Skip to main content
Last Friday, advocacy group People for Portland filed paperwork to place a measure on the November ballot that would redirect a huge chunk of existing tax dollars to funding emergency shelters.
The tax revenue the business-backed group seeks to divert comes from a ballot measure passed by Metro voters, who in 2020 approved a 1% income tax on individuals in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties making more than $125,000 a year and couples making more than $200,000, and from a 1% tax on profits from businesses with gross receipts of more than $5 million. The tax remains in effect until 2031 and is expected to raise a total of $2.5 billion—largely dedicated to funding permanent housing.
People for Portland’s new measure would require that 75% of revenue from the tax go toward erecting emergency shelter, mandate that cities enforce anti-camping laws if they want to remain eligible for ongoing funding, and require a yearly audit of all measure spending. (It would also allow any citizen to sue a local government that didn’t comply.)
The effort sets a match to one of the most combustible political debates of the past several years: What proportion of city and county dollars should be spent on permanent housing and what proportion on emergency and alternative housing?
Perhaps no local government will be as greatly affected by the measure as Multnomah County, whose chair controls much of the social services spending in Portland. Already, the race to succeed Chair Deborah Kafoury had been a referendum on homelessness spending. That proxy battle will only intensify.
So we asked the three candidates currently serving on the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners to pick a side.
We asked: Do you support the ballot measure by People for Portland or any aspect of it?
Sharon Meieran: “I support much of the proposal. As an ER doctor and volunteer providing medical care to people living outside, I see firsthand the trauma they experience, and the public health and safety crises that have escalated in our communities. I’ve been the only commissioner calling for us to urgently address the humanitarian crisis, and the only one who put out a viable plan over a year ago that, unfortunately, was rejected by my fellow commissioners and the chair. I do not support sweeps, but believe that my plan would provide what many living outside would actually prefer, meet the needs of our entire community, and be a win-win.
“We have the resources. We have the moral imperative. There is more we can and should be doing, right now. It is unconscionable that people continue to live in squalor and die in increasing numbers on our streets.”
Lori Stegmann: “This crisis has two issues to address: homelessness and housing affordability. This measure solves neither. It’s time to get real.
“For decades, influence over policy has come from wealthy neighborhoods, where cars are luxury, houses are historic instead of just old, and alma maters don’t include community colleges. The problems facing those of us in neighborhoods where kids are still at risk from gang activity, where parents have to work multiple jobs to support their families, and our schools with the highest need continue to struggle with inadequate staffing and overall disinvestment have been ignored. We need long-term strategies and measurable outcomes with built in accountability to meet goals.
“I will be relentless in the pursuit of solutions, uncompromising on the values of dignity and respect, and accountable directly to voters, not to those who have been influencing and making decisions for the last two decades.”
Jessica Vega Pederson: “The situation on our streets is painful and unacceptable, but this ballot measure is more of a straitjacket than a solution. We do need to accelerate shelter expansion—and just since July we’ve added 312 shelter beds—but requiring an arbitrary 75% of the Metro money to go to emergency shelters would come at the expense of the kind of mental health, addiction and other services that people on the streets desperately need. Voters approved the supportive housing services measure because they believe not only in helping folks off the street but also in helping people secure affordable, safe places to call home. We can and we must do both to break the cycle of homelessness and create lasting change. Finally, this measure uses the same mechanism as the Texas anti-abortion law, allowing anybody to sue if they don’t agree with how the program is being implemented. That’s a recipe for chaos.”