XPost: alt.politics.republicans, or.politics, sac.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: nutsrus@portland.com   
      
   Angelita Morillo, Portland nutjob.   
      
   Portland City Councilor Angelita Morillo last week proposed a $4.35   
   million cut to the city’s homeless camp cleanup program as part of the   
   fall budget adjustment process. After a lengthy Wednesday meeting of the   
   Portland City Council, where Morillo’s proposal took front and center   
   stage, the controversial proposal died.   
      
   The proposal failed, but only after it kicked up a public fight between   
   Morillo and Mayor Keith Wilson, who exchanged allegations that the other   
   was misleading the public about the consequences of the cut. Their dispute   
   reflected old and deep disagreements about the ethics and effectiveness of   
   sweeping homeless camps.   
      
   Morillo’s proposal—to cut $4.35 million from the city’s Impact Reduction   
   Program that funds homeless camp cleanups—first gained traction late last   
   week. She proposed it as an amendment to what the city calls its technical   
   adjustment ordinance, or the midyear budget adjustment process to correct   
   for any mistakes, unexpected deficits, or unexpected surpluses. This year,   
   the council is reckoning with a nearly $19 million midyear budget deficit.   
      
   Wilson over the weekend sounded the alarm. (Sweeps have increased under   
   his administration, as has IRP’s budget; and earlier this month, Wilson   
   reinstated enforcement of the city’s camping ban, which he touted has led   
   to the arrest of 40 people on outstanding warrants and to 39 people   
   accepting shelter beds.)   
      
   In a rare public missive over the weekend responding to Morillo’s   
   amendment, Wilson went nuclear. In the email, he warned that Morillo’s   
   amendment would put “neighborhood livability at risk.” He also alleged her   
   proposal would result in cuts to the Portland Parks & Recreation, the   
   Portland Police Bureau, services to women suffering from domestic   
   violence, and trash pickup programs that hire formerly homeless people.   
   “This would be devastating for every neighborhood as upwards of 4,000,000   
   pounds of biohazard materials could be left uncollected,” Wilson wrote.   
   “Perhaps most painful of all, we would be forced to lay off up to 100   
   workers, including those in successful workforce development programs that   
   prioritize hiring workers with lived experience of homelessness or prior   
   incarceration.”   
      
   Morillo fought back. In a series of social media videos and posts on   
   Bluesky and Instagram, Morillo said Wilson had provided a “deep   
   mischaracterization” of her proposal and said he was “fearmongering.” She   
   said a portion of that cut—$2 million—would be better spent on food and   
   rent assistance and immigrant refugee groups.   
      
   “I really haven’t aired out dirty laundry in an attempt to build rapport   
   with my colleagues, but if my name is going to be smeared on a massive   
   list-serve you leave me no choice but to respond,” she wrote on Instagram.   
   On Bluesky she wrote: “Mayor Wilson could’ve called me to clarify and ask   
   questions before blasting us in a newsletter, but of course he has to find   
   a scapegoat when he doesn’t magically end homelessness on [Dec. 1] by   
   warehousing people.”   
      
   In the days leading up to Wednesday’s meeting, councilors to Morillo’s   
   right panned her proposal, as did business and some environmental groups.   
      
   Councilor Steve Novick told WW midweek that Morillo’s amendment gave too   
   little time to both the public and the council to properly weigh the   
   implications.   
      
   “The idea of giving councilors and the public five days—including two   
   weekend days and one holiday—to review and react to three major budget   
   cuts is outrageous,“ Novick said. ”Any councilor who believes in public   
   involvement in the budget process should oppose these proposals."   
      
   Councilor Olivia Clark said Morillo’s amendment “seems to represent a   
   growing toxicity and lack of respect on Council.” Council President Elana   
   Pirtle-Guiney in an email to constituents wrote that “meaningful change   
   requires planning, transparency, and community input. Portlanders deserve   
   a government that takes the time to get it right, not one that makes   
   sweeping changes on short notice.”   
      
   A group of environmental, union and business groups penned a letter   
   Tuesday evening urging the council to reject Morillo’s proposal, focusing   
   on what they said was a $1 million cut to the parks bureau that would   
   violate “the commitment to taxpayers and directly reduce future funding   
   available for park maintenance, recreation programs, and community   
   services.” Signatories included 1000 Friends of Oregon, Willamette   
   Riverkeeper, the Portland Metro Chamber, AFSCME Local 189 and the Oregon   
   League of Conservation Voters.   
      
   Come Wednesday, the disagreement over what Morillo’s amendment would do   
   permeated much of the 10-hour council meeting. While Morillo’s amendment   
   included other line items, too, the cut to the sweeps program took center   
   stage in the debate. At the start of the discussion, Morillo called on her   
   policy analyst to correct the record, saying much of what Wilson’s email   
   had claimed was false. Instead, Morillo reiterated from the dais, her   
   proposal’s intent was simple: to reduce the number of homeless camp   
   sweeps.   
      
   The city’s chief financial officer, Jonas Biery, took issue with some of   
   the information presented by Morillo’s office. “I’m concerned that some   
   information that was presented seems to me to be inconsistent with what   
   I’ve heard about service impacts from the bureaus,“ Biery told councilors.   
      
   After hours of testimony from members of the public, the council debated   
   Morillo’s amendment and subamendments. As it became clear Morillo’s   
   amendment would fail—Councilor Loretta Smith, who earlier in the week   
   appeared ready to support it, withdrew her backing—Morillo made pointed   
   remarks to both her colleagues and Wilson, who was present in the chamber.   
      
   She again accused Wilson of “whipping [organizations] into a frenzy” by   
   warning them they would be on the chopping block were Morillo’s amendment   
   to pass. She said Wilson had used those organizations “as shields for   
   deeply problematic policy.”   
      
   “So if the administration is going through and calling those folks and   
   whipping them into a frenzy—and yes, by the administration I do mean you,   
   Mayor Wilson, and some of your staff,” Morillo said, looking directly at   
   Wilson, “they are pitting us against community members we never wanted to   
   stand against.”   
      
   (Ground Score Association had sent a letter to Morillo’s office earlier in   
   the week, stating that its “contract will collapse, resulting in the   
   immediate loss of income and stability for 67 of our workers,” should   
   Morillo’s amendment pass as is. The council did pass an amendment   
   Wednesday that, if the technical adjustment ordinance is approved, will   
   move Ground Score to a different bureau to insulate it from any cuts or   
   changes.)   
      
   Councilors supporting Morillo’s amendment, including Mitch Green and   
   Candace Avalos, used the issue at hand to hammer a stance they’ve taken   
   for much of the year: that the administration’s proposed budgets are not   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)