Four perspectives on Oregon’s landmark Bottle Bill

Oregon’s Bottle Bill, which offers cash refunds for empty bottles and cans, was a landmark piece of legislation when it first passed in 1971. Since then, it’s served as a model for similar bills in other states and led to some of the highest recycling rates in the nation. The bill was originally intended to discourage littering, but the cash refunds it offers have increasingly become a lifeline for low-income Oregonians and people experiencing homelessness. As extensively reported in Willamette Week, critics now say the bill is fueling open-air drug markets outside return sites.

We’ll get an overview of the Bottle Bill from Eric Chambers, vice president of strategy and outreach for the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative. We’re also joined by RJ DeMello, chair of the St. Johns Neighborhood Association; Ken Thrasher, former CEO of Fred Meyer and board chair of the Northwest Community Conservancy; and Kris Brown, operational manager of The People’s Depot, a Portland redemption center run by can collectors. They share their perspectives on how the Bottle Bill does — or doesn’t — interact with the state’s growing opioid and homelessness crises.

The following transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer:

Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Dave Miller. Oregon’s Bottle Bill, which offers cash refunds for empty bottles and cans was a landmark piece of legislation when it first passed in 1971. Since then, it served as a model for similar bills in other states and it’s led to the highest beverage container recycling rates in the country. The bill was originally intended to discourage littering but the cash it provides has increasingly become a lifeline for low-income Oregonians and people experiencing homelessness. As reported in Willamette Week not long ago, critics now say the bill is fueling open-air drug markets outside return sites. We’re gonna get four perspectives on this today. We start with Eric Chambers. He is the vice president of strategy and outreach for the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, OBRC, which manages the system. It’s good to have you here.

Eric Chambers: It’s nice to be here. Thank you.

Miller: It’s been a while since we talked about Oregon’s Bottle Bill on this show. Can you just give us a reminder of how it works now? I mean, what OBRC is and what happens behind the scenes?

Chambers: You bet. The same premise that was adopted in 1971 is still true today. A beverage container has a refund value that you get back when you return the container through a return site. Originally, those return sites were all grocery retail stores. Over time, that system has evolved and changed, while critically maintaining consumer convenience along the way. So now consumers can return containers in bulk via the Green Bag program. We have about a million Green Bag account holders who return 12 million bags a year of containers for refunds. You can bring containers to redemption centers and receive a cash refund at redemption centers. And in many cases, you can still return containers directly to grocery retail stores.

About 80% of container returns come back through what we call the bottle drop network, the bag program and the redemption centers, about 20% come back through grocery retail stores.

Miller: And am I right that last year was about 91% return rate?

Chambers: Yeah, Oregon has the highest redemption rate in the nation and we’re very, very proud of that. In 2023 our preliminary redemption rate is 90.5%. We’ve been routinely in the eighties since the refund value went from a nickel to a dime and have led the nation, and we’re very proud of that.

Miller: How big a difference did that, doubling from five cents to 10 cents, make in terms of return rates?

Chambers: There’s two things that motivate return rates, that make a big impact on the environmental outcomes. One is how convenient is it for consumers to take containers back, where can they take them back, and how easy is that to do? What options exist? And two is the refund value and how motivating is that financially for individuals to participate in. If you get two things right, those two things right, in any state you’ll have a successful system. And Oregon is certainly the bright light in demonstrating that.

Miller: What would you say to the argument that the Bottle Bill’s original purpose, discouraging litter, has been eclipsed by a kind of unintended purpose of providing income for people who need it.

Chambers: I think first, let’s not sleep on the environmental outcomes. Oregon gets around 90% of containers back via the system. The national average is around 35%. So it’s a staggering difference in terms of how many containers are getting recycled, preventing litter along our roadsides, our beaches, our special places across the state and getting the highest and best recycling outcome from that material because it’s food grade materials segregated throughout the process. So I think that those are very much intact, maybe more so today than they were in 1971.

And it’s also true that people are motivated by the refund value. We have people in Oregon with eight figure incomes who are returning bottles and cans. We have people who return bottles and cans for nonprofits. There’s 5,600 nonprofits that collect funds through bottles and cans. They raise over $5 million a year and we have people who are raising bottles and cans, who will turn them in today and will buy a warm dinner out of the deli case tonight. And so it’s economically motivating across the board, certainly. And there’s over $200 million that’s being paid out each year in consumer refunds.

Miller: How do you respond to the notion - and we’ll hear folks later in the show make it- but it’s become I think more common in various parts of the state, especially in places like downtown Portland, that a kind of canning economy is a part of the engine that is fueling the drug economy?

Chambers: I think that that’s probably focusing more on a symptom than an underlying cause. With the fentanyl crisis, we have the most powerfully addictive substance ever known to humankind, a substance that’s 100 times more potent than morphine, that’s 50 times more potent than heroin, and that’s five times cheaper than a corndog at the Oregon State Fair.

Miller: A dollar a pill.

Chambers: A dollar a pill. So at the point at which we’re at a dollar a pill, we’re approaching a price point that’s effectively free. It could be 10 bottles and cans or it could be three minutes soliciting donations at a freeway onramp. And so I think that trying to approach the problem from the perspective of the cash side is a little simplistic, versus the questions around enforcement, around distribution. There are people who are putting this substance into our communities where two grains of salt will kill you. And I think focusing on trying to disrupt that distribution network, while also having meaningful support and recovery services available for individuals who have fallen ill to this substance, I think are much more meaningful interventions than whether or not beverage containers have value.

I think if we look at the Central Library downtown, that’s effectively a homeless day shelter. But we’re not talking about closing the Central Library. We’re not ready to give away that service from our social contract. If we look at TriMet, they announced that there’s fentanyl on every single seat, on every single platform in their system, but we’re not talking about disrupting the transit system that is acclaimed across the nation.

Miller: Well, I mean, just to be clear, those are both issues we’ve talked about with leaders of those agencies or institutions and for the time, there were trace amounts, they were not a danger but your point stands that yes, that it’s so ubiquitous that if you have an amazingly powerful sensor, you can find trace elements.

Chambers: We should be careful not to give away successful institutions, things that are producing amazing outcomes, because those might provide symbolic action, on a much, much bigger crisis with much more complicated solvency.

Miller: What do you say about the proposal to take cash out of the equation, to have it, say, that people could get gift cards, say, for a grocery store or credit on an Oregon Trail card, what we used to call Food Stamps as opposed to cash that can be turned around immediately?

Chambers: I think there’s some intriguing ideas that are out there in that space. In the case of 46% of redemption right now, which is containers coming back through the Green Bag program and the Blue Bag program, that’s already effectively happened, where the funds are loaded onto a bottle drop account and people can redeem those funds at a redemption center or in store. I’d say probably the majority of in-store redemption is essentially that, where people are using that store credit. And if you push the Bottle Drop Plus program at a participating worker like Safeway or Fred Meyer or Albertsons, they’ll even add an extra 20% to the funds to incentivize you to do that. So a lot of redemption is already in that space.

Miller: If there were a bill in the legislature to make that the norm and the law as opposed to what’s already, maybe half of the way it works, would OBRC oppose it?

Chambers: I think we need to be very careful and mindful and constructive around how and why people redeem containers. We need to not lose the fact that somebody returning containers this week is going to pay their power bill. And so I think before we sweep in broad changes, that are 53 years in the making, we need to be really careful and thoughtful about that. But we’re certainly open to questions around how the redemption system works and how it can modernize to best serve Oregonians.

Miller: We got this email from Jocelyn Hauck from Bend. She wrote:

“The Bottle Bill has served Oregon very well, but the bill itself is not the reason questionable activities are occurring outside Bottle Drop locations. Bend has one Bottle Drop location located in a tight, not enough parking area, on an obscure side street. That is the only location in the whole town of approximately 90,000 people. The location has a private security company on site, but obviously that’s not a deterrent. So if illegal drug activity is going on, why don’t police have a frequent patrol and upon observation of such activity, arrest those people? In a town of this size, there should be at least three more Bottle Drop locations south, east and north. So the blame is not on the Bottle Bill itself.”

How do you decide as an organization where to put your own official Bottle Drop locations?

Chambers: Bottle Drop redemption centers serve grocery retailers that are within a certain circumference of the center. And so in Bend, our center serves the grocery retailers that are largely in that area. By volume, it could merit a second center at some point in the future. I would say that we’ve also supplemented access in the city of Bend by adding two additional Green Bag drop doors, one at Albertson’s and one at Fred Meyer, that are outside of statute, that we just did because we wanted to be able to provide enhanced access for individuals. It’s certainly, to Jocelyn’s point, that using local government law enforcement resources to disrupt the distribution network of illicit drugs, I mean, I think fair point, and we’re certainly open to trying to see the disruption of that economy.

Miller: Later in the hour, we’re going to be hearing from the chair of the Saint John’s Neighborhood Association. A lot of folks in that neighborhood oppose your plans for a new Bottle Drop facility there. Where does that plan stand right now? What’s the status of it right now?

Chambers: We’re still very early in the process. The first step is for the city to certify that the land use is correct for the area. We’re confident in that and that our Gleason Redemption Center is in the same land use. And then the next step of the process is to apply to the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission to operate a redemption center.

And that includes a pretty robust public input period. So there will be lots of opportunities. And then after that, of course, you go into the development process.

But I think more broadly, I mean, I understand the concerns that the neighbors are raising in Saint John’s. I’m a Portland resident. I live in Brentwood, Darlington. My family has walked over hypodermic needles on the sidewalk in my children’s school zone, littered out of RVs. I’ve been the person that’s petitioned my government to try to address some of those underlying issues. It’s hard right now. It is really hard right now. But I think if we look at a test lab like Washington, the state of Washington to our north, where there is no Bottle Bill, we would see many of the same fentanyl issues. In fact, we see a higher overdose death rate per capita in Washington than we have here in Oregon. But containers don’t have value. The difference is that they get about 30% of their containers back to be recycled. We get 90%. So the environmental outcomes suffer.

Miller: I want to turn briefly to the question of money. OBRC, it’s not a state agency. It’s a collective of beverage distributors. It keeps the proceeds from unredeemed deposits, which in this state is not that many, about 10%, but it still adds up to something like $30 million which goes to funding the operations, along with fees from beverage distributors, grocery stores and others. But then you can also add in proceeds from the sale of the material that comes in aluminum, for example.

Do beverage distributors make a profit through OBRC, when you add in the sale of, say, aluminum and unredeemed deposits. Does that add up to more than what they’re paying in membership fees?

Chambers: So Oregon has a producer responsibility system. The legislators in 1971 could try to address the single use beverage container litter issue with a state agency and public services or they could charge the people benefiting from the system, the beverage distributors and grocers who are selling the beverages, to be stewards of that packaging. They chose the latter. So we’ve got this producer responsibility system and you’re correct, OBRC is formed as a stewardship organization with the purpose of fulfilling this mission. Our operating budget is about $62 million a year. The value of unclaimed refunds last year was around $20 million. So about a third of our operating budget is derived from individuals who forfeit their refunds because they choose not to participate. Those are invested into the system to provide the operation and access.

In some cases, we have a strong motivation to be good stewards of our material. If we can keep it separated, reduce contaminants, get it compacted, it might have some positive value on the back end, but those are different sets of financial questions. One, is what it costs to operate our system. Two, is if there’s gonna be any positive value on the back end. That, of course, depends on the recycling economy in any given year. There’s some pretty substantial volatility and commodity values over time. For most of our members, it probably doesn’t represent positive value when it nets out. But if we’re good stewards, there might be some positive benefit on the back end, which is also a strong incentive for us to do the right thing with the material.

Miller: Just so I understand what you’re saying, in some good years, you’re saying some beverage distributors make money from this system?

Chambers: I mean, I can’t say that that’s the case.

Miller: Isn’t that a basic question? I mean, it doesn’t seem that complicated. Do they get more money than they put in on any given year?

Chambers: I mean, I think you need to understand, we’re a cooperative structure. So we’re like the Oregon Country Natural Beef or the Tillamook Dairy Co-Op. We were formed to fulfill a purpose and that purpose is to carry out the responsibility of beverage distributors under the Bottle Bill. And we do a tremendous job of exactly that.

A separate question is this material that we process, the recyclable material. Like every company, whether it’s a solid waste hauler or it’s a [Mr] Murph [Recycling], is there a financial motivation to be a good steward of the material to try to maximize the value of it? Absolutely, yes. And so our purpose is the first question, what does it take to run the co-op? The second question is, what is material worth at any given time? And have we been good stewards of that material?

Miller: But for Oregonians, I think they would be curious to know if the 10 cents that they’re paying, or the 60 cents in a six pack, if on any average year, if that means that there’s a profit for beverage distributors or not. Because I think the assumption is that there isn’t a profit here. You’re saying that if we do our job right, and the market says aluminum is worth a certain amount, then there can be a profit for distributors?

Chambers: On the scrap material, yes. Certainly not on the unclaimed refund. Again, we can look at just the math of the system and see what the value of unclaimed refunds is worth and what our operating budget is. But even beyond that, we’ve sort of hypothesized, like could there be a day if the redemption rate slipped so far that the value of unclaimed refunds eclipsed the operating costs of the system. And to avoid that circumstance our board by policy has said, if we’re ever below 80% in our redemption rate, which would essentially lead the nation in any given year, they’ll donate any unclaimed refunds below that amount to the Oregon Community Foundation’s Bottle Drop fund to just make sure that we don’t have any sort of perverse incentive to try to dampen redemption. And again, we certainly see that that’s the outcome that we get because we have 90% redemption in Oregon, which clearly leads the nation.

Miller: Eric Chambers, thanks very much.

Chambers: Thank you.

Miller: Eric Chambers is the vice president of Strategy and Outreach at OBRC, the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative.

For another perspective on the state of the Bottle Bill, I’m joined now by Ken Thrasher. He’s a former CEO of Fred Meyer and the board chair of the Northwest Community Conservancy. It’s a nonprofit formed by business and residential owners in the Pearl District. It provides what it calls security and humanitarian services. Ken Thrasher, welcome.

Ken Thrasher: Thank you, Dave.

Miller: How did your Pearl District-focused nonprofit turn your attention to beverage container redemption sites?

Thrasher: Well, I think the issue really revolved around the Rite Aid site that was on Northwest 10th and Hoyt, and watched what happened at that site and ultimately led to its closure on February 1st. And we also have watched three Targets close as well in the area. I think if you kind of look at the mechanics of what’s happened there, is when you look at the security costs, the theft, the amount of drug activity on site with people going in and redeeming bottles for cash, coming out, having a dealer stand there and then sell the fentanyl to the user and then watch the user use it on site, while watching people dump out bottles of water, take them in for the redemption value…because they bought them on an Oregon Trail card or might have even stolen. It’s watching this happen and the impact it has on the store, on the employees, on the customers, on the community. It’s really difficult, let alone the number of trash cans that are dumped out to get the bottles and cans out of those receptacles. And then the garbage is left on the street.

All of these things add up to significant impact on retailers and on people in the community. And it’s got to the point where having a cash incentive through the bottle redemption program has created, I think, an increase in the drug traffic.

Miller: So what exactly are you advocating for? What is the change in redemption that you want to see, whether it’s just in Northwest Portland or in the state as a whole?

Thrasher: Well, I think that what we’ve advocated to legislators, to the Governor’s Office and others, is that what we really should do is get bottles, can redemptions, outsourced. Number one, it’s a huge health issue because many of the cans and bottles that are being returned today have either needles in them or remnants of fentanyl or other biohazard issues that we see when we go in and clean up the campsites around the I-405, and in the community, and many of those bottles and cans that are in those sites end up in the store being redeemed. And that process creates a health hazard, not only for the store but for the employees and the customers. Getting that stuff out of there and the increased security costs and theft cost we think should be done in a redemption center.

And number two, get rid of the cash incentive. Put it out as a credit to the Oregon Trail Card, if that’s the person delivering the products, or the redemption items. And give store credits for people to buy products in stores and they could designate what store they would like to buy their products at. But I think getting a cash incentive out is a critical element, but also getting out of the store because of the health security and other issues it’s causing would be a big benefit for our state.

Miller: So your argument is that there would be less drug dealing or maybe less drug use right outside a supermarket or a drugstore if they stopped accepting cans. But as you heard from Eric Chambers, as you know, when these pills cost a dollar, what’s to say that the solution you’re putting forward would actually make any difference in terms of the overall state of drug dealing and drug use? Eric Chambers’ example was people can then just panhandle and get a dollar another way or steal. If they’re so addicted to this terribly addictive drug, changing the way that people can get cash is not the same as stopping them from using. I’m curious what your response is.

Thrasher: Well, I think that’s part of the reform of Measure 110. I mean, these all fit together. It’s not one item that solves the problem. The reforms of Measure 110, I think to recriminalize drug use is one of the ways and going after the drug dealers and being more punitive toward what they’re doing is part of the solution. But I do think this is a way to help solve the problem at the store level. And I think the fact that the governor now has broken the code by setting the precedent of closing down two stores from having to take bottle returns at Safeway and Plaid Pantry in Southwest Portland is an example. Now you go and look at those sites. They’re pretty clean. But what happened is where did those people go? We’re just moving the problem around and we have to stop moving the problem. We have to tackle the cause of the problem and what’s feeding it through the bottle return refunds.

Miller: Many Oregonians collect cans not to buy drugs, but as a lifeline or a supplement, say to Social Security or a way to pay bills. What do you say to them and to their needs, say, to have to go further out of their way to go to a Bottle Drop location or to not have complete freedom in what to use the proceeds on?

Thrasher: Well, I think that’s something that could be worked out through the system. And I think one of the processes would be to look at what’s the best way to deal with the needs of people that have these needs. But I think the other problem is, as an example, the Rite Aid that closed on Northwest 10th and Hoyt. Now we have a group of people in the community that don’t have access to prescription drugs at that store. So their options have been limited by what’s happened to that store and the terrible outcomes that were created there through these kinds of programs.

Miller: What’s the political path right now that you see to make this happen?

Thrasher: Well, I think the legislature needs to take it up as a way to relook at the Bottle Bill. Relook at the way that returns are funded, whether they’re done through cash or non cash credits, where they’re collected through redemption centers, getting it out of the stores. And really understand with OBRC, I think really getting accountability from them too. We need some transparency on how those funds that go into OBRC are being spent and whether or not we’re just refunding money to the beverage distributors and how do we use those monies more effectively.

This was not set up as a social service program initially. It has evolved somewhat to that, but it’s also being misused for drug use. So how do you get the best out of all of these issues and create the best program for the Bottle Bill long term?

Miller: Ken Thrasher, thanks very much.

Thrasher: You bet. Thank you.

Miller: Ken Thrasher is the board chair of the Pearl District Focused Northwest Community Conservancy.

Kris Brown joins us now. He is the manager of The People’s Depot, a redemption center in Portland run by can collectors. Welcome to the show.

Kris Brown: Thank you for having me.

Miller: Can you describe how People’s Depot works?

Brown: Yeah, The People’s Depot, it’s a can run bottle redemption service in the Central Eastside. We’re all former canners. We, including me, all used to survive or still collect cans and bottles for extra income. All the workers, including me, at the Depot started low barrier, like we didn’t have an ID. We didn’t have any Social Security cards, no bank accounts, and through getting paid cash every day, every last one of us now has all of those things. Every team member at the Depot.

We’re also focused on just improving our lives. Canners are incredibly hard working people. Canning is a tough job for very little pay, usually. I’ve had an amazing experience working with these people and seeing the real growth and trying to change their lives.

Miller: How is what you offer different from what people would find at a grocery store?

Brown: In my opinion, we’re a very well staffed redemption center. That’s our only focus, is counting your cans and making sure that you are in and out of there as efficiently as possible. In my experiences of dealing with retail stores, usually their bottle redemption centers are very understaffed. They only have maybe one or two people working in those bottle rooms. And it gets stressful, especially dealing with people who haven’t had the same experience as the person in those bottle rooms.

Every last one of us at the Depot have been on the other side of the table. We understand what that person has just been through to count the cans and we want to make sure that they have the rest of their day to go do what they need to do.

Miller: When you say you understand what they’ve been through, what’s an example of, of how you think you’re better able to help people who bring in, say, a shopping cart full of bags of cans? What’s something that you know about their experience that helps you help them?

Brown: We have a very welcoming environment and most of the people that come to the Depot nowadays know that we used to be canners or canned before coming here. I think operating in an outdoor environment helps also, it allows people to be a little bit more free. They can be loud if need be, we work in a very loud area. But yeah, I just feel like we operate…I don’t say we wanna operate better than a regular Bottle Drop or a retail center, we’re just trying to find our place within the redemption world that fits for other waste pickers and canners.

Miller: When you hear people argue that the canning economy is part of what’s fueling fentanyl dealing and fentanyl use in Portland, what goes through your mind?

Brown: I think about all the people that don’t use fentanyl that still come in and redeem cans. The Depot itself, we redeemed 7.5 million containers last year. We usually serve anywhere from 100 to 140 people within a two hour span. The average person turns in roughly $27 worth of cans. These people, a lot of them, they’re elderly, they’re disabled, they’re on Social Security. They’re not making enough money off of these things, so they have to rely on canning as supplemental income. They’re worried about paying their phone bill. They’re worried about making sure that they have food at the end of the month. They wanna make sure that they have money in their pocket after they have spent 80% of their income on rent. The majority of the people that do come to the Depot, they are using that money for other things and they are part of our society, they are part of our economy.

Miller: What do you think it would mean for the people that you serve if the cash refund were turned into store credit or replaced with something like food assistance and if there were no more redemption centers at retail locations?

Brown: I mean, I feel like retail locations should still have redemption because people go to those grocery stores to buy groceries. And I feel like grocery stores are a conduit of bringing all those bottles and cans into the environment. So they should have some kind of responsibility to bring what they can back, as due diligence to our society. Plus, at the retail centers, they’re looking to serve people that are buying groceries there. Well, us at the Depot, we don’t care who you are, if you have bottles and cans to turn and come in and turn your cans in, there’s no judgment. There’s no judgment when you come and visit us.

Miller: Kris Brown, thanks very much.

Brown: Thank you.

Miller: Kris Brown is the operational manager at People’s Depot, which is a canner-run redemption site in the Central Eastside of Portland.

We turn now to RJ DeMello. He is the chair of the St. John’s Neighborhood Association. St. John’s, as we mentioned earlier, it’s a site of a proposed new Bottle Drop location and many people in the neighborhood are not happy about it. RJ DeMello, welcome.

RJ DeMello: Hey, thanks for having me.

Miller: How did you first hear about the proposed site in St. John’s?

DeMello: We really found out when everybody else did via sort of social media and folks sharing that they had seen on Portland maps, that the land had been bought by the OBRC. There was no sort of outreach or anything done ahead of that.

Miller: What specific concerns did you hear from neighbors, from residents or business owners?

DeMello: We had our monthly general meeting earlier this month and we had more than 400 people turn out to speak, and we heard a variety of concerns. So really it comes from all different angles at this and looks at things from some of what’s been talked about today with concerns around crime or drug use, and that is certainly an element of concern for many residents. But there’s also a lot of other concerns brought forth that I think are also important to talk about. Things like impacts with traffic and having this vital main thoroughfare through our neighborhood with more large commercial traffic coming through, with our kids trying to get to school and crossing Lombard and having that increased potential for accidents.

There’s really just down to even that it’s a bad use for that spot of land. We’re talking about a main street similar to, think about like Hawthorne, that is a vital center, a really unique feel to St. John’s and along Lombard. And really, we feel that a better use for that is actually getting to the solving of this problem. It was mentioned earlier about talking about symptoms rather than sort of cures, and a cure for us is ultimately housing. And a better use for this land instead of a parking lot in a commercial center is housing units, and starting in the right direction for this neighborhood and for the city.

Miller: Is anyone in the neighborhood saying that this is an important source of income for struggling people in our community and we should welcome this facility regardless of the location? Is that something you’re also hearing?

DeMello: No, we didn’t hear any of that argument made. Again, we had more than 400 people there. The vote was as close to unanimous as you can get in terms of opposing the location. I think part of it is there’s a Safeway less than a half mile away where people can drop bags for return and there’s also a New Seasons less than a mile away that can do individual. So, there is sort of that resource already close by. So it doesn’t feel as if there’s a strong need for that in the neighborhood.

Miller: Is there a version of a Bottle Drop or a location for a Bottle Drop in St. John’s that you think people in the neighborhood would actually accept?

DeMello: So I think that’s an important question and distinction for the board, the Board of the Neighborhood Association. This is opposition strictly surrounding the location. So if there was to be a proposal at a different part of the neighborhood, it would be open to consideration. I think if you talk to the general membership, you would probably get a split answer on that. You probably get a half of the people that would say, sure, let’s see where the location is because this is just a really bad location for one, and a bad use of the land when it’s ripe for housing and continuing to increase the vibrancy of this main street in our neighborhood. And then the other half would probably say no, no matter what, there’s the problems that come along with it and we don’t want to see that. So I think it would be a complicated question if that were to be a potential.

Miller: We just have about a minute left, but what do you think doesn’t get enough attention in this conversation?

DeMello: I think, as I mentioned, really we need to be talking more about solutions and not symptoms. We’re kind of arguing over like should we take Ibuprofen or Dayquil when in reality, we need the antibiotics to treat what’s going on. That comes down to housing and that’s why we want to see that in this spot. That comes down to income development resources. So really, what are we doing as a community to support people and develop their incomes to sustainable levels that then can afford places to live? Then, it’s the improvement of the mental behavioral health and addiction system. If you do all those things, right, we don’t have this conversation, we don’t have the symptoms of the issues that surround the redemption.

So really, we want to be focused on solutions and solving a problem. And that’s why we want to see more of something like housing come into that area that starts to contribute towards a better future for St. John’s and for Portland.

Miller: RJ DeMello, thanks very much.

DeMello: Thank you.

Miller: RJ DeMello is the chair of the St. John’s Neighborhood Association.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.