When the Metro Council agreed last week not to ask voters to extend a revised regional homeless services tax this May, it was acknowledging the obvious. Key modifications to the Supportive Housing Services program’s operation have caused talks with the three Portland-area counties spearheading the homelessness response to stop. Nonprofits that provide homeless assistance and commercial interests were also advocating for a postponement.
Most importantly, however, voters who were assured in 2020 that approving the bill would solve our homelessness problem are not inclined to approve a tax extension, which is scheduled to expire in 2030. The fact that so much dysfunction has been exposed and so little progress has been made with the hundreds of millions of dollars raised since the measure’s approval has infuriated voters. Leaders should have recognized that calling for an early renewal of the legislation this spring was a losing proposition, even in the absence of the current poll’s terrible results.
However, if Metro and the officials of Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties carry on as normal, they should not expect that voters would feel differently in November or at all. The public does not see progress in the rising number of homeless deaths, the growing number of homeless people, and the persistence of camping in neighborhoods.
Metro and the counties must examine the huge hole of mistrust they are in and begin to climb out of it before returning to the ballot. This entails taking immediate action to produce definite results supported by solid data, strengthening the oversight framework, and cooperating across jurisdictions to accomplish regional goals, even if it means redistributing funding among counties. Additionally, it entails making a commitment to precise objectives for the upcoming ballot issue, such as when they plan to eradicate unsheltered homelessness and how they plan to spend the money. They won’t feel justified in requesting an extension from voters till then.
To its credit, Metro has made some well-considered suggestions to increase accountability and focus more intently on results. Among other changes, Metro seeks to simplify monitoring by establishing a single committee that establishes regional objectives for the counties to meet rather than allowing each county to determine its own agenda. Additionally, it hopes to use some of the money raised to purchase or construct affordable homes.
Additionally, it is suggesting adjustments to the tax’s payers and rate, as well as a significant commitment to extend the tax for an additional 20 years, given that the 10-year expiration date has been crucial in getting Metro and the counties to take notice of the public’s dissatisfaction. Even if these suggestions require more research, they are sound concepts for adding some of the good governance and strategic planning elements that ought to have been included in the original ballot issue.
But the counties, which have virtually unrestricted power over how they use tax monies for homeless services, don’t appear to be as motivated. After an astounding four years of negotiations, the counties have yet to finalize a data-sharing agreement, and all three have voiced worries about handing over responsibility to a single oversight agency.
Counties’ unwillingness to define the types of services that people who are only identified by their numbers receive and their demand that Metro wait 10 days to share any data they send to the public and media are two of the problems holding up an agreement. Metro Councilor Mary Nolan stated at last week’s meeting that if the counties are not on board, they can withdraw from the program. This is extremely frustrating because voters are expecting outcomes, not just a shared database.
In order to offer voters confidence that a newly approved program will function more effectively and efficiently from the outset, these transparency and governance concerns can and should be addressed immediately.
Counties must also demonstrate their ability to develop and achieve objectives. That entails fulfilling the many commitments made by Multnomah County in its Homelessness Response Action Plan. However, it also includes outlining expectations for the upcoming ballot proposal. Unfortunately, the chairs of Multnomah and Washington counties declined to commit to ending unsheltered homelessness with the next ballot question, despite the fact that many thought the 2020 vote would accomplish this goal. (A representative for Clackamas County did not respond to Chair Craig Roberts.)
Multnomah County Chair Jessica Vega Pederson noted in an email to The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board that one of the things that was learned from the initial ballot measure campaign for Supportive Housing Services was to avoid creating unrealistic expectations. We shouldn’t make lofty commitments that we might not be able to fulfill. As part of its Homelessness Response Action Plan, the county has already set a goal to reduce unsheltered homelessness by the end of 2025, she said.
Likewise, Kathryn Harrington, the chair of Washington County, remarked, “I oppose objectives and results that are not grounded in our local reality.” In addition, economic factors outside of SHS are affecting families throughout the area and raising the likelihood that individuals of any age and families will become homeless. I’m hesitant to commit to outcomes with too many moving parts for us to account for. She noted that she backed low-level objectives that don’t show whether initiatives are actually having an impact on the issue, like the number of shelter beds in use or the number of households that would be rehoused in a specific time frame.
It’s funny how fast the catchphrase “end our homeless crisis” is evaporating into empty promises. Although it may not be what the public expects, the measure would allow for broad interpretation because it does not commit to a precise vision of what combating homelessness means.
Maybe that would be a safe bet. However, nothing requires voters to renew this tax. The counties run the risk of receiving a stinging message when a renewal initiative eventually makes it to the ballot if they don’t pay attention to the people now.
-The Editorial Board of Oregonian/OregonLive
