state that it is second, third or fourth hand info…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • B. Carfree January 26, 2016 at 5:32 pm

          Shouldn’t we all be putting our homeless folks onto buses bound for Utah? Utah has an extensive “housing first” model and all the homeless advocates I talk to always tell me how Utah has gotten all of its homeless people housed through this. Wouldn’t those bus tickets be the compassionate thing to do, since Utah apparently has the resources to house the homeless and we don’t?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 26, 2016 at 5:37 pm

            If every city sends their homeless to another distant city, the buses themselves might have sufficient capacity to hold everyone. The problem might just solve itself.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Eric Leifsdad January 26, 2016 at 10:33 pm

              Buses? We have lots of parking!

              Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Cory P January 27, 2016 at 12:53 pm

            Have you been to Utah? I don’t think most of our homeless community would leave portland for Salt Lake even if there were a free apartment waiting. We need to accept that many homeless live in Portland for the same reasons we do. They like it here.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 27, 2016 at 12:54 pm

              I can see a similar argument on “bikeutah.org”: “have you ever been to Portland? I don’t think most of our homeless..”

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Hello, Kitty
              Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 12:56 pm

              The skiing is waaay better in Utah, but the beer is waaay worse. It’s important to have priorities.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Zimmerman January 27, 2016 at 1:57 pm

                You’ve obviously never had any of Squatter’s beer.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • longgone January 29, 2016 at 1:12 am

                Tell me more… Is it around here? What styles do they brew?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • B. Carfree January 27, 2016 at 2:28 pm

              As a matter of fact, that’s where several branches of my family came west from, including cousin Philo. I’ve been there plenty. I’ve also been to Bel Air. Should I be allowed to just take over its public spaces because I like it there? By your reasoning, even if we build adequate shelter space and other inexpensive/free housing, people should still be allowed to take over our public space (and, apparently, any private space) if they prefer our bike paths and parks to what we offer.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

    • daisy January 26, 2016 at 12:29 pm

      So is this a real thing? Or apocryphal? I’d be really interested to see documentation that this happens on a large scale.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • daisy January 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

      I went and looked for some information on this myself.

      Here’s what I found:
      Maybe, maybe not says this article.
      http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/2015/01/16/boise-chief-mike-masterson-address-homelessness/21848411/

      Boise Police come up with a plan to crack down on the homeless people camping, the folks who stay here say more are coming into town all the time. They say other nearby cities will buy bus tickets to get certain homeless people out of their city.

      “It would be Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City. But, it’s just from the nearest cities,” said Jake Redding, a transient we met under the overpass.

      We asked the Police Departments of Seattle, Portland, and Salt Lake City if this is true. They all said no. However, Seattle Police say they have heard of this happening before.

      This one person says it happened to her, but an official says they’ll give people a bus ticket to a new place when someone is waiting on the other end.
      http://legacy.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/26/12578644/

      Hawaii sends people home on planes to relatives.
      http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/31/hawaii-offers-homeless-one-way-tickets-out-of-state/

      Colorado Springs wanted to send people to relatives.
      http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/06/27/3454029/colorado-bus-homeless/

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

      All it would take to substantiate the claim would be to find one of the recipients of such largess. And what a story it would make!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rick January 26, 2016 at 12:25 pm

    Thank you Jonathan for speaking out for both the homeless and for active transportation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • meh January 28, 2016 at 8:07 am

      He only speaks out on the homeless in terms of transportation. It this didn’t involve a MUP and inconvenience cyclists there would be no story.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • longgone January 29, 2016 at 1:15 am

        Are you so sure? I read this blog often, most times daily. Certainly the primary focus is cycling related obviously…..

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam January 26, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    I live a block from this path, and have to say I’m not surprised at this closure.

    I try to be empathic towards people who have no access to permanent shelter. It must be a really demoralising position to be in.

    But the conditions at this camp that the general public have to navigate through are HORRIFIC. It is incredibly sad to see my neighborhood deteriorate so quickly.

    The tents and shopping carts often spillover onto the multi-use path. There is trash EVERYWHERE. And I mean everywhere.

    I found three hyperdermic needles discarded in the middle of the sidewalk last week. That’s just great when yr biking yr six year old to school.

    The stench of urine is overpowering some days.

    There are rats everywhere at night.

    The homeless camp doesn’t appear to give a hoot about any of this. It feels so disrespectful. And it makes me so sad.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Chris I January 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      I grew up in Portland, and am now at the point where we’re deciding where we want to raise a family. If this trend continues, I’m not sure if we’re going to want to stay in the city. The two parks near our house now have semi-permanent campers and drug use. Are we expected to take our children to play at the park under those circumstances? Who wants to take a child for a bike ride on the Springwater?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Kittens January 26, 2016 at 3:10 pm

        Ah yes… Think of the children!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Chris I January 26, 2016 at 3:19 pm

          Yes, I am thinking of my children. You are correct.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam January 26, 2016 at 4:50 pm

          When my child picks up one of three hyperdermic needles just lying in the middle of the multi-use path, I will think of them, thanks.

          Adults know not to touch that stuff under any account. A child doesn’t.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • longgone January 29, 2016 at 1:22 am

          Said the person with no child….. May you never bestowed one, even accidentally….. Oops, especially açcidently!! the forgotten dregs that everyone here is worried about, are someone’s wayward child.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Random January 26, 2016 at 12:49 pm

      And if someone gets assaulted on the trail, guess who is getting sued…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Matt January 27, 2016 at 11:45 am

      I was running down there Monday and I witnessed a guy shooting up. The needle was literally sticking out of this arm. I have empathy for individuals addicted to drugs and people without homes, but I don’t know how to solve the problem other than direct community engagement with kindness and compassion. It’s sad all around, just unfortunate that it’s happing on the waterfront, what is supposed to be a gem of the city…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 26, 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Just posted this update:

    UPDATE, 12:24 pm: Lisa Campbell with Community Management Inc. has gotten back to me. She said the McCormick Pier Board of Directors plans to keep the path closed, “Until the mayor pays attention and figures out what to do down there.” Campbell says she’s received about 20 complaints from condo owners in the past week. She said people have had cars broken into and one owner was “assaulted” when he confronted a man stealing a package off his porch.

    I asked Campbell if she or any of the board members had tried to talk with the people who live in the camps. She said there has been some interactions, but most people are likely afraid because of how aggressive she says many of the campers have become. Campbell said the Oregon Department of Transportation was monitoring the area and cleaning it up from time-to-time but has recently stopped doing that because the area has become unsafe. “There are some aggressive people over there,” Campbell said, “You’re not going to just hang out with them.”

    Campbell said they’d love to open the path, but until “the Board sees some action to clean this up and get some enforcement” they’ll keep it closed. So you’re holding the path hostage? I asked. “Yeah. Kind of,” she replied.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 12:40 pm

      Blame someone else while refusing to do anything to solve the problem. As is the Portland way.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:23 pm

        Yeah, blame the people littering and creating the hostile environment, blame city hall for ignoring the problem.

        As for refusing to do anything about it, they have tried talking to ODOT and city hall and the police. What is your suggestion for this situation?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

          My main issue with this is the management board is just throwing up their hands and saying “we’ll the Mayor won’t help, so too bad for everyone else!”. They should be trying to work with city leadership rather than creating a divide. At least an attempt would be preferable, instead of holding the path hostage until the city complies.

          This situation brings up another unfortunate problem with our commission form of government, in that the management company has no elected official to go to that represents the neighborhood and also answers to the Mayor.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • dwk January 26, 2016 at 1:42 pm

            What city leadership are they supposed to go to?
            The “leaders’ who have decided that it is easier to just “sanction” outside camping in the city rather than do their job.
            T

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:51 pm

            OK. So they have tried to work with city officials and have essentially been turned down or away.

            So what is your suggestion for the residents to handle this problem?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam January 26, 2016 at 2:04 pm

            They are trying to work with City management. That’s why they have all of the email addresses and phone numbers for residents to call, on the fliers they posted.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Adam H.
              Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 3:33 pm

              Asking residents to contact the city on the condo board’s behalf is still passing the buck. Maybe the board has tried to work with the city and that fact was left out of this article. If that is the case, I retract my previous statement.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • BeavertonRider January 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm

          Yeah, I agree. The management board’s responsibility is to it’s tenants and not ensure public access which the City has abdicated it’s responsibility in preserving safety.

          It is now clear that the City’s leadership is not only unwilling to deal with this homesless camping problem, but is actively avoiding addressing it ar all = negligence.

          I am not sure why other posters here think that the management board is behaving irresponsibly by closing the path and acknowledging, correctly, the City’s negligence.

          Props to these private citizens for doing their duty.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • jeff January 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm

        how are they supposed to “solve the problem”?

        while you’re coming up with a solution to PDX’s homeless issues, if anyone is missing a Yakima skybox (grey top) there’s a stolen one under the viaduct off SE 7th and Division Place…looks like the top was cracked off it though so the contents are probably gone. its next to the homeless tents…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • MaxD January 26, 2016 at 12:41 pm

      So which is the lesser of 2 evils: the Management company taking over a public space or the tent city taking over the public space. IMO this underscores the abject failure of Hales to act! He declares a state of emergency, but then does nothing! If this is a real emergency, then set up up some real shelters and assistance programs in places that make sense! How about one of the City-owned parking garages? Doing something big, bold and temporary would at least build some support among Portland’s professionsal community and business owners to help invest in solutions

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • estherc January 26, 2016 at 1:38 pm

        Excellent point. don’t the condo owners have the same rights as the homeless?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Scott H January 26, 2016 at 5:32 pm

          Apparently in Portland, the homeless have more rights than condo owners have.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Kittens January 26, 2016 at 3:32 pm

        This is the first time I have heard a real solution! Parking garages: Is this actually an idea out there? I know it’s not ideal.

        Everyone keeps talking about pie in the sky ideology and theoretical solutions to the problem. We are not going to unilaterally turn back the clock on rampant housing speculation and lack of access to healthcare. Or the fundamental breakdown of our economy. This is a problem of national and international scope.

        Yes it is systemic. Yes it is severe. But we need to triage before we can treat the patient.

        The damage they do to our community is far greater than unsightly trash or rats. It is the creeping guilt of knowing we have a problem and being utterly powerless to do anything about it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • daisy January 26, 2016 at 12:45 pm

      This is the Ammon Bundy approach! Take something hostage (Malheur Wildlife Refuge; a popular and public path) until the government takes notice and is forced to take action!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Mark M January 26, 2016 at 2:10 pm

        Do you enjoy your right to vote? your civil rights and freedoms? the right to work in a safe environment? The rights of people of color to patronize any retail establishment or sit anywhere they want instead of the back of the bus?

        I do.

        And it has all happened with protests such as your “Ammon Bundy approach.” Ever heard of the civil rights movement? look it up.

        Protests are a significant part of our history and freedom…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • daisy January 26, 2016 at 3:20 pm

          Is it okay to call someone out for mansplaining? Because this is an excellent example of it!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • longgone January 27, 2016 at 8:11 am

            As I stated before, my mother has been “mansplaining” things to people for years. Gender is not relevant to one’s lack of tact. The term has been denounced as useful by many recognized feminists.
            My original comment should have been allowed. Pcbikeportland.org.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 2:30 pm

            I applaud you calling someone out, but it works better without the sexist tropes.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • longgone January 27, 2016 at 8:07 pm

              In a world of infinite variables, it is quite possible for a person named Mark, to not be a man at all. I don’t know them therefore I would never assume. 🙂

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Mark M January 28, 2016 at 9:26 am

              Are you suggesting that I am being sexist for calling someone out for their utter disregard for peoples first amendment rights?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • 37Dennis January 28, 2016 at 12:39 pm

                I believe that was I regards to either “daisy” or “longgone” , not your comment.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 28, 2016 at 12:41 pm

                Dasiy.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Ron January 27, 2016 at 7:59 pm

          Hahaha! Ammond Bundy and his group of paranoid gun wackos = civil rights movement? Wow, nice leap. Glad you’re participating here.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • rachel b January 26, 2016 at 11:45 pm

        Are you referring to the campers or to the neighbors? Who’s holding what hostage, now?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Steve Scarich January 27, 2016 at 2:22 pm

        Thanks….you took the words right out of my mouth.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Matt January 26, 2016 at 1:05 pm

      Good update. I only wish you had directly confronted her with the concept that her company is in violation of the easement by denying public access.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Random January 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm

        “Good update. I only wish you had directly confronted her with the concept that her company is in violation of the easement by denying public access.”

        Feel free to take them to court. Good luck convincing a jury that providing an easement for bicyclists means that you have to tolerate a homeless camp, resulting from inaction by the city.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 26, 2016 at 1:44 pm

        Didn’t need to Matt. When she admitted it was being done for political purposes, it was only a matter of time before the city made them reopen it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm

          I guess a “good job” for your pointed question is in order then?

          “So you’re holding the path hostage? I asked. “Yeah. Kind of,” she replied.”

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 12:33 pm

    it’s hilarious and sad that they think that fence will keep people out…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Glenn January 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      It seems reasonable to assume that it’s less about keeping people out, and more about sending a message to the Mayor.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal January 26, 2016 at 12:39 pm

    Rescind ALL TAX BREAKS and incentives given to this land owner.

    Retroactively bill them for those back taxes INCLUDING late fees and penalties for those taxes not paid yet.

    Until they return this PUBLIC land back to the public charge them full market value for every square foot of prime real estate they’ve commandeered like those other criminals.

    If upon returning the land to public use they still want to mitigate abusive camping I suggest that they invest in quality lighting, video cameras and a sound system that plays the Lambchop’s Sing-a-Long theme song on a continuous 24/7 loop. It can actually be very quietly broadcast and still be an effective deterrent to sanity.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • maccoinnich January 26, 2016 at 12:48 pm

      What tax breaks do you think they’re getting?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pliny January 26, 2016 at 12:55 pm

      Technically, it’s not public land. It’s an easement. One they’ve been paying to maintain. They are in violation of their obligation to allow access, but have fun taking them to court over it.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm

      What good would the security cameras be if city hall has mandated a hands off policy? Who would monitor the footage?
      Why should the neighbors make this kind of investment on ODOT property when you’re also suggesting that they shouldn’t be able to manage the property directly adjacent to their building?! Your’re suggesting a rather expensive, aggressive and escalating solution to this problem.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jeff January 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      yeah, taxes don’t really work that way, but good on ya for thinking big.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Random January 26, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    “As we reported with a similar situation on the Springwater, Mayor Hales is no longer enforcing camping bans in Portland until there are enough places for everyone to live.”

    Sounds like Hales and the City of Portland are to blame here.

    The private owner agreed to an easement for a bike trail, not an easement for a homeless camp.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 1:46 pm

      the private owner agreed to a public easement… homeless people are part of the public population…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • ean January 26, 2016 at 4:55 pm

        You would have to read the language in the easement to determine that.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BeavertonRider January 26, 2016 at 2:07 pm

      Talk about holding something hostage… This seems far more egregious than this management company’s actions. The Mayor is saying that the City will not enforce it’s own laws in addition to not preserving public safety until something else occurs. Conveniently, though, that something is wholly in the City’s control and the City will not do it’s job.

      Therefore, we should become accustomed to permanent tent/shanty towns in Portland.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Psyfalcon January 26, 2016 at 2:09 pm

      Well, if they’re there after the hours the easement prescribes, or off the path easement, shouldn’t they be removed?

      I mean Portland isn’t really saying it wont apply trespassing laws to people on private property now, right? Or at what point does a person or business loose the ability to have people thrown off their property, surely I could get someone arrested for camping in my backyard.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tomas La Palella January 26, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    We can’t have a clean or safe…let’s see: Springwater, Eastbank, Waterfront Park, North Park Blocks, 205 Path, Marine Drive, Forest Park, Washington Park, Powell Butte, Colonel Summers, etc etc etc.

    What’s left? Not much.

    Charlie Hales has openly invited people who choose a lifestyle of drugs, crime and squatting to take over our city. He’s practically begging them to come here and prey on our tolerance and progressive ideals.

    I’m tired of it. I’m tired of picking up hypodermic needles cast into my yard, tired of being intimidated and chased out of public spaces that I support with my tax dollars and volunteer time. While Fritz pats herself in the back and Charlie desperately tries to pad out his do-nothing legacy, our quality of life is being severely affected.

    I’m done feeling sorry for the people who are sucking us dry. It’s time for action. It’s time we made it clear that as Portlanders we deserve more than this. No more unregistered sex offenders living camps just a stone’s throw from our schools. No more shanty towns full of stolen bikes, stolen electronics and even stolen guns. No more open air meth, crack and heroin use on our greenways and commons!

    It’s time we stand up and made our voices heard. Enough!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jeff January 26, 2016 at 2:00 pm

      some of these folks are now arming themselves, according to today’s headlines. stolen guns, stolen cars, recidivism as its finest.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • soren January 26, 2016 at 3:24 pm

      It’s time for the upper quintiles to stop complaining about a perennial problem and fund a minimal level of housing for the houseless.

      “that I support with my tax dollars”

      A civil society is not free. Time to pay up!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 3:34 pm

        I want safe roads. I want housing for the homeless. I’m also willing to pay for it. Please tax me!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • longgone January 26, 2016 at 5:27 pm

          I’m taxed quite enough. Please be quiet, you are giving them ideas. Shhhh.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • jeff January 27, 2016 at 10:54 am

          you must not be a home owner in PDX.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • longgone January 27, 2016 at 8:01 pm

            No… I live in a van.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 37Dennis January 28, 2016 at 8:54 am

        @soren…. You either misread Tomas, or chose to cherry-pick his words for your own use. First, even of he is a homeowner, that does not mean he is some societal elitist. Second, he spoke directly to public spaces in regards to his tax money.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • CR January 26, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    It’s worth considering how property owners will feel about requested easements for trails in the future.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pat Lowell January 26, 2016 at 1:11 pm

      This, exactly!!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Pat Lowell January 26, 2016 at 1:12 pm

        Forgot to add, good luck getting the gaps in our MUPs filled in, if this will be the result..

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Glenn January 26, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    I support the mayor in declaring a State of Emergency regarding homelessness in Portland, and feel that it was years overdue. Unfortunately, that State of Emergency has come without any sort of plan or communication. We’re seeing this play out over and over, whether on the Springwater Trail, Greeley, or now in this instance. Yes, we have an issue with housing and homelessness, Mayor Hales, and our homeless citizens deserve more. So do people who use parks and trails, and residents of neighborhoods who have seen crime rise as the result of a few bad apples in some of the camps. The complete lack of communication and involvement from the Mayor and City Council has only served to pit neighborhoods and groups like cyclists against the homeless. That isn’t fair to anyone, and quickly breaks down a community.

    Apologies for the rant…..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John January 26, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    This problem isn’t the management company’s fault and it’s not one they can solve on their own. I appreciate the gravity of the situation, but these people need to get off the streets. If the mayor wants to accommodate them in another way through some big action like converting a warehouse and providing adequate facilities and social help, that’s fine, but the rest of us shouldn’t have to put up with aggressive, territorial behavior and conditions akin to a developing nation. I want our public space back.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      this problem, the path being closed, is the management company’s fault…

      it’s not their fault there’s a homeless camp nearby…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kyle January 26, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    The condo owners can be held liable for anything that happens on their property. I doubt they really want to block the trail because it affects their access too.

    While the vast majority of homeless people do not cause trouble, these camps sometimes do present real safety and sanitation problems while preventing trails from being used as they should. Frankly, I find riding on the streets highly preferable to riding through certain camps (including this one) late at night.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • daisy January 26, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    If you all want to share your concerns with Lisa and other folks at CMI (in a nice way, people!), here’s their contact information:
    http://www.communitymgt.com/index.cfm/company/staff-directory/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Racer X January 26, 2016 at 1:10 pm

    This may also be an opportunity too…I would recommend that the City of Portland’s Traffic Engineer immediately initiate an emergency bikeway diversion by upgrading the existing bike lane on Naito to a protected bike lane by closing the on-street parking and adding a few jersey barriers at each intersection plus appropriate signage.

    Even if the trail is only closed at night this section of Naito must be made safer so that bike riders that only feel safe on off street paths will feel safe enough to ride on the parallel bikeway.

    The Portland PBAC can also weight in on this close and mitigation too. (Perhaps an emergency meeting needs to be called with the appropriate public notice?)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom January 26, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Does this mean we can randomly close roads to auto traffic just because a road is near a homeless camp? The closure is illegal. The solution is bolt cutters. Deal with the camp issue seperatly without putting commuters in danger. Cars are way more dangerous than the homeless.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Todd Hudson January 26, 2016 at 1:28 pm

      It is probably not legal, and the city probably won’t press the issue. Going to court would be pretty humiliating for Hales.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Bryan
      Bryan January 26, 2016 at 1:40 pm

      Pretty sure they can borrow some functional bolt cutters from the nearby encampment.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:43 pm

      There is a very clear bike lane for that entire length! It’s not as though the cyclists now have no where else to go and are being needlessly victimized.

      If anyone should really be put out by this, I imagine it would be the residents who pay to live there and have lost a once beautiful and safe area to walk. Then again, walking your child or dog through an area strewn with used needles and human waste is not nearly as inconvenient as having to ride your bike in a bike lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. January 26, 2016 at 1:54 pm

        That bike lane on Naito is substandard: it’s too narrow, forces people to ride in the door zone, and is too close to high-speed motor traffic. Not to mention the high truck volume on that stretch. It is NOT a safe alternative.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 2:11 pm

          Yup. Not an option. And when it goes past the Steel Bridge, the tracks are at an angle, so one must choose between taking the lane and getting caught in the tracks.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Mike January 28, 2016 at 1:15 pm

            Except that the path is not in the road at that point – It goes through a homeless camp where the ground is littered in waste (bodily and otherwise) as well as used hypodermic needles. There is no need to ride in the street – ride on the MUP.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • longgone January 29, 2016 at 1:42 am

          I’ve noticed that Adam H. constantly bemoaning infrastructure. Portland will never be the dreamscape of cushioned baby bumper bike lanes he dreams of…. Just ride your bike. Potholes on major N. Portland viaducts aren’t even being patched. Roads with massive car traffic….What miracles are you waiting on? Did I mention, just ride your friggin’ bike? Oops I think I did.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 1:52 pm

      drivers injure and kill more people than the homeless do… where’s our state of emergency for driving? why aren’t they closing roads to prevent deaths? what ARE they doing?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tom Hardy January 26, 2016 at 1:13 pm

    The management company is worried about encampments like the one a few blocks away from them that was raided last night because the homeless brought out their guns in a dispute while blocking 19th under the Fremont bridge (Thurmond). This is also where bike chop shops come and go.
    The management company merely wished to close off the path because there were major concerns of the homeless setting up shop on their pathway, since PPB would not respond on Public Park/Private land to homeless problems.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 1:48 pm

      I think you mean Thurman, and .. they had a stolen car and guns. I’m guessing it was less of a “raid” and more of a response to what was seen in plain sight.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Hudson January 26, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    The condo complex managers did this to keep their residents safe, and their move is probably justified. There’s literally no one to call who won’t blow them off. Or should CMI wait until someone is stabbed on their property? A botched burglary? What are they supposed to do when the city mandates greenway easements but the same city refuses to do anything about criminal activity? Should they be like PBOT and wait for x deaths before acknowledging a problem?

    Also, this morning, PPB seized several stolen guns from a homeless camp in NW. Were they also just trying to survive?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm

      closing that gate does nothing to keep the residents safer…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Buzz January 26, 2016 at 2:16 pm

      If I were homeless, I would probably want a weapon to protect myself. In fact, they probably need one more than a homeowner does.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 26, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    UPDATE, 1:25 pm: Just off the phone with Mayor Hales. He said he’s going to demand that McCormick Pier Condiminiums re-open the path immediately. “I want you to know that I’m not going to permit people to take public right-of-way hostage for political purposes… They just unilaterally occupied this public right-of-way.” Hales went on to share his recent actions to deal with the homeless and housing problems plaguing Portland which include 275 new shelter beds in the past three months and $67 million invested in affordable housing. “We’ve moved quickly to make a difference,” he said.

    When I asked him specifically about the issue of homeless camps that are adjacent to transportation corridors like the Willamette Greenway and Springwater paths, he said his office is trying to get all city bureaus on the same page. “We understand that unmanaged homeless camps, unpoliced homeless camps can cause livability problems. That’s why we’re authorizing sweeps and clean-ups when necessary. No one should get the impression that they can just do whatever they want. However, in the short-run, while we’re moving to radically increase shelter space, there are going to be people camping outside. That’s a fact of life. We’re going to make sure that it’s done in a responsible way and where people’s safety is assured… both the safe of people in the neighborhood, people who pass through these transportation corridors, and the people in the camps.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dwk January 26, 2016 at 1:47 pm

      “We understand that unmanaged homeless camps, unpoliced homeless camps can cause livability problems.”
      Show us a good example of “managed” camp, Charlie.
      They need to set up camp on your lawn in Eastmoreland, maybe you can “manage” that…..

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Todd Hudson January 26, 2016 at 2:59 pm

        SE Reed College Place has a nice, wide median strip! A median strip that extends through most of Eastmoreland. You could put a few hundred tiny houses there!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Random January 26, 2016 at 3:17 pm

          “SE Reed College Place has a nice, wide median strip!”

          Why not just use the Reed College front lawn?

          Since the City of Portland is no longer enforcing the anti-camping laws on private property in Portland, the lawn could accommodate several hundred campers, at least.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • tom January 26, 2016 at 6:43 pm

        they should deliver all of the trash that has been picked up through out the week and deliver to mr. hales’ front yard. whats the point of having laws on the book if you aren’t even going to enforce. that’s the biggest load of bollocks I ever heard. ive tried to be nice but charlie hales can go to a not nice place. he’s passive take on this entire issue will cement his legacy as a big giant doormat.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Todd Hudson January 26, 2016 at 1:47 pm

      “No one should get the impression that they can just do whatever they want.”

      Huh….how strange. That’s exactly what’s happening. Do people take seriously anything Hales says anymore?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • dbrunker January 26, 2016 at 10:25 pm

        Three word: Elections have consequences.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • downtown tom January 27, 2016 at 9:43 am

          and he basically signaled to the city that he had given up the moment he backed out of the upcoming election washing himself of further responsibility he might have to deal with in a second term. ive never heard of an incumbent who didn’t at least give it a go a second time. im sure there are lots but I cant think of him as anything but a quitter. sorry Charlie….

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 12:03 pm

            Potter? Adams? You have to go back a ways before you could find someone who did run for re-election.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 1:48 pm

      I love this, because it was 61 minutes after the condo association saying “we’re not opening it”.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike January 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

      “They just unilaterally occupied this public right-of-way.”

      Is Hales talking about the homeless? Oh wait…

      “I want you to know that I’m not going to permit people to take public right-of-way hostage for political purposes…”

      Political purposes being the key difference.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • jeff January 26, 2016 at 2:03 pm

      275 beds for nearly 4000 people on the streets. wow, what a bold move.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam January 26, 2016 at 2:08 pm

      So when is a sweep under the Steel going to happen? Try never. *sigh*

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BeavertonRider January 26, 2016 at 2:19 pm

      Interesting response. Hales expresses outrage that MPC is occupying publoc space and demands immediate action on their part… Notice the complete lack of outrage about the homeless and transients not just occupying public space, but creating a safety and sanitation problem.

      Hales’ response is wholly inappropriate, but fits well with his negilgence regarding this issue of homeless camps.

      Really a contemptible and irresponsible response on his part.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • MaxD January 26, 2016 at 2:39 pm

      Maybe Hales will reopen the closed public ROW along the 12th st alignment between NE Lloyd and NE Holladay!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Scott H January 26, 2016 at 3:09 pm

      Huh. It’s too bad Hales isn’t sheriff of Harney County.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • m January 26, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    Does the easement require the city to maintain the property included in the easement?
    Do the actions of the homeless constitute a public nuisance?
    Can the property revoke and/or suspend the easement if the city fails to comply with the terms of the easement such as allowing a nuisance to persist?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • estherc January 26, 2016 at 1:36 pm

    My guess is that easement is for a pathway, not a trash dump or campsite. So if the citizens of Portland are misusing the easement I think they should allow it to be closed. Hopefully this will force the mayor’s hand and allow the police to do something about the illegal activity.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 1:49 pm

      If someone does something illegal on the sidewalk in front of your home, can you close the sidewalk?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Bjorn January 26, 2016 at 2:06 pm

        We had squatters living next door to us. It took the city over a year to finally remove them. During that time it was impossible to use the sidewalk without being threatened by them and their loose pitbulls. I hope that the mayor will do something about the safety problems in this neighborhood, and it is unfortunate that it took this kind of action to get him to take notice.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Craig Gifen January 26, 2016 at 4:21 pm

          Only a year? Wow, you must live in a pricey upscale neighborhood for it to be dealt with so quickly. 🙂

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • bjorn January 26, 2016 at 4:52 pm

            It was about 18 months total of problems but a little over a year of really bad times. I organized a half dozen other neighbors and we made a lot of noise until the city finally abated the property. It was not easy to get them to act. We are in cully.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • longgone January 26, 2016 at 2:14 pm

        That was my first thought.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • m January 26, 2016 at 2:20 pm

        If you had a written easement agreement with the city that said you could suspend the easement if the city failed to maintain the easement area such as not allowing a public nuisance in the area, then yes.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan 1.0 January 26, 2016 at 1:56 pm

    Perfect timing for “Gap Week,” and CMI can always cite Malheur as precedent. [/s]

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Random January 26, 2016 at 2:35 pm

      “CMI can always cite Malheur as precedent.”

      The difference, of course, being that it’s CMI’s property.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim January 26, 2016 at 1:58 pm

    Those that use the path are screaming personal liberty. Those that live there scream personal safety. Guess whose rights trump whose?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 2:07 pm

      “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam January 26, 2016 at 2:14 pm

      You might gave the personal liberty under the law to CAMP.

      But that doesn’t give you the personal liberty to use drugs, dump trash, and steal private property. For many, these are the issues. They are illegal acts the Mayor’s office seems to be ignoring.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Jim January 26, 2016 at 4:41 pm

        Missed point. I’m not referring to the homeless in either of my examples. I’m referring to the cyclist who want passage, and the area residents that fear for their safety.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn January 26, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    This recommendation that people just go talk to the campers, who are often violent, or mentally ill is eventually going to get someone hurt. It is understandable why people are frankly scared of some of the people in the tents especially the ones who are aggressive: http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/01/portland_police_locate_stolen.html#incart_river_home

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • rachel b January 26, 2016 at 11:59 pm

      Thank you for saying this, Bjorn. I always wonder about folks that make that suggestion. It’s like DIY culture run amok. Quite apart from the potential danger you point out, no one should feel ashamed if they don’t feel inclined to go reason with anyone who’s evidencing (at the very least) seriously challenging, jerky behavior.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam January 26, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    I wonder whether any agencies have considered approaching the homeless camp problem not from a political angle, but rather from a public health angle?

    The large quantity of trash, fences, urine, drug-use paraphernalia etc could constitute fly-tipping perhaps? I’m not sure.

    But it is a huge public health hazard for sure, liability wise.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Buzz January 26, 2016 at 2:17 pm

    Anyone with a half decent bolt cutter would be able to reopen the path.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BeavertonRider January 26, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Oh, and notice Hales admonition of MPC for it’s political hostage taking… What a duplicitous position given that Hales refuses to enforce local ordinances prohibiting tent camps until “something can be done.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:55 pm

      it’s no longer a crime to camp in the public right of way…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Random January 26, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    “Just off the phone with Mayor Hales. He said he’s going to demand that McCormick Pier Condiminiums re-open the path immediately. “I want you to know that I’m not going to permit people to take public right-of-way hostage for political purposes… They just unilaterally occupied this public right-of-way.”

    LOL. This is going to be fun to watch.

    If I were the condo association, I’d send Hales a polite letter asking him to guarantee that the Portland Police will enforce the camping ban on condo association property when informed of illegal camping.

    I’d also ask the City of Portland to indemnify the condo association against any liability caused by people camping on condo association property.

    If the City of Portland won’t take action to stop camping on the condo association’s private property, I’d invite them to see them in court, where the City can explain why they’ve stopped enforcing the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 26, 2016 at 2:55 pm

      it’s no longer a crime to camp in the public right of way…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve B. January 26, 2016 at 2:37 pm

    Major kudos to Mayor Hales for standing up for folks living outside. I’m really impressed with his stride as of late.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • soren January 26, 2016 at 3:12 pm

      I agree. I’m impressed with Hales now that he is free to not give a damn about corporate political contributions.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • rachel b January 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

      I see it less as a bold stand and more as the easy way out. With the added plus of a halo. Message: I CARE. Cue applause. Exeunt.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RH January 26, 2016 at 2:45 pm

    Keep the path closed. This homeless issue needs to be fixed. Bring down the news cameras, the protests. The citizens of Portland are completely frustrated with their City Council.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Tomas La Palella January 26, 2016 at 4:27 pm

      Agreed. Kudos to McCormick Pier for standing up to the mayor, who’s seemingly eager to let our city turn to shit so that he can bolster his own reputation. If only the average citizen could weild the power they do with a simple swing of a gate! This could be the first step and a crucial turning point in opposition of Hales’ Homeless Hullabaloo. He needs to listen to his constituents, reelection bid or not. At this point I’m way more pissed at him about this than over anything Novick’s tried to foist upon us.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      except that keeping the path closed defers the issue…

      if you want something done, and it seems that you do, then leave the path open and let chaos ensue… THAT is what makes news…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

        Au contraire… if they had left the gate open, no one would be talking about it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Champs January 26, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    Two nights ago, we were riding on the upper deck of the Steel Bridge. A TriMet cop approached from behind and barked at us that “there’s a bike path down there for a reason.”

    Sadly that doesn’t seem to be what it’s used for. This cop knows why we were there. There is no traffic on Sunday night at 9:30. The patrol car had no flashing lights or sirens. There’s simply no evidence that an emergency was being responded to; not above, not below.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Buzz January 26, 2016 at 4:04 pm

      This is simply an instance of a sworn officer not actually knowing the law, no big surprise there; but how does it relate to the issue at hand.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • longgone January 26, 2016 at 5:34 pm

        @ Buzz… Perhaps Champs was not comfortable riding the lower deck. That is one very clear way it is related to this topic.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:52 pm

      that’s when I’d get that person’s info and file a complaint with TriMet…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • nuovorecord January 26, 2016 at 3:02 pm

    If I owned a condo in McCormick Pier, I’d be madder than hell about this. It’s one thing for homeless camps to be set up in public parks or under bridges; quite another for them to be on easements. The easement allows people to pass through, it’s not meant for the purposes the homeless are using it for. Being homeless doesn’t mean you get to be a criminal and inconsiderate of others.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:51 pm

      there are NO homeless camps on the easement or the condo property…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • nuovorecord January 29, 2016 at 1:05 pm

        Granted. Apparently the condo property/easement (same thing) is only the landfill for the homeless camp. So, no problem, right?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hello, Kitty
    Hello, Kitty January 26, 2016 at 3:04 pm

    My proposal to fixing the situation on the Springwater is to build a gate across the path and lock it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carter Kennedy January 26, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    That route is narrow, twisty, and slow if you want to be the least bit courteous to pedestrians and residents. It does provide a nice view of the river. It is a scenic ride and walk. If you actually want to get somewhere, you use Naito.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • SilkySlim January 26, 2016 at 3:41 pm

      When I jog to/from work it is my commute! I’ve used it 2/3 times a week for years.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • longgone January 27, 2016 at 8:34 am

      True. Others here seem to preach that Naito is unsafe to ride. I’ve ridden it for 12 years with no issues. I have on the other hand, avoided the eslpanade, Spring water, and the Steel Bridge at night for months now. As one never to tollerate a street scuffle, my bike wheel has lead me away from this area, and it may be a long time before iI wish to deal with it daily again. My heart is filled with empathy for those on the skids, but all too many times anymore the elements around alot of street folks get sketch for me. I work, bike, bus and sometimes walk downtown. I’ve been attacked twice in the past year. The number of times I’ve been goaded by miscreants is beyond counting. Most times I try to find a funny way to deescalate the moment.
      What is to be done? Ha!….. I see nothing on the horizon for anyone soon,…on either side of this.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • scott January 26, 2016 at 3:25 pm

    This will certainly fix the homeless problem.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BeavertonRider January 26, 2016 at 10:00 pm

      No, of course it will not. But it will enhance the safety of tenants and that’s the association’s responsibility when the City has clearly calculated that it would rather permit illegal camps rather than to serve and protect.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • redhippie January 26, 2016 at 4:30 pm

    Just yet another example of where our city’s famous livability has been hijacked by homeless advocates

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • scott January 28, 2016 at 4:51 pm

      It’s not a city yet.

      Also “hijacked”? Come on.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Liu
    John Liu January 26, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    This sucks, but I do have some sympathy for the condo association. Their property is being turned into a homeless camp, the city isn’t doing enough to control trash or aggressive behavior, and locking the gate is probably the most effective way for them to get the city to do the cleanup and sweeps and patrols that it isn’t doing.

    Allowing homeless people to camp wherever they choose is simply not working.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      there are NO homeless people living on the condo property…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • longgone January 28, 2016 at 12:14 am

        That may be true. I am going to look see tomorrow. Ted posted video, but alas my service is too slow to view it. I do know the texture is thickening aaong the fence. I have two coworkers, ( both female, for what that’s worth) that live along the path to the north. Both describe daily they’re concern for personal safety. Just an FYI….

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alison Fulmer January 26, 2016 at 6:10 pm

    I would rather go ride on Naito in the traffic than try to ride through the filth of this encampment. I do not blame the condo owners at all for locking the gate, they are being vandalized. They are afraid and to be honest so am I. A train came as I apporached the tracks northbound at that gate recently and I was afraid to wait there, I turned around and backtracked. I happen to be female and women put up with enough grief cycling without having to be afraid. I came upon the stretch from 82nd to 92nd on the Springwater three weeks ago and was afraid. No matter what all the background stories are for the homeless some if not most involve drugs and violence. Women are afraid to ride the Springwater at night as well for this reason. Yes, I feel badly people are resorting to living outisde but if they are the city needs a set place them to camp now. The mayor needs to step up to the plate and start to do something.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike Sanders January 26, 2016 at 6:50 pm

    The condo folks say that the trail stays closed until the Mayor & city council gets off their rear ends and do something about it. What can they do if they are being bussed in from as far away as Miami? If that indeed what’s going on, then one wonders why those other places are sending them here in the first place. Renenber, Hales isn’t running for another term. If he was, this situation might be blowing his chances for another term. Sending people from other places here just to “solve” a problem elsewhere just makes the situation worse at both ends. That’s something to check into, pronto.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 26, 2016 at 7:02 pm

      If people are being bused here from Miami, one also wonders why the Oregonian or WW haven’t put this on their front page. If it’s happening, it shouldn’t be to hard to find someone who’s been a “beneficiary” of the practice.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Mike Sanders January 27, 2016 at 9:28 am

        Good point, Kit. You’d think the TV stations would be all over this as well.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 10:05 am

          Yes. If it were happening.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 26, 2016 at 7:39 pm

    I rolled through there this evening and saw the locked gate. It isn’t the gate I assumed it was. Anyhow, here’s what the camps look like. There are many more than six months ago, but they are relatively clean from this point of view.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rfpWKaf81c

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:44 pm

      thanks for the video!

      I was hoping somebody would roll through there with a camera to document it…

      I see that you weren’t harassed by anybody… also, is that a film crew by the gates?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Charles McCarthy January 26, 2016 at 8:09 pm

    50 or 60 years ago, Chicago was giving one-way bus tickets to Minneapolis for anyone on the welfare rolls.
    Dumping your problems on someone else has a long history.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mossby Pomegranate January 26, 2016 at 9:16 pm

      Progressives run Portland. Therefore Progressives facilitate the homeless disaster we are seeing today in Portland. Man up and solve the problem. Yeah Maus you’ll delete this but who cares.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rachel b January 27, 2016 at 12:09 am

    “There is no one left to call and it is simply not safe.”

    I think that sums it up neatly.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brad January 27, 2016 at 12:53 am

    I walked the riverfront tonight and was irritated to find that section closed. The city needs to send someone down there with bolt cutters and reopen those gates.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Champs January 27, 2016 at 10:39 am

      How do bolt cutters shelter and police the city’s homeless? The gate is not the issue here.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:42 pm

        the gate is the issue…

        the reasoning is the nearby dangerous homeless residents…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JeffL January 27, 2016 at 4:25 am

    It kind of blows when my travel path gets blocked up like this. Also trying to walk up and down the stairs on that bridge is blocked by people living on them.

    Slightly relatedly, this kind of reminded me of the time I tried to walk the Morrison Bridge and found out that heroine addicts camp on the walkway underneath it and also defecate there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rickrill January 27, 2016 at 6:22 am

    Wow, those are some interesting photos of the scene.
    Typically in the months past, this area has been overflowing with homeless randoms’ possessions, tarp forts, plastic tubs of sewage and plenty of trash strewn about. The sidewalk was packed full!
    And the smell was pretty foul as well.
    I was stopped a few times by these occupiers and surrounded while they tried to convince me that they’d be happy to take my bike off my hands.
    Fun times.
    I think they were just playin tho, since it was during rush hour with lots of witnesses.
    I find it unfortunate that the city, and that includes you, Hales, are supportive of allowing these “unfortunates” to co-opt public right of way on Naito, Waterfront and Springwater away from us, the tax-paying citizens.
    Summer along is gonna be something to witness, amirite???
    A localized version of Burning Man, if we are lucky.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • longgone January 27, 2016 at 8:19 am

    So, what is the status today? It is now Wednesday, are the gates still locked? I would be happy to change that on my way to work!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Atkinson January 27, 2016 at 9:46 am

      It was locked when I rode by this morning.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • longgone January 27, 2016 at 1:54 pm

        i just saw it…. still locked.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • joel January 27, 2016 at 8:23 am

    the camps around 8th and west burnside are gone- i suspect after law enforcment kept busting people for drugs and warrants, and maybe after the campers assaulted more than a few people.

    Portland is not only a great place for people to move to- it is also a wonderful city for homeless people. despite the lack of housing services people are choosing to move to portland, both housed and not.

    i wonder if we combined all the homeless camps into one how much area it would take up?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Barbara L January 27, 2016 at 8:28 am

    Back in the 80’s the condo group closed it with locks and said it was private. They didn’t want users on it from the beginning. Said would bring crime. Part of their being able to build it there in the 1st place was to have the path and keep it open. Took some work to keep it open then. That’s how the hours open got established.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Chris I January 27, 2016 at 9:31 am

      I guess their predictions were pretty accurate, then.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • still riding after all that January 27, 2016 at 9:48 am

    Let me see if I’ve got this right. People who work and pay taxes (which fund the salaries of the mayor, city council, police, and other officials) are now banned from public space that has been taken over by people who do NOT work or pay taxes. Meanwhile, Hales, Fritz et al fully support this policy of catering to criminals, who are allowed to camp in that public space, steal things, use drugs, turn the whole place into a huge open-air bathroom, and attack decent people who live near there or are attempting to pass through peacefully.

    Well done, Mayor! <= sarcasm

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy January 27, 2016 at 3:39 pm

      “people who do NOT work or pay taxes … are allowed to camp in that public space, steal things, use drugs, turn the whole place into a huge open-air bathroom, and attack decent people who live near there”

      but who are those people? unless they’re caught red-handed then the police can’t just tear the entire camp apart because somebody else in the area was doing illegal things…

      the police need proof before they can legally take action…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 10:28 pm

        And they need individualized proof, not proof of collective guilt.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 28, 2016 at 8:54 am

          further, I’m confused how paying (larger amounts of) taxes makes someone more entitled to public spaces.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 28, 2016 at 9:48 am

            If I pay more, why shouldn’t I get priority for booking the prime Springwater camping spots?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • still riding after all that January 29, 2016 at 12:26 pm

            Not “more entitled,” just equal access to public space with a reasonable expectation of safety, which is not the case while these homeless open-sewer druggies are camping there and assaulting people, threatening passersby, stealing bicycles, and so on.

            If the tent city mess doesn’t get cleaned out soon, we’ll have a mess here like Seattle just had:
            http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/drug-dispute-likely-started-deadly-seattle-homeless-shooting/ar-BBoOclu

            We’ve already had the arrest of 2 guys in a tent with 5 stolen rifles. The more these “homeless” people get away with, the more emboldened they become to do more and worse. It’s only a matter of time.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • downtown tom January 27, 2016 at 9:58 am

    im not sure why everyone is lamenting that path to begin with. as commute option it sucks. its twisty, has slippery wooden section, blind corners with high hedges and shrubs, people fishing and walking slow. its not meant for bicycles at all. ride on naito in the bike lane. its not that bad. whats happening at the bridge is a portrait of a larger argument. who has more rights, out of town squatters or established tax payers?? obivious charlie hales has decided squatters come first. way to go…..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike January 28, 2016 at 1:32 pm

      Because it is the “only safe bike route through downtown.”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • scott January 28, 2016 at 4:56 pm

      The less fortunate should always come first. Success in life isn’t about being able to look down on people.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Audrey January 27, 2016 at 11:01 am

    I work in Chinatown, and for the first time I’m starting to feel unsafe in broad daylight around here. This morning on a quick 4 block walk from the MAX to my office I ran the gauntlet of people completely strung out on drugs staggering into me, human waste, and people aggressively fighting on the sidewalk.

    Biking takes me through the camps around the Steel Bridge, and I can no longer take the most direct route, I have to go out of my way because the entire sidewalk is now blocked.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SEPDXRider January 27, 2016 at 11:21 am

    So let me get this straight… it’s OK to take over public land and prevent access by being… well… rough and homeless and maybe dangerous… scary.

    I dunno what the word is. So not OK, but no police action unless there is clear and present danger…

    But close a path for political (and let’s be honest, safety and security) reasons and our Mayor vows to respond with force and demands? Would it seriously come to bolt cutters and lawsuits!?!?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 27, 2016 at 11:24 am

      Tough times call for tough measures.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt January 27, 2016 at 11:54 am

    Who authorize the gate installed in the photography with the door. Looks like the original plan was to be able to seal of this path if need be?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Random January 27, 2016 at 1:21 pm

      “Looks like the original plan was to be able to seal of this path if need be?”

      The easement exists only during certain hours of the day (i.e. not at night).

      That’s worked well…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Captain Karma January 27, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    Welcome to libertarian society. Now get away from MY locked gate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • poledra January 27, 2016 at 9:38 pm

    Sufficient enclosed buildings should be obtained/located for folks who cannot seem to stay off the street, regardless of the reason–warehouse types or apartments, whatever works…NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CAMP/LIVE IN PUBLIC SPACE, PERIOD. It’s dangerous not just for the people living in the neighborhoods, but even more so for the homeless folks out there on the street. I recognize that there is a struggle for homeless folks out there, but my god, no taxpayer should ever have to put up with this shit. ESPECIALLY for what homeowners and taxpayers are paying out in Portland! Not to mention business owners! Outside of some types of people who are struggling to find a place to live, also here are literal PACKS of dangerous, filthy, badly behaved tweaky druggies–and those freakin’ street kids!– just laying about the parks and nice spaces, being ignorant and smoking like they are trying to stink up entire neighborhoods. Very first comment I generally get from out of state visitors is to complain about the endless array of panhandlers and generally reeky assholes in public spots, in transportation, et. al. The renters, homeowners and business owners drive the economic engine of the city, and should not have to continually compromise their safety and business base because the city government will not crack down on these camps and the stupid daily behavior of some street dwellers! The city–and state for that matter!–need to come up with some real housing solutions, and then enforce the use and USER UPKEEP of the same. The time for excuses is OVER. BTW, someone should just rock up with a pair of bolt cutters and cut the lock on the goddamn gate! Plus, carry pepper spray if you are not getting left alone by anyone, homeless or otherwise!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Granpa January 28, 2016 at 8:10 am

    So Honorable Mayor Hales sez “No one should get the impression that they can just do whatever they want.”

    Don’t believe your lying eyes,

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam January 28, 2016 at 12:22 pm

      No-one should get the impression they can do whatever they want… unless they’re homeless!!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • are January 28, 2016 at 3:16 pm

        homeless can’t sleep in a warm bed

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • redhippie January 28, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Road by this morning. There was a dump truck, 6 to 8 cops and other city workers looking to be dismantling tents and cleaning up. Finally.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • scott January 28, 2016 at 4:52 pm

      Yeah. This will really open up your opportunities for complaining about where the next camp is. Everything is coming up redhippie.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam January 28, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    I biked through the camp this morning.

    They had cop cars, a Mult Country Inmate Work Crew, and about two or three bulldozers.

    The crew seemed to be removing trash. The diggers were laying down a ton of grey rocks. They had completely cleared the tents from one side to put the rocks down over the soil.

    I’m not sure what the plan is here. Interested to see what the area looks like tonight.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • downtown tom January 28, 2016 at 1:36 pm

      its probably rip rap. if you go over by 1-5 and look where folks used to camp by the railroad tracks, you’ll see the same thing. its just big pokey rocks that’s impossible to camp on top of. its kind of a drastic measure but keeps the derelicts off. shrug….

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • downtown tom January 29, 2016 at 10:10 am

    Nope, it’s a gravel pad for giant storage container. I went by there today. Still tons of tents and people milling about. It looks like alot of folks migrate over to the train station underneath the broadway bridge. So there you go, prepare for a large legal battle and mega snafu…..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • FYI January 31, 2016 at 9:45 am

    Management companies work at the direction of the Board of Directors and do not make decisions themselves, only coordinate the implementation of those decisions. The stakeholders for this property are the owners of the units in the homeowners association and they are represented by their elected Board of Directors.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • suicidarida January 31, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Homeless takeover!
    The homeless get free rights to waterfront property for camping currently.
    In once pristine properties, Managed and cleaned daily by the strained city funds.
    I have always wanted waterfront property. But i will never see it.
    If non homeless, citizens get parking ticket. For me, even 30 minute parking in front of my house. I get ticketed.
    Homeless, and you can park there for free In front of my house. for as long as they want.
    If I have A home. I cant camp.
    These properties are being taken from us by the homeless..
    I live near gateway. Where most on this site have recommended they go.
    Not in my neighborhood. All seem to think.
    Dedicated campsites need to be established. Not by hospitals, etc. So they can bathe in sinks of businesses. And they dont pay taxes.
    We make it too convenient for them, so they come from out of state to camp here. Oregon is and will soon be taking care of the country of homeless. Due to our leniency.
    But, I will ride again. But not without A backup plan for my safety.
    Regester your bikes people so we can at least breakup one source of their illegal income.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • suicidarida January 31, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Burns oregon takeover of public land.
    Homeless takeover Oregon public land.
    I see no difference.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 31, 2016 at 12:57 pm

      Really?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • suicidarida January 31, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Yes they have guns too. 6 confiscated at springwater corridor and between 92nd and 82nd, in one stop. A week or so ago. Most others dont hit the news. But I know this one did.
    Imagine the thought of them with guns.?
    Different but similar to burns or. Both squatters.
    Trying to provoke thought.
    Rode the 35 mile loop today DT to gateway. Camps everywhere, trash, full jugs of urine, buckets of poo.
    We as citizens camp in designated camping sites, when we want to camp..
    Why cant the homeless do this? I have A feeling they would fight among each other as washington has done this already. 1 dead 5 wounded or more. At designated camp in seattle.
    As I recall

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 31, 2016 at 6:10 pm

      I don’t think the campers who are armed have the intent of insurrection or revolution. Nor do I think they have the capability.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Ted Timmons (Contributor) January 31, 2016 at 6:19 pm

      why do you assume there are serious issues (like guns) that aren’t being reported on? It’s a serious enough issue to assume that when it happens, it makes the news (or at least PIO, which is regurgitated by the lazy news orgs.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • JeffS February 2, 2016 at 1:18 pm

      Is there a designated camping site in town with empty space?
      And are you implying that these people are citizens?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty February 2, 2016 at 1:22 pm

        I’ll bet Oxbow Park has sites available at this time of year.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • suicidarida January 31, 2016 at 7:00 pm

    Its in the news Hello Kitty. Check both of my stories. Google?
    Don’t take an education to pull A trigger?
    This is already happening. Capable. No?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty January 31, 2016 at 7:12 pm

      Let me know when the armed campers start distributing their manifesto about how the government illegally appropriated the land for the Springwater corridor.

      I know some have guns; but they are not organized, not militant, not political. They are very different than the Burns militia guys.

      Recommended Thumb up 0