Amy Harris believes city of Vancouver officials owe residents an explanation why this contract was awarded
Amy Harris
Clark County Matters
The past two years, we’ve repeatedly warned that Vancouver doesn’t have to end up like Portland, losing quality of life to homelessness and lawlessness. The policy failures of our neighbor across the river, actually provide a real-life laboratory for what policy makers in Vancouver and Clark County should AVOID doing.
Clark County Matters
But instead of learning from the mistakes of Portland, Vancouver city officials are committed to repeating them. Before I share more details, consider these three tragic facts of the Portland homeless record as reported by ProPublica on June 11:
- $1.3 BILLION
Portland allocated $1.3 Billion from 2021 to 2024 to “reprioritize public health and safety among homeless Portlanders.” - $200,000
Over that time, the city spent roughly $200,000 per homeless resident. - 450+
Yet deaths quadrupled, climbing from 113 deaths in 2019 to more than 450 in 2023.
Earlier this year, the city of Vancouver awarded a contract to Do Good Multnomah to operate a new homeless shelter. On paper, the organization may sound appealing, it promotes a low-barrier, housing-first approach and has partnered with neighboring Multnomah County. But there’s a serious problem: Do Good Multnomah has a documented track record of failure.
You’ve probably never heard any of this because our local media outlet — The Columbian — is more interested in protecting the failing status quo than asking tough questions about the massive increases in public funding going into local homeless programs and providers while the problem continues to grow worse.
Consider just one example: Sandy Studios, a supportive housing site the organization managed in Portland. A 2023 audit from Multnomah County revealed alarming mismanagement, lack of oversight, and unsafe living conditions that culminated in a ceiling collapse.
Do Good Multnomah subcontracted building maintenance to Home First Development — a firm with no property maintenance experience — without a competitive process or formal approval. What followed was neglect and decay. The site suffered from faulty wiring, broken plumbing, mold, inaccessible wheelchair ramps, and even a hole in the basement floor. Staff described the building as “moldering into the ground.” Meanwhile, tenants were allowed to deny access to maintenance crews, even when serious repairs were needed.
Despite obvious problems, the Joint Office of Homeless Services (JOHS) failed to inspect the site or intervene. Rent payments continued. Quarterly reports from Do Good were vague, repetitive, and omitted major safety concerns. No action was taken until a ceiling finally collapsed in 2021.
The auditor’s conclusion was clear: there were failures at every level. The report recommended stronger contract enforcement, clearer oversight roles, and improved compliance tracking.
Given this record of failure, why would the city of Vancouver hire Do Good Multnomah? That’s a question the City Council needs to answer.
The most generous explanation might be that city leaders didn’t fully investigate Do Good’s record. But these weren’t isolated missteps — they were systemic, well-documented failures. Vancouver’s leadership should have known.
It’s possible the city chose Do Good because its housing-first, low-barrier philosophy aligns with prevailing political priorities. But values are not enough. Effectiveness matters. Accountability matters. In fact, it matters most, especially when lives and public safety are on the line.
Vancouver residents have been clear: they want action on public camping and homelessness. They want real results, not ideological spouts that leave neighborhoods at risk and people on the streets. Choosing a provider with a failed track record sends the wrong message.
We all want solutions rooted in compassion. But compassion without competence doesn’t help anyone. Good intentions alone can’t solve complex problems. True progress requires not only empathy for those in need but also the expertise, accountability, and effective management to deliver real, sustainable solutions. Without that balance, efforts risk falling short, leaving vulnerable people underserved and communities frustrated.
Vancouver had the opportunity to choose a different path. Instead, we’re risking the same costly mistakes that have plagued Portland for years. City officials owe residents an explanation why this contract was awarded, and what steps they’re taking to ensure Vancouver doesn’t repeat the same failures Multnomah County is still trying to fix.
Also read:
- Opinion: The unpreferred and unaffordable Interstate Bridge replacement proposal
Rep. John Ley argues that the Interstate Bridge Replacement proposal is unpreferred, unaffordable, and failing to address congestion, cost transparency, and community concerns. - POLL: If project costs continue to rise, what should lawmakers do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan?
This poll asks readers what lawmakers should do with the I-5 Bridge replacement plan as costs rise and key decisions remain unresolved. - Opinion: IBR still holding and lying about coming billions in cost overruns
Joe Cortright argues that Interstate Bridge Replacement officials are deliberately delaying the release of an updated cost estimate that he says could push the project toward $10 billion. - Opinion: Another problem with strike pay from the UI fund – Potential double-dipping, overpayments
Elizabeth New (Hovde) argues that Washington’s new strike pay law risks overpayments and double-dipping unless workers are clearly warned at the point of applying for unemployment benefits. - Letter: A call for competent Interstate Bridge project management
Rick Vermeers argues that unchecked scope, rising costs, and missed timelines threaten the survival of the Interstate Bridge Replacement project unless light rail is removed.
wpDiscuz
