The City of Portland and other government partners in the metro area are losing control of some of their most beloved and important public spaces because some drivers refuse to obey laws and lax design and enforcement makes it very easy to do so. And so far there doesn’t seem to be a strong plan to stop it from happening.
Last week we shared the disturbing trend of people parking on the grass in Sellwood Park and the scary story of a man who was injured in a hit-and-run while enjoying the calm of Creston Park. That story came just a few days after we shared information about someone who drove on the bike path adjacent to I-5 across the Columbia River and narrowly hit a bicycle rider. And a bit before that was the story of a man who drove several miles on the popular Springwater Corridor path, hit a bicycle rider, and was only stopped by a metal bollard.
On Friday, a reader shared a photo of a car being driven on the I-205 path between SE Powell and Division (above).(Note the I-205 path is owned and managed by Oregon Department of Transportation). Then over the weekend someone shared video of a person driving a minivan on the Springwater. “Watched the guys remove the bollard at SEE 111th and drive right on towards Foster,” the person shared in a message to BikePortland. “Looks like the lock on that bollard needs replaced.”
After all this, many readers are rightfully disturbed by this erosion of norms and how it makes people question what should always remain safe spaces.
Last Wednesday, I asked the Portland Parks & Recreation public information officer about the incidents in Creston and Sellwood parks: Does Parks have a plan to address dangerous driving in these situations? Do Parks have something to share with the community around safety and expectations going forward?
Here’s the response from Parks:
Thank you for asking about these instances of people driving vehicles into parks. Portland Parks & Recreation Park Rangers are visiting Creston Park every night and have been in coordination with Portland Police Bureau about the Creston Park and Sellwood Riverfront Park instances.
To further assist your readers:
Portland Park Rangers work collaboratively with partners in other City bureaus, they offer services and visitor assistance. Their work includes informing visitors about park rules regarding park hours, City code related to erecting structures, and so on. They will offer social services to anyone in need who wants them.
- If you need to report an immediate problem in a park, please contact our Park Ranger Dispatch at 503-823-1637 or email RangerCallCenter@portlandoregon.gov.
- If a crime, an injury, or an emergency / dangerous situation is taking place, call 911.
- PDX 311 improves access to local government within Multnomah County by providing a single point of contact – in person, online or over the phone to find information, report issues, or request services. Phone: at 3-1-1 within Multnomah County or (503) 823-4000 Email: 311@portlandoregon.gov
- Report a Campsite: https://www.portland.gov/homelessnessimpactreduction/report-campsite
- Maintenance concerns, defective equipment and issues around daily cleaning and care can be made via ParkScan or About ParkScan | ParkScan Portland (parkscanpdx.org)
Rangers are not law enforcement officers, rather they serve as public safety ambassadors and provide a positive public safety presence in Portland parks and park facilities. It is indeed peak season for our staff, and we strive to respond to all concerns we’re alerted to.
This isn’t a very inspiring response to such a serious problem. But it’s a start.
Save this contact info and make sure you report everything you see. Part of making Parks act with more urgency will be data that shows the problem is frequent enough to warrant their attention.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Seems like hardening infrastructure is the more important thing. Enforcement is critical, but you can’t expect cops or rangers to be there 24/7 if there aren’t substantial barriers to vehicle access.
The fact that social services outreach is even mentioned in the context of trying to prevent people from illegally and dangerously operating motor vehicles in designated car free public spaces tells me that this is not going to be seriously addressed in a way that could make a difference.
Enforcement isn’t a viable strategy in the absence of proactive policing in a city where calling 911 gets the you put on hold.
You are correct. Peak Portland on display in that statement.
Several years ago when the Springwater started getting overrun by encampments, I had suggested on this forum and in a letter to the city that PPB should run daytime motorcycle patrols along Springwater, 205 Trail, and Eastside Esplanade. Knowing that the police could roll through at any moment would have dissuaded the camps and the criminal activities taking place in them. The city replied with a boilerplate “Thanks” followed by carefully crafted gobbledygook about equity and social services and the police potentially ruining whatever vibe the houseless had going. WTF? On this forum, it was met with crickets or some militant reaction that motorcycles were worse than drug dealing, violence, bike chop shops, and sanitation issues because…they burn fossil fuels!
Well, here we are. Parks are now parking lots and our MUPs are shortcuts for bold or impaired motorists because no consequences for such behaviors are feared. Rangers are toothless tourism ambassadors and the cops will not be dispatched for fear of hurting feelings. What happened to “The City That Works”? What happened to civic leadership that valued the law-abiding taxpayers and merchants that fuel the local economy? Why should the 98% of good, decent citizens be denied the parks and trails that they pay for because the city refuses to do anything about scofflaws and criminals?
Comment of the year!
I agree but JM will never pick it b/c BP is a negativity-free zone, apparently.
Hi Fred,
Why do you some other commenters insist on living in a fantasyland and continue to convince yourselves of lies about BP? It’s really weird to me. This isn’t a “negativity-free zone”. I have no problem sharing negative things on here. But I reserve the right to use my discretion and I always try to make sure that nothing platformed here hurts people or puts people in danger. It’s very difficult to balance highlighting serious issues while also making sure that some other critic doesn’t come in and blame me for a cop hurting a homeless person. It’s easy to comment and throw lobs in my direction, but just remember, as publisher of this site, I have to make sure I can defend everything that’s posted here (to some degree).
Also, folks might not recall but in 2019 I posted photos and comments from readers under a post with the headline, “I-205 path conditions are unacceptable” and I’ve done a lot to raise awareness of conditions out there. I lost paid subscribers because of that post — people who felt it was too unfair to people living outside who have nowhere else to go. So I’m weighing a lot of shit with all these decisions and I just want you to know that your little snide comments and critiques about me/BP say a lot more about you than they do about me.
Thanks.
Hi Jonathan,
I have come to be “fine” with where BP lands, and over the years, I have observed you to be reasonable about cycling in the face of many intractable problems: the unhoused, rampant mental illness and drug addictions untreated among the community, a general attitude of “I’ve got mine,” NIMBYism everywhere and the general “don’t give a sh*t” attitude of many in our modern world. Sure, in a face-to-face you and I would probably disagree on many points, but reasonableness is a treasure worth grappling for. So, from an old, and fairly conservative coot, I thank you for the hard work you do. It’s conflicted, but you and your team manage through.
Regards,
Stph
I recall lots of Comments of the Week, including my own, that were negative about one thing or another.
So are lots of comments, and lots of articles. Look at the long strings of commenters arguing/debating with one another. Look at the list of headlines. As recent or far back as you go, there are lots that were negative (assuming that’s similar to “critical”) about one thing or another.
“Why should the 98% of good, decent citizens be denied the parks and trails that they pay for because the city refuses to do anything about scofflaws and criminals?”
Because of Equity.
These guys are resourceful and they have a lot of free time. They removed and stole an entire metal pedestrian walkway at the nature park near my office, It was 10ft long and way back in the woods, bolted to a concrete base. We can only harden so much when we live in a world that includes $1 fentanyl and Harbor Freight battery angle grinders.
I like to refer to the cost of fentanyl in the form of units of soda cans.
Ten units of soda will get you high for the afternoon.
Drugs like this are a problem from hell. They eat away at the lowest rungs of our society, and the obvious social ills have a way of lowering society’s wherewithal to address the issue in a constructive way.
If only the cures for drug addiction and mental illness were as cheap as the drugs.
Im not saying we need the rangers to be the swat team but if they are in charge of looking over the parks then I would hope they would have some policing powers. Most cities I have lived in park rangers are legit cops with guns and ticketing and arrests powers
In my lived experience Portland Park Rangers are essentially useless….basically a version of Portland Street Response for the parks. This is the stuff they prioritize:
Need: all of them
Want: none
I challenge everyone to try to get help or assistance from the Park Rangers and report back. I have tried on several occasions and have been sorely disappointed. For me, they don’t answer the phone, don’t reply to voicemails, don’t reply to emails and have provided zero response to dangerous situations and livability concerns in our parks. To me it seems like a failed police alternative that is not serving our community.
I took the lead pic. Called 911. No plates, meager car description and we were moving in opposite directions and I was unwilling to wait for an officer, so no idea if a response was even given. But I refuse to just shrug at the behavior. Its a bike path. I belong. That doesn’t. Angering as hell. Won’t stop me from using the MUP but I get how its not helping others get out there and want to use it either. It’s like mad max for some parts.
“… so no idea if a response was given”
Answer: no response more likely than not.
IN fact, it is worse than that. Their jobs are very secure within the City- Union protected- to the extent that they prevent the City form outsourcing any additional security. Metro outsources their security and they manage to keep Smith/Bybee fairly clean and free from campers. City of Portland relies on the their fixed numbers of Rangers to cover all the Parks City-wide and, well, take a look at the Springwater Corridor, the Greeley bike path, many of our beaches, the bluffs below Overlook park, and on and on.
Well that’s a positive spin Jonathan. Parks didn’t even really mention the driving on park property or trails. If you want to see a very troubling video of our MUP’s look at this. It’s so sad we allow this. (Jonathan I know you won’t want to publish this but I think it’s important for people to see what is happening)
https://www.instagram.com/stories/pdx.real/3417885158613684303/
Hi Mary S,
You must be new here. Welcome.
I shared the response. I said it wasn’t a great response. I know the condition of our MUPs, I don’t need to watch more hate-baiting videos from PDX Real. Also, we don’t “allow” these things to happen, we don’t have the will and/or the resources/capacity to prevent them and deal with them. Big difference.
Unfortunately, that is the response of any bureau in the city, Jonathan.
The violence near Dawson Park and the Williams bikeway is a perfect example of a city government of paper tigers. When we said “defund the police” we forgot to give any teeth to alternatives for what’s increasingly a paramilitary force. It can take MONTHS of back and forth, but every time I try to solve a problem it always comes down to that bureau putting the job on PPB. Bug or a feature, depending on who you ask…
yeah I’m really shaking my head about Dawson Park. That is a great illustration of terrible leadership in this city that doesn’t know how to balance the need for order and safety with their equity goals and their inability/unwillingness to do the work around racism and racial justice.
I’m the first person who feels like we should be careful how we enforce laws around Dawson Park given the context of that neighborhood and the history there — but letting it get to the state it is now isn’t good at all. We need people in leadership at the city and the PPB, and city-funded programs who can effectively build relationships in and around that park so things get better. But no, the PPB/city reaction is to be nearly 100% hands-off and let things get to a point where there’s a crisis and then react to it like they care. I call bullshit on that. If PPB/city of Portland cared they would have stepped up and done something about Dawson long before this happened. It was inevitable! So frustrating.
In the case of Dawson Park, the need for order and safety is perfectly aligned with equity goals and the fight against racism.
Ask the folks in the community around the park what it most needs, and I’ll bet you a mad stack of Benjamins that the most popular answer will be “more cops”.
The people who talk about “racial justice” and “equity goals” would never leave their safe neighborhoods and venture into that park.
Watts,
While I get your point that a lot of well to do people talk about “racial justice” and “equity goals” and are not taking action, that is not all of us. I read, learn, talk to my community, struggle with challenges, go out and support other parts of my community, provide some basic needs to others that need, donate to organizations doing great work to help members of our community needing help, call my people on BS about racism and racial justice and more. Please do not assume all people who talk about these challenging topic never leave their safe community.
That statement feels very in the “nothing will ever change” attitude. We can make change and it WILL take a long time to change and it will be hard work!
What are you doing?
What can you do? And what do actions do you recommend in this situation?
Don’t get me wrong, I agree we need more action but just lumping all into one is not productive.
I guess my point was more that the people (literally, in this case) under the gun are much more reliable reporters of what they need than well meaning folks outside those communities.
I absolutely think things can change, but I no longer trust my own instincts (or those of other outsiders) to know what needs to happen. I am no one’s savior.
What am I doing? Nothing. I’m staying out of the way. I don’t think there’s anything I can do to be helpful, unless I am invited in and given a job to do (like the youth workshops I help with), in which case I’ll do it and get back out of the way.
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/07/black-leaders-in-portland-call-for-greater-police-presence-at-dawson-park-in-wake-of-drive-by-shooting.html
Can you provide an example of how midday shootings are prevented by selectively enforcing laws in a specific geography due to the abstract history of the neighborhood ostensibly caused by people who are all now dead?
Also of interest, is what a government program would look like that would be attractive to community members whose current interest in their community is so great, they’re shooting other community members in broad daylight by a preschool?
Lastly, PPB’s involvement previously was evidently too heavy handed (due to the opaque “context of the neighborhood”?), then they haven’t been heavy handed enough, what is the appropriate amount of involvement that satisfies the activist class?
The “activist class” are the LAST people we should be trying to satisfy. It’s the people in the neighborhood who should be driving for change.
If we learned anything after the riots of the recent past, “activists” are the last people we should be listening to.
Agree 100%, but the activists sure like to advocate on behalf of the residents in the neighborhood, so it’s always interesting to see how quickly they paint themselves in a corner with some word salad about how the cops were to blame for too much, then not enough, now we’ve had enough and this is bullshit, lol.
Jonathan,
Other than this being from a source that you disagree agree with politically how is this a “hate-baiting video”? To me it’s simply documenting the shameful conditions that we have (and unfortunately enable) on the streets and paths of Portland.
I have different feelings about PDX Real than you do. What they do is complicated, but similar to someone like Andy Ngo, they always have a shred of plausible deniability they will try to fall back on and act like “we’re not doing anything bad, just telling the truth.” And to some extent they’re right! But you have to step back and look at the context and take a broader look at their mission and project. I believe PDX Real primarily shows those videos not just to document conditions, but to capitalize on and build a platform (and then sell that platform and use it for political influence) based on voyeurism into other peoples’ suffering. The primary goal is not to help people, but to blame liberals for the conditions and fool well-meaning people into thinking solutions are simple and that it’s always a binary of us vs. them. That’s where the hate comes in for me. I believe their work is motivated more by hate of their political rivals, then their love of Portland. And that’s their right and they do an absolutely amazing job at it (which I actually respect in some ways as a fellow independent, community-based journalist!), but I strongly disagree with their methods.
I don’t have time or energy to fully explain why I’m extremely skeptical of PDX Real, but that is part of it.
Well said Jonathan!
What the city needs is a Portland Parks Security Stakeholder Advisory Committee (PP-SSAC) and a Portland Parks Security Technical Advisory Committee (PP-STAC). each should be made up 15 voting members – one each appointed by each new city councilor, the mayor, the city auditor, and the city administrator. All stakeholders must be volunteers while technical members must be paid agency staff (including from social service providers, nonprofits, trucking associations, business groups, and public agencies of all levels.) Each should meet monthly, staffed by various city agencies. Naturally there should be a fact-finding travel budget, to understand how other cities deal with these issues, in familiar easily-accessible local cities like Seattle, Spokane, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Vancouver BC, NYC, Eugene, Aspen, Davis CA, and so on.
Like the BAC and PAC, each committee will have no sunset period – they will exist in perpetuity in recognition that these issues have been around at least since Roman times – certainly since the first homeless European and American sailors wandered into the Portland area before Lewis & Clark started working on local development projects and a future city code, usurping the local native Amerindian land use development process from at least 7,000 BC.
Each committee can explore who the parks are for, who they are designed to serve (natives versus invaders versus A.I. robots), which privileged group(s) get(s) priority, including by transport mode (foot-only versus horse versus llama versus ebike versus organic biodegradable autonomous vehicles), camping and squatter rights, and so on.
Well, you’ve successfully satirized Portland city government.
What’s the alternative to All That?
Accountability?
I ran into a car on the Greeley trail on my ride home yesterday. I reported the missing bollard, the homeless camp and the vehicles parked along the path.
Good luck. Driving on that path is basically sanctioned by the city.
By the ‘homeless camp’ do you mean the Hazelnut grove commune or a separate camp further north? I assume the missing bollard you refer to is one of two that used to guard the interstate entrance to the MUP. If you are repeatedly calling in Hazelnut grove or the associated parking to the city, I don’t think that is beneficial for the community. There seems to be a steady stream of BP comments complaining about cars on the Greeley path that I have trouble squaring with my experience. I’ve ridden the path over 100 times (including this morning). I’ve never had a problem with cars on the path. The only time I had to wait was when the truck that services the porta-potties at Hazelnut grove was backing in. The driver was very courteous and gave a friendly wave as he passed. Total time lost: :30.
“There seems to be a steady stream of BP comments complaining about cars on the Greeley path that I have trouble squaring with my experience.”
Do you think all those posters are lying?
Do you think your experiences are universally shared by all?
It seems that you think it’s fine to drive on that path if one in houseless. Why would you think that?
Hi jakeco969. I don’t think my experiences are universal, but I do think they are reasonable and I think they add to the conversation here, which is why I post comments about them. I think many of the comments about folks driving on the Greeley path, in particular, are exaggerated. People using the southernmost ~200 ft of the path to access the parking in the grass median between the path and Greeley proper is not a problem in my reasonable estimation. You may not agree with that position, but I think a lot of reasonable observers would.
Hi Micah,
I also think your posts are reasonable and I was really waiting for you to flesh out your arguments because I agree wholeheartedly that you bring value with your ideas and viewpoints. I think my other post became a bit strident and I apologize if it was taken as such and thank you for expounding on your ideas.
It’s the conundrum of allowed access that I have with vehicles (3-4 wheeled that are bigger than a Gator) on active transportation trails and I was eager to hear what another person who voiced some reservations about access had to say.
How do we reconcile people’s ability to get to their home of the moment when that access necessitates bringing a dangerous weapon into an area that has those things as off limits?
Do we allow cars at say no more than 5mph if they give way to vulnerable users? I don’t think that could work since they shouldn’t be there to begin with so there is no guarantee that they’d respect a speed limit.
Do we ban vehicles from the paths? Well, they already are banned and clearly that ban is not respected so that is not working.
Does the city start aggressively going after the camps that the cars come from?
I seriously doubt that will ever happen in Portland.
As I said its a conundrum and I enjoy reading other peoples ideas or even how others see the issues and the problem of cars/vehicles on the few places where they are not allowed nor wanted.
Personally I don’t want cars on the paths even if if is for a short distance and even if they are maintenance vehicles.
I lean towards having a few police cars and tow trucks on standby for a few days and see how many vehicles utilizing the path they can remove since I doubt any of them would have up to date tags. Again thought, there would be too many outraged enablers who don’t want to actually help the houseless and seem to want to keep them in a state of perpetual need.
Thanks so much for the civil comment! It’s just internet comments, but your constructive tone is really appreciated. I hear everything you say 100%. I think everything about Hazelnut Grove is existing in an illegal state, including the parking. I don’t think it’s a great situation, and I certainly don’t like the bike path being used as a driveway. I’m sure a determined Texas-style law enforcement effort could dislodge the residents, but I don’t want to see that happen. Compared to other sites HG is fairly tolerable — the residents and whatever government and non-profit entities are servicing the camp have kept it relatively clean and contained. The cars are parked off the path in an orderly fashion. They are obviously trying to be good neighbors, and the personal interactions I’ve had with people there have been friendly and low stress. I usually ride the path N to S (it’s the ‘longer way’ to downtown for me, but it’s scenic and nice riding, so I take it if I’m not in a hurry — I usually take a more direct route back home), and immediately after I leave the MUP, I’m riding in traffic on Interstate that is orders of magnitude more stressful than the MUP. I take issue with people invoking safety as a concern at HG while tolerating the much more dangerous sections on Interstate. To me that comes off as picking on the HG residents, who have (illegally) claimed the path as their driveway. I get that Interstate is an auto road and most of the users there are in compliance with all the rules and regs. But they are operating their cars in ways that are much more dangerous to me as a cyclist than the HG residents. I appreciate that the people who live at HG are trying to not make trouble, and I feel some responsibility to stick up for them on the internet. I don’t condone everything they do, and I don’t think HG style encampments are a solution to our housing problems.
Micah, You make a fair point about some homeless people driving carefully on the Greeley path while other drivers are dangerous on the road, but since you are calling me out as picking on homeless people, I want to let you know that I have been threatened by homeless people in cars on the bike paths, once on Greeley and twice on Going. So i am sensitive to seeing cars on the path and nervous about them. I also have spoken to a half dozen neighbors who no longer will ride on Going or Greeley due to the camps and the driving on the paths. Some of the danger is real, and some it is perceived, but it should be unacceptable for anyone to drive on a bike path. If Hazelnut Grove remains, the residents should not be allowed to drive/park there. I am a strong supporter of protecting our public, community assets from being trashed or privatized, Hazelnut Grove is good example of eroding public infrastructure for City leadership to avoid taking responsibility and taking action. Hales was the mayor who allowed the camp to establish as a temporary measure, with a “hard” end date, that was ignore, then a new “hard” end date established. Also ignored. This is a terrible location to house people. The bluffs have a super high fire risk that the camp is making work by stressing/killing trees and spreading weeds. The isolated nature means response from emergency services is limited. If there is a fire, the hazelnut grove campers are in a super dangerous location.
The bike lane on the right side of Greeley was 100x better than that crappy MUP that’s just a protected lane for people to drive and sometimes park in when they’re going to Hazelnut Grove. Before you could just bomb down the hill, now you have to hit the beg button, wait for the light, and pick your way around whoever’s parked in the MUP
I would love to see some stats, but from my experience (daily commutes), the bike ridership now is a fraction of what it was before the MUP was created. I think most people might agree with you.
Umm… you don’t have to press the button: the light reliably detects bikes. Downhill riders usually get the green before they get to the intersection, and, before the MUP, downhill traffic would still have to wait at the light at the same intersection if it was red. I always go 30-35 mph down the hill on the MUP feeling very safe behind the large concrete barriers. You can still ride on Greeley if you like….
I feel the same way. I used to ride Greeley on a daily basis under the old configuration and much preferred it for my riding style. That being said, I recognize the need for infrastructure that is useful and appealing to all riding styles, especially those who are not in the strong and fearless category. In theory, the new two way, physically separated bike lane is much better for the less fearless. But the Greeley two way lane has multiple problems:
If PBOT actually had the intention of building continuous bike facilities that were suitable for the 5-99 crowd that were part of a citywide network of safe, separated bike facilities, and if the city actually had the intention of preventing illegal motor vehicle access on that network, the Greeley bike facility would make a lot of sense. But alas, none of those things are true.
I consider myself a fairly confident rider, and I love the Greeley path both because it is a bike specific roadway design and because it is an efficient way to travel from Arbor Lodge to the Broadway Bridge. Unlike you I have not used it as a commute route (I did ride Denver using the ped bridge over Going as a commute route NOPO<–>downtown for two years BITD.) That was before the Interstate MAX and the Greeley path, when Rosa Parks (Portland Blvd.) was not commonly ridden. Compared to the situation then (late ’90s), Interstate and Greeley are both bike Nirvana. So, in my estimation, PBOT has improved the bike situation in North Portland significantly. Lord knows there’s a lot to criticize about PBOT, but we should also acknowledge progress. In that spirit, I’ve been posting a few comments defending the path.
I agree that the interface with Interstate at the S terminus of the Greeley path is garbage, especially for northbound riders that have to navigate the pedestrian signal. But at most one direction of travel will have the green at the Greeley/Interstate intersection at a time, so two-way traffic through the narrow curb cut is a nonissue. Besides, a hardened rider like you can easily hop the curb wherever they desire. I don’t find the width of the sidewalk section to be a problem (easy for two bikes to pass and less car traffic than a typical street). I find myself passing bikes and peds regularly (I wish there was more traffic, of course). I encounter moving cars rarely, and the parking is well off the path. The lower deck of the Steel Bridge is often held up as a marquee bike connection (I agree that it is), but it is much more difficult to navigate than the Hazelnut Grove section of the Greeley path. I do think the sidewalk section there is a bit rough. (I noticed that there is some yellow spray paint marking the worst buckling…. I don’t know if that’s guerrilla public service marking — if so THANK YOU for your service — or some government functionary actually functioning and the marking presages repairs.)
Why make the perfect the enemy of the good? Do you really believe the bike paths in N. Portland have not made it more bikeable? I think they have really improved things. I’m always struck by how unnecessary the Bryant St. ped bridge is now that there are so many better options. I still take it to Fred Meyer, and it reminds me that progress is possible, even if it’s slow.
I wish you could use a Siri like AI bot to streamline reporting. Could be something like, “Siri, report mid 90s tan coupe with license plate blah blah that they’re driving east on the Springwater, just past 82nd ave.” The AI bot would automatically upload info to pdxreporter.
Although I suppose the city doesn’t want to make it too easy to report, they sure as don’t advertise 311 prominently.
I’ve made comments along this line before and I think it’s apt to repeat it here. The lack of care from those responsible for enforcing laws that keep cyclists safe is how you get vigilante justice, not that I am condoning such a thing. How long until cyclists start taking weapons with them on the Springwater to defend against this danger? Will car drivers think twice about taking their chances cutting through the I-5 path or Springwater when they just read a story about a driver being shot by a cyclist on the path? Will they just do it anyways but bring their own weapons (besides their car) to fight their way through and escalate the danger even further?
I don’t want this kind of escalation to happen but once people feel that the law no longer protects them they are far more likely to take justice into their own hands, and at that point we are no longer in control of how that “justice” is delivered.
I could already hear the comments about how “passive aggressive Portlanders would never” but it only takes one or two fed up people to create a situation like this and we’re way past the boiling point on this issue. Once it gets started I think it would be very difficult to stop.
Really telling that Parks wants to be sure we can report a campsite in response to Jonathan’s query about dangerous and illegal drivers. Campsites do not run people over. Please, Portland leaders, stop assuming visible poverty is the problem when it is entitled people in cars that are endangering our lives.
In many cases, people are driving on paths to access campsites. It’s not like it’s people trying to beat the morning commute by taking a shortcut.
The Venn diagram I envision finds that there is significant overlap between these two groups
My stolen bike doesn’t do fentanyl either, but alas, here we are…
I’m sure your heart is in the right place, this level of naivety is frustrating however. In my 8 years in Deep SE, off the Springwater, I can honestly think of one time that someone in a motorized vehicle, in motion or parked, was not in my best estimation someone living at a campsite off the trail. Once on the 205 just south of the Springwater some knucklehead teens were ripping around in a golf cart. If you spend any time commuting or recreating and utilizing the trail(s), especially further out, the people driving on the MUPs are campers, guaranteed.
I assume you exempt e-bikes from the ‘motorized vehicle’ category in your comment (I see those things everywhere!). I commonly see the security guard at the sewer plant or whatever it is that is being constructed between Portland Rd. and Columbia patrolling the bike path that connects Portsmouth and Marine Dr. in a car. Of course I’ve also seen two sketchy dudes going through what I assume was a stolen car that they had parked/abandoned on the same path. Neither of those examples were campers in my best estimation.
Yeah, I’m obviously excluding e-bikes. I mean cars, trucks and motorcycles (like, you know, motorcycles). There were very recently RVs under 205 and along 205, very much off trail. The idea of driving an RV on the Springwater or 205 MUP is nuts. One caught fire (of course) under the overpass. That was cool.
I encountered a guy that was ripping up and down the 205 path in a souped up go cart a few weeks ago. He must have been doing 50 MPH+. He passed me several times going north, turning around, and then going back south, over and over again. I guess it was lucky that almost no one uses the 205 path anymore, other than people camping there, because it felt extremely dangerous when he passed at those speeds at a distance of mere inches.
There is conflation of different inappropriate behaviors with very different degrees of risk. I think some are sick of encampments and the associated problems they bring, none of which are physically dangerous IMO, so they lump ‘lawlessness’ and ‘disorder’ in with truly scary incidents involving high speed vehicles on bike paths that pose immediate bodily danger to anybody on the path. They seem like very different problems to me, but I think law and order fetishists view them as two related aspects of the same problem.
Are the different inappropriate behaviors that you mention cars on a bike path going at different speeds? Cars on paths and how that is a real danger to cyclists and walkers is really the sole focus of the article. It is a few people in the comments and the Parks department who equate such a dangerous activity with a houseless community which somehow gives them free reign to threaten people with their vehicles. There is no confluence of the illegal activity of driving on a bike path and being houseless unless one wants there to be one. Again I ask you, why do you want it to be okay for the houseless to menace cyclists and walkers?
The reason you don’t get a response on this is because literally nobody wants it to be okay. It’s a bad faith question.
Nobody wants people camping all over the city or driving on bike paths. Where we differ is in what the solutions should be.
“The reason you don’t get a response on this is because literally nobody wants it to be okay.“
Unfortunately, I suspect not everyone here agrees with you.
I certainly don’t want it to be OK for anybody to menace cyclists and walkers! I also don’t want people camping on the SWC and other MUPs. Or anywhere except for recreational purposes for that matter. My comments reflect my experience riding my bike around Portland. I don’t think low speed car incursions onto paths to support campsites pose much bodily risk to walkers or cyclists. Certainly nothing near the risks encountered out on the streets with legal traffic. I don’t think driving on bike paths should be normalized or accepted, but I think it’s hyperbolic to claim it’s a safety issue. I have not experienced or seen any close calls. I’m OK with arguments that the camping needs to end. But don’t insult my intelligence by saying the reason the camps have to end is that there is too much hazard of being run over by campers driving to their campsites via bike paths.
I would not do that. I would like the camps to end as I feel they are an affront to the personal dignity of those that have or have been separated from modern society and find themselves there. That such places exist is a stain on us all. I do not want them shut down solely because of cars on bike paths.
People have been advocating for the camps to end for far lesser infractions that this, which regardless of its impact to your intelligence (which appears very robust), is a completely reasonable take.
“none of which are physically dangerous”.
K.
https://www.kgw.com/video/news/local/woman-loses-arm-and-ear-after-a-pack-of-17-dogs-attack-her-in-portland/283-7c84e476-011f-40d9-8ae9-be07ab0204c4
Was the pack of dogs driving a car at low speed?
No, they were speeding of course, just like their owners, they don’t follow any rules.
Your callous dismissal of a horrendous story like the one above is disgusting. I’ve been cornered twice on local trails by dangerous homeless camp pitbulls, and the experience is terrifying.
People are rightfully afraid and opposed to these dangerous camps.
PS brought the dog attack into a conversation about cars posing a danger on bike paths. I’m very sorry the lady was attacked by dogs — that is the stuff of nightmares! I can’t imagine how scary that would be, and I’m thankful she survived. I hope she recovers to the fullest extent possible. I’m also sorry you have had trouble with dogs. I agree that uncontrolled dogs are certainly a problem. I also concede that there are many problems associated with homeless camps and that some of those problems do create real danger. Your opposition to the camps is understandable and legitimate.
I still maintain that the most dangerous incursions of inappropriate vehicles on multiuse paths are not by urban campers driving to and from their campsites. The specific context of my comments was Hazelnut Grove, where I have recently seen a dog that looked to my untrained eye to have some pit bull heritage. He was safely behind the chain link fence and leashed, taking a nap while his human played guitar.
I have personally threatened on North Portland bike paths by people driving on them to access their camp. 2 times on Going and 1 time on Greeley. IT is really scary when realize someone in a car is shouting about killing you and revving their engine when you are on a bike and ins very isolated place with limited options for where to go. I find you defense of driving on bike paths to be very naive.
I’m not defending driving on the paths.
Not gonna lie, that first pic of the 205 path probably isn’t going to convince a lot people joining for a ride is going to be enjoyable, with our without a car in it. Just kind of a barren non-place squished between a light rail line and a freeway.
I really think MUPs in Portland become default places for camping and for people driving to camps/chop shops because they don’t really connect communities to places they want to be. Really just freeway adjacent afterthoughts. Probably not much we can do about our existing paths, but a lesson learned for any future construction to avoid these issues in the first place. I’d be really interested to see what percent of bike/foot traffic on Portland MUPs belongs to the Easbank Esplanade and the Springwater north of Sellwood.
That is true for many paths (205, 84, etc), but the Springwater is a great counter-point to your argument. The crime and environmental destruction is just as bad as any other path in the city. Somewhat counterintuitively, the safest path I’ve used in the city is the I-84 trail east of 122nd. There is basically no room for camping, so the path has been clear and safe for years. It is extremely unpleasant, but clear.
Do the campers make SWC dangerous or unpleasant?
The one that swung a 4ft long battle axe at me a few years ago did.
The ones who drove their car directly at me a few years later also did.
Yes and yes. I live in Lents and utilize the 205 MUP and SWC very often. We finally have some relief from the camp under the 205 and Harold underpass but it forces blocked paths and sketchy ride-arounds when the junk and garbage overflow.
I would say the SWC is often unpleasant, yes. The trash does my head in. The graffiti sucks. All the burned up areas where a tent went up in flames is frustrating. Bike piles piss me off.
Dangerous is harder to nail down. Nothing has ever happened to me but I have absolutely been on edge a number of times. Guys with bats, knives, hatchets or machetes, that’s incredibly unnerving. You really only need to have a guy mindlessly swinging at bat while staring you down as you approach, with no clear and obvious exit out the situation, to really sour the mood. My wife and I were walking into Lents earlier this summer and a guy with a goddamn Katana was swinging it around. We were between 111th and Foster, the pick and pull south of us and the other dead car lot to the north. I have never been more amped and on high alert in my entire life.
Your comment that MUPs and camping occur in the undesirable areas because that’s where they are feasible is an insightful one.
Remember Portland, you voted for this.
Yes, but only kinda/sorta. Good voting options were hard to find. No help from the right wing; its candidates were even worse crackpots.
Oh please. What “right wing” candidates even bother showing up around Portland, Oregon? There is no point here.
All this madness, despair and poverty is solely because of the one party system that has ruled Oregon and specifically Portland for quite some time. It was fine for awhile, but somewhen a tipping point was reached and the bad decisions and simply refusing to make decisions finally became real and affected more and more people. The desire to spend several months trashing the city (and yes there were protests and riots and I’m referencing the riots when I say trashing) and saying the it was the fault of outside, national events is not a sign of a healthy community. Blaming others for a lack of courage in trying something different is like admiring oneself in the mirror with eyes firmly clamped shut.
I have to fervently dispute this: This madness, despair, and poverty is mostly because of the one economic governing philosophy that has ruled the United States since at least Nixon, turbocharged under Reagan, and gleefully carried out by every congress and administration since whether D or R.
I’m open to arguments that our more local leaders own more responsibility for the visibility or concentration perhaps, but the existence is a federal issue a long time in the making.
Some people are indeed on the street for economic reasons, but many because of issues with addiction and mental illness that are hard to deal with if a person is unwilling.
My guess is that the person wielding the battle ax mentioned above was not recently laid off and scraping together a security deposit to get back into housing.
And where’s the City or County with their hundreds of millions of dollars sitting around not providing vouchers (or something) for said person so they’d have that security deposit?
We’ve provided our government officials with the money, and they’ve completely and utterly failed us and every single person living on the street.
Ah yes, only “some” are unhoused for economic reasons, while “many” are because of addiction and mental illness (which conveniently don’t require any change to economic policy). I know this because of what some guy said happened one time. Brilliant.
Yes, your friend was essentially right.
Source: “Trust me, bro”
I’m not sure which economic governing philosophy you are referencing, but if its the remnants of a feudal caste system that really hasn’t gone away than I agree with you 100%.
The way things are going right now seem to be too much of a “It’s a feature, not a bug”. The rich (the aristocracy) stay rich due to tax laws that benefit them, the rest of us stay poor as governments at all levels take from us (the peasants) more so they can emulate and bring the individual representatives in the government as close to the rich as they can. Sure, we peasants can break into the ranks of the rich, but just enough of us are able to do so to keep the dream alive and keep us from internalizing and accepting that things haven’t really changed from old world Europe.
This is why a one party system does not help in any way and makes the government rapaciousness more acute. There is no counterpoint of ideas and there is no need for a give and take to keep ideologies more level. Just like in the deep south in the bad old days, a certain moral ideology exists in Portland and to challenge it is to be ostracized and in extremes physically attacked.
What indeed is the moral difference between black bloc and the pointy hats? Both exist to maintain the status quo of the prevailing opinions through violence and intimidation.
Both allow the local government freedom to take….and take…..and give to those that help support the single party status quo.
I suppose there is a fine line between cynicism and conspiracy theorist so I’m not sure where I’m at.
When I was in Iraq I saw the government and certain officials lie in real time over events that were happening and realized how those in power saw themselves as apart from those of us who did their bidding. All the tax money we pay goes to them for them to redistribute to whomever they want. Turns out the only communists are those in power, the senate, house, judicial and executive while the rest of us get to survive on straight capitalism. While having our pockets emptied.
“…black bloc…exist(s) to maintain the status quo of the prevailing opinions through violence and intimidation.”
I haven’t had a conversation with a person in the black bloc any more than you have, but I suspect they don’t support the status quo at all.
I’m skeptical of office holders on many counts. Campaign finance, insider trading, regulatory capture, and blatant corruption are all evident problems.
Oregon has a tradition of bipartisan politics, for what that’s worth, but one party has given me nobody I would even consider voting for in the recent past. When there’s an outrageous turkey at the top of the ballot I’m much less likely to browse the rest.
“Suspect”?? wink, wink:-)
Where did all the window breaking and fighting that characterized the orange bad man’s time go? Once the status quo of a democrat president came back all the drama kind of went away.
Seems like they very much support what is going on right now or they would be out being violent. Oh, that’s right, by sheer chance (since of course they are not organized and everyone single one of them makes an individual choice to gather in mass) going out in large groups committing violence (oh wait, property destruction isn’t violence), I mean spreading their message or whatever fantasies about larping are still being circulated.
If you have an example in the last 20 years I’d be interested to hear what it is? I’m curious what you consider bipartisan.
I used the word ‘suspect’ because that’s as far as I could go with second- or third-hand information. If you find a person who is identifiably part of the black bloc at a demonstration and ask them ‘pardon me, are you here in support of the the Democratic Party organization and platform, or American center left politics in general?’ I think the answer would be negative.
It’s a good question to ask, why was there public outrage under a Republican Party administration and not so much under a Democratic Party administration?
I’m not sure black bloc violence/expression is synonymous with public outrage:-)
The irony of someone who helped wage a brutal and illegal war on an innocent civilian population complaining about black block is far too thick to cut with knife.
Are the people who helped pay for for the Iraq war allowed to complain?
“Madness, despair, and poverty”? The poorest states are Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Alabama. The ones with the worst mental health are West Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Ohio. The ones with the highest drug overdose rates include West Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Which “one party” is in charge in those places? Asking for a friend.
You have a difficult time with my posts. Any one party state is a problem. Oregon happens to be blue one party and those you mentioned (and since your comments are frequently factually wrong I doubt your statements) are red one party. Equally bad.
I guess one way to escape being factually wrong is to habitually avoid facts altogether. You could always follow the links I posted and check the numbers for yourself, but I guess it’s easier to just dismiss any evidence that challenges your worldview.
So i went over one of your links and surprise, you misrepresented the numbers to the point of lying about them. Maybe you didn’t notice the “click for rankings” tab? I don’t know, a lot of your info is suspect. You did select out the current red states though even though they are only 3 of the top 6 so I think you did see the rankings correctly and just cherry picked info.
Worse states for drug overdoses ACCORDING TO THE CDC-
1st- West Virginia (very blue until roughly 2015 and now red)
2nd- District of Columbia (very blue)
3rd- Tennessee (solidly red)
4th- Delaware (solidly blue)
5th- Louisiana (State and federal red with blue areas)
6th- Maine (solidly blue)
You asked me to double check your stuff and it is flat out wrong. Once you post a few things that actually reflect what you are saying in the your post I will start trusting your info more. Maybe try debating with information that we can both agree is correct and then go on from there? I do like to debate, I can’t debate with you since your info is so frequently wrong or cherry picked. It just seems you are making stuff up and than claiming its reality.
Your link:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/drug_poisoning_mortality/drug_poisoning.htm
Maine
54.3707
Louisiana
54.52,376
Delaware
55.3549
Tennessee
56.3,825
District Of Columbia
64.3451
West Virginia
80.91,335
“The current red states … are only 3 of the top 6”
They’re actually 3 of the top 5. That’s why I said they were included, not that they were the worst states on the list. District of Columbia, in addition to not actually being a state (yet), is ultimately under the control of Congress, which has blocked a number of local laws that lawmakers (mainly Republicans) from other states don’t like.
Yes, West Virginia had a history of electing Democrats. But we’re talking about now, not the 1930s. Today the GOP holds a trifecta in state government.
Every red state has “blue areas”, but we’re talking about which party controls the state as a whole. Louisiana’s governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans.
Now that I’ve refuted your accusation of lying about drug overdose numbers, feel free to check the other links as well.
All you’ve refuted is any desire or ability to have a meaningful debate with other people. You cling to gotcha pedantic sentences devoid of any desire to share or create ideas, misinform by omission and then create talking points and claim they’ve existed all along.
You’re still ignoring all and any ideas associated with the original post on whether single party political rule is good or bad or something else. All you seem to be able to focus on is blue party good, red party bad without apparently even considering whether an opposing party can apply needed checks or balances. No, none of that seems interesting to you which is too bad as it’s a critical idea even as we get more hyper partisan. That idea being, as a one party state, to ask oneself and focus on some intellectual introspection, am I the baddie?
In one sense you’re correct; I have no interest in debating for the sake of debating. I’m interested in learning new things and countering the spread of misinformation. If my comments seem one-sided, maybe that’s because there’s one side responsible for the lion’s share of misinformation these days. In all other respects, you’re way off.
I appreciate your honesty. It makes sense now how anything you disagree with becomes “misinformation”.
The conversation has descended into tit for tat, I just trashed Steven’s most recent comment and ask everyone to let this one rest. I’m going stop approving comments in this convo unless they are real standouts content-wise.
Is a block on comments that pass a certain time an option for your tech people/person? Its odd that we can still leave comments after awhile has passed without anyone else really noticing. Of course that would fit in with the wish list of being notified via email if anyone responds to a post.
I had been looking over old posts and saw that responses had fired up again which precipitated a downward spiral that I could not seem to pull myself from.
Hi Jake, I think it is an option, but obviously we aren’t using it. People can land on this site via an internet search and comment into posts that are a decade old. It happens, and imagine that JM wants it that way.
As a moderator, long arguments which gradually become unpleasant are the hardest to moderate. Especially with two moderators. I might be closely watching a thread, with an eye to stopping it if it gets worse, and then JM will come in fresh, w/o the context, and approve a stack I was ready to hold back. So it can be hard for me to know when to pull the plug.
Regarding when to stop participating, we don’t track comment views, but my hunch is that few readers follow along this far into an exchange. The way I moderate my own comments is to say what I want to say, and then get out and let it stand.
jakeco969 makes some snide remarks about my honesty and motivations, but if I respond in kind it’s a “tit for tat”. What I’m learning from this is that it’s okay to insult other people, but not to defend yourself from insults. Frankly it looks like someone is playing favorites.