Skip to main content
Last Tuesday evening, Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson was spotted at Carmen Rubio’s campaign party, all smiles. Little wonder: Election Day provided some of the best news in recent memory for Vega Pederson and her most embattled ward, the Joint Office of Homeless Services.
For starters, voters elected two progressives—Shannon Singleton and Meghan Moyer—to the county board of commissioners. Both are veterans of the nonprofit sector (Singleton briefly oversaw the Joint Office), and while both pledge they’ll seek greater effectiveness in homelessness spending, they defeated two candidates, Sam Adams and Vadim Mozyrsky, who were relentlessly scathing in their appraisals of Vega Pederson and the Joint Office.
Just as significantly, the Joint Office will remain a project jointly funded by the county and Portland City Hall.
That’s because City Commissioners Rene Gonzalez and Mingus Mapps lost their bids to become Portland mayor. Those two commissioners, along with Commissioner Dan Ryan, had pledged to withdraw Portland from the homelessness compact. The morning after the election, in which voters returned Ryan to the council but sent his two allies packing, the trio unceremoniously abandoned that idea, saying they would defer the decision to a fresh City Council.
Understandably so. Had Gonzalez, Mapps and Ryan followed through with withdrawal, it’s likely a new council would have immediately reversed them and written a fresh Joint Office contract.
Over the past two months, WW posed the question of the Joint Office’s future to candidates seeking the 12 council seats. The straw poll shows that, of 11 presumptive winners poised to take office in January, only Ryan would vote to end the partnership.
Here’s what we asked, and what candidates said.
Do you support the city staying in the Joint Office of Homeless Services? What’s your plan to address homelessness?
Candace Avalos, District 1: “Yes. We need to prevent homelessness by protecting vulnerable Portlanders from losing their housing. We need to push for housing first, but not housing only. That means that we can invest in the full spectrum of housing opportunities, from shelter options that are proven to work in Portland—like tiny homes—permanent supportive housing, and affordable housing and, of course, at the end of that spectrum is homeownership.
“In addition, we need to invest in real and effective ways to end homelessness for the people experiencing it, and that goes back to those mental health and addiction resources we were just talking about, but also things like job training and placement, housing vouchers, funding living wages for social service workers who are the backbone of solving the crisis.”
Olivia Clark, District 4: “I’m willing to give it more time. I think the Joint Office needs to show more results and accountability from the nonprofits that they’re funding. I don’t understand why it’s so hard for the JOHS to create a coordinated system of identifying beds. If it can’t do that, then maybe we should reevaluate our participation there.
“We’re not acting like this is an emergency. During World War II, we had emergency housing that came up even in my neighborhood. The federal government had us shove aside building codes temporarily so that we could put up housing for all the people who were moving here to either work in the shipyards or who were in the military. We need more housing that is outside the market, housing that is going to remain affordable over time.”
Jamie Dunphy, District 1: “I support the city staying in the Joint Office, but I recognize that that relationship right now is toxic. We recognized early that there are certain things the county can do that the city cannot. But we each have our role within this. We need a common definition of success, and we need to never lose track of that and run full speed at it.”
Mitch Green, District 4: “I think the city should stay in the Joint Office. We need to treat homelessness as a public health issue. We can’t just rip apart relationships and start from scratch.
“I think there are administrative changes we can do to get creative and build more housing. We need to try some stuff in the short run, and in the longer run, I like the approach to social housing, where the city takes a much more active role in the real estate game. The city, through a development authority, builds and owns a portfolio of housing where units are leased at an affordability level specific to each tenant.”
Sameer Kanal, District 2: “Remain, but with performance measurements….The county has not been successful, nor transparent, in spending JOHS money to achieve its goals. The city should leverage funding to ensure the county works, with clear metrics for success required for continued funding, including implementation of the county’s strategy to keep people in their homes. More broadly, we need to take a holistic approach, building a range of shelter options and sanctioned campsites, including self-governing models like Right2Dream2. We need more resources for Shelter Services’ outreach, which has been very successful in placements. Finally, we need a dashboard to see where beds are available in real time.”
Tiffany Koyama Lane, District 3: “I do support the city staying in the Joint Office. When there’s two separate governments dealing with the same problem, it doesn’t make sense to move things farther apart.
“We have to address the burnout of service providers, and we need more housing navigators. I’m interested in trying models of city-owned housing. I talked to city councilors in Denver and Seattle that are talking about social housing, where it’s open to anyone at a percentage of income.”
Angelita Morillo, District 3: “I do support the city and county staying within the Joint Office of Homeless Services. I think it’s pretty easy to say we should start something from the ground up. I think that’s a fantasy. The big change that needs to happen is that we have millions of dollars that are being unused in the Joint Office, and what we really need is adequate staff to make sure that those dollars are actually getting out the door and being allocated appropriately.”
Steve Novick, District 3: “I think the city should stay. But I think it should use the possibility of withdrawal as a spur if it thinks the county is not spending the money wisely. We are not going to solve homelessness in the next few years because it is largely a function of the spectacular housing shortage we have here.
“One barrier to dramatically expanding is that it’s hard to find sites for those villages. If it’s a priority, why not professionalize it? Hire a staff of people that their job is to identify sites. I’m going to say something potentially dangerous: One thing I would ask the professionals to do is take a look at some rather large plots of land the city owns that are called golf courses. I realize that golf isn’t just for rich people anymore, but we do not have a golf crisis in the city. We have a homelessness crisis. And if, since land is hard to find, if you have big plots of land, you should at least study whether they’re part of the solution.”
Elana Pirtle-Guiney, District 2: “I do support the city staying in the Joint Office. As we’ve seen over the last couple of years, the city and the county being on different pages isn’t good for folks who are homeless. The Joint Office is the place where we can work out those differences and make sure that we are working together on a path moving forward.”
Dan Ryan, District 2: “No.”
Loretta Smith, District 1: “Yes. No changes should be made this budget cycle.”
Eric Zimmerman, District 4: “I would like to see one more year’s extension with a new City Council and with a majority new county commission. If the county and the Joint Office can deliver on their outcomes instead of talking about only their outputs, if they can actually open the shelters that they’ve been funded to open, if the county makes reasonable investments in opening more treatment beds and more mental health beds…if we can do that, then I think the city can stay a part of it.”