The Portland City Council is set to vote on November 12 on a controversial budget amendment that would eliminate more than $4 million in funding for homeless camp sweeps. The proposal, introduced by Councilor Angelita Morillo and supported by District 4 Councilor Mitch Green, has sparked intense debate between city officials, neighborhood groups, and advocates for unhoused residents.
A Push for Change
Councilor Angelita Morillo argues that the city’s current approach to addressing homelessness—regularly clearing camps from public spaces—is both costly and ineffective.
“There’s nowhere for people to go,” Morillo told The Portland Mercury. “You’re actually just moving the problem from place to place instead of addressing why people are unhoused in the first place. On top of that, sweeps cost millions and millions of dollars annually. So, we are wasting a lot of our resources for these short-term solutions.”
Also Read
Her amendment seeks to redirect funds from the Impact Reduction Program (IRP), which coordinates and conducts camp removals, toward long-term housing and support services.
Councilor Mitch Green echoed her sentiments, calling the sweeps “a bad, cruel, and failed policy.” He added, “It was wrong when the Trump administration did it, and it’s wrong when the city of Portland does it.”
The Debate Over Safety and Lives
Opponents of the amendment, however, argue that camp removals are a matter of public health and safety—not politics. Rob Layne Jr., spokesperson for Mayor Keith Wilson’s Portland Solutions programs, emphasized that encampments can pose life-threatening conditions.
“Four hundred fifty-six people died in Multnomah County while living unsheltered,” Layne said. “Moving people into shelters is a life-saving intervention to keep people from dying.”
The mayor’s office released a statement urging residents to contact their council representatives and ask them to vote against the amendment. “This is not the time to step back from supporting programs that protect lives and restore safety,” the statement read.
Neighborhood Leaders Push Back
Neighborhood associations in Northwest Portland have also voiced strong opposition, warning that cutting the IRP budget would worsen conditions on the streets.
“Cutting the Impact Reduction Program does not reduce harm; it increases it,” wrote Michelle Milla, chair of the Stadiumhood Neighbors Association, in her testimony to the council. “Without IRP, hazardous conditions return quickly, and risks increase for people living outside who already navigate high-acuity environments. IRP crews often provide the first safe point of contact for unhoused individuals ready for shelter or outreach. Removing them eliminates one of the few pathways to services that actually works.”
Milla concluded that the amendment “reflects a narrow political agenda, not the needs of the city.”
Claims of Misrepresentation
Some critics have taken issue with Morillo’s claim that unhoused individuals have “nowhere to go.”
“Councilor Morillo’s claim is simply inaccurate,” countered Linda Witt, chair of the Pearl District Neighborhood Solutions Shelter Oversight Committee. “Portland now offers shelter beds to all who seek them. No one should be left to endure the trauma of street camping—exposure to theft, assault, rape, and other dangers—when safe, warm beds and supportive services are available.”
Witt also pointed to recent data showing that reports of unsanctioned camps increased by 23% between fiscal years 2023–2024 and 2024–2025. “This is an unmistakable signal of rising public concern and a growing number of camps,” she said. “This trend underscores the need for a robust, well-funded response—not retreat.”
A City Divided
The debate over the proposed funding cut highlights the deep divide in Portland’s ongoing response to homelessness. Supporters of the amendment argue for compassion and resource reallocation toward permanent housing and services, while opponents stress the immediate safety and sanitation concerns that arise without regular camp cleanups.
As the council prepares to vote, both sides are rallying supporters. For many Portlanders—housed and unhoused alike—the decision on November 12 could mark a turning point in how the city balances compassion, safety, and accountability in its fight against homelessness.
Whether the amendment passes or not, one thing is clear: Portland’s struggle to find lasting solutions to its homelessness crisis is far from over.
