I must express my concern with the direction some members of the Grants Pass City Council are taking regarding the Pathway to Stability program. There appears to be a rush to push this initiative through without sufficient dialogue with the community. A troubling lack of communication and transparency is evident among certain council members.
When the new city council and, for that matter, the county commissioners took office in January, I urged them to prioritize transparency, especially when introducing policies or programs that could be considered controversial. Just as importantly, I encouraged them to ensure the public had an opportunity to understand, support, and participate in the decision-making process. Failing to do so only harms our community, creates division, and leads to unnecessary complications in the future. You must gain community support for your decisions, there is NO excuse for not doing so.
Unfortunately, both the city council (some members) and the county commissioners have failed in this regard. Our city and county are currently grappling with several serious challenges, many of which are rooted in poor communication and a lack of transparency. Since taking office, both governing bodies have not done enough to build public trust or secure community support for their decisions.
It’s time for the city council to treat the Pathway to Stability program with the seriousness it deserves. The public must be given a real opportunity to ask questions, gather information, and form their own informed opinions. The council should not rush or obscure initiatives that will affect our entire community for years to come. I urge the city council to slow down. Schedule a town hall meeting, with the city attorney, city council and chief of police in an open meeting for our community to ask questions and learn in greater detail about this Pathway to Stability program.
There is no legitimate reason to exclude the public from this process. Council members should listen to residents and take their concerns seriously. After all, city councilors work for the people – not the other way around.
We have a two issues going on with the homeless issue right now:
1) The injunction: This hopefully will be resolved soon in which NO campers will be allowed in any park. This is being done by expanding the current campsites. The city council is doing good in this area, for trying to get out of the injunction.
2) Pathway to Stability: This is the second issue. It is an issue for lack of transparency and the rush to undertake the program. There are two very concerning issues with this program.
One: It is my understanding that the large lot (8 acres) is for allowing up to 500-600 campers, we don’t need or want that kind of room (even if you factor in some car campers, we still don’t need that much room and it will result in increasing our homeless population).
Two: The Pathway to Stability program may not remove all of our current campsites that are in town. This is another very concerning issue.
This is why we need a town hall meeting with open discussion and transparency to ensure we all have the right information and all our questions are answered.
We have had a public townhall meeting regarding Pathways to Stability and I am sure there will be more, and there should! Public participation can even happen at the steering committee level. I know ALL of the councilors have been invited to the steering committee meetings that include a large number of non-profits that will participate in the Pathways to Stability Assessment Center.
You obviously have little knowledge of HB 3115. This will allow our unhoused residents to continue filing suits against our city. This will NOT be over when the injunction is lifted. We will only be safe as a community from this law when we provide a system that is all encompassing, like Pathways to Stability is trying to implement; where if an unhoused individual chooses to not participate in the program, they will be one deemed unreasonable, not the city.
Thank you for the comment: I know all too well that until HB3115 is repealed, our city and others will continue to be easy prey for lawsuits. With the language of, “Objectively Reasonable” in HB3115 it will never end. For further information check out; Homeless: Understanding State and Federal Law;
https://avoicewithin.org/homeless-understanding-state-and-federal-law/
However, expanding the current campsites as they are doing will hopefully allow the judge to lift the injunction. That doesn’t mean the future lawsuits may come about because of HB3115.
The Pathway to Stability is a different issue that the public is entitled to gain far more information on. That too will not stop future lawsuits nor will it most likely allow all of the current campsites to be closed down as the need for at least one will remain, most likely for those people who are kicked out of the Pathway for Stability shelter for breaking the rules.
Yes, you are correct in that one location will have to be kept open, and that would most likely be the one next to the police station. Pathways to Stability could stop the lawsuits and here is how… With a low barrier option to enter, assessment within 24 hours to attain individual’s need, case manager onsite, services onsite, all the non-profits are onboard to operate with staff onsite (like MINT, UCAN, etc.), transitional housing onsite, there will be a plan put in place for each resident. The plan is what makes this work and keeps us from getting sued. There will be clear paths for these individuals to pull themselves out of homelessness, and a safety net, if they were to fail. But if they were to continually fail, it would then show them to be the unreasonable ones, and there would be ramifications. Also, when the injunction is lifted and there is a clear plan implemented, like Pathways to Stability, then we can institute a no-go zone throughout town and enforce behavioral ordinances, keeping the homeless and drug addicts off our streets, out of our parks, away from our businesses, schools, etc., all the while helping those who really need it. But you can’t do that if you just open “resting sites” as there is nothing implemented to help these people. That is clearly what the intent of HB3115 is… And that is the only thing that will be deemed “objectively reasonable.” I encourage you to shoot me an email (ron (at) usobserver.com) to arrange a meet up. We could do coffee and talk about this. Also, I don’t know anyone who is involved with Pathways to Stability who is against 100% transparency. And yes, the public should be involved because it can be clearly shown how Pathways to Stability will benefit them.
I am not opposed to the general concept of Pathway to Stability, but I am opposed to a few of the specific details. In the current design it will allow (almost 8 acres) 500-600 people. That is over three times the amount of people the court for the injunction requires and what our current campsites hold. That is an outrageous and unacceptable size. I am a firm believer in, “build it, they will come”. We don’t need nor should we accept such a design.
Second issue is – the city does not need to commit to such an expensive project, either by purchase or by lease that will be held accountable for decades to come. These are my main concerns but I am sure many other people have a great deal more they want to learn about are are concerned about. They are entitled to know the details and know that this will not close down all the camps in the city (something I think many do not actually know).
Find a small lot that won’t hold more than 200 people and won’t commit the city for decades to come in an acceptable location with full transparency among the public and I suspect there won’t be so much resistance, that is my gut feeling.
Do you realize that the current data states there are over 700 homeless in our area? If you are aware of that then you must realize we are on the hook to provide space for them under the law, if we want to manage where and when they can “rest.” If we have no rules, we don’t have to do anything under the law and we can just go about our lives letting the homeless camp anywhere and everywhere. But we don’t want that. We want there to be rules, so we have to provide – but it will be fewer than 500-600. There is nothing the city is doing with Pathways to Stability that will, “commit [the city taxpayers] to such an expensive project, either by purchase or by lease that will be held accountable for decades to come.” I am sure there are exit clauses and progress milestones built into any agreement for any land acquisition. Should the people know the specifics; YES! Pathways to Stability would be providing the Assessment Center service FREE to the city. That has been stated emphatically. How is that encumbering us? And to address your comment about “build it, they will come;” when they (the homeless) have to follow a program that is clear and reasonable, and there is no other way for them to be in this community, only people who truly need help will come and take part. Those that want to “Rest” in our parks and do drugs without recourse won’t have any other option but to move on. It’s unfortunate that such an easy idea is so hard for otherwise intelligent people to understand… You still have not reached out to arrange a reasonable discussion over coffee, or so I can invite you to a meeting. Regardless, I am willing to do everything here on your platform.
The problem using your numbers is: If we have 700 homeless in our area (which they are clearly not all in town) – than what happens when that numbers grows, and it will grow. So in another year maybe there is 1000 then the next year another 300 more so we are at 1300. We faced this very question and discussion when we were under the first injunction. If I am not mistaken – nobody in their right minds expects us (even the law) to even think about furnishing a shelter for every single person that happens to come into Grants Pass homeless, that is absurd.
Which is exactly why the judge in our current injunction is looking for us to increase our size to 190 spaces, not 600. You have to reminder, there is a thing called reality and nobody anywhere expects us to furnish shelters for anyone and everyone that happens to pop into Grants Pass homeless. So the 500-600 is just nonsense. Tone that number down or face backlash from the community and nothing will get done.
Last I heard, the city was looking into leasing since they can buy the land. The last I heard the lease agreement was something like a 10 year commitment. I could be wrong but these are the very questions that need addressing by the city council in front of the entire community.
6/9/2025 There is a City-organized Town Hall meeting tonight at 6pm; the City has not posted the RFP document for the public to read ahead of time. The RFP was in draft form on 5/30, more than a week ago. The City has asked people to submit their questions ahead of time, though, without being able to read the RFP.
I know what you mean and it is becoming very concerning, the lack of transparency and now the lack of any RFP for people to review ahead of he forum tonight. I submitted my question based on a board point that I believe concerns most of us, we will see if it is asked and how it is answered:
What assurance does the community have from the City Council and Mayor that any shelter site won’t become a large homeless industrial complex or expand into a 500–600 person facility? Is there a clear majority on the City Council willing to oppose such a potential property? A first step would be removing the 7.8-acre Vine Street property, and any similarly sized site—from consideration.
A concern that I have is that this RFP is for a short-term–one year–grant. I met with City Manager Aaron Cubic last week; he said that the amount could be as high as $1 million. What happens after one year? For a shelter to have a hope of being successful there needs to be a 3-5 year commitment by the City or funding entity.
Given that rents have doubled or tripled in the last 15 years, but wages have not, it is likely that a 150-bed facility will fill up immediately, and there will still be people who are homeless. If the mentally ill could be housed in a facility that specializes in that population, that would help. If the Veterans Administration would provide services specifically to the veterans, that would help. If the women’s groups would focus on getting the women off the street, that would help. If each church (there are hundreds in JoCo) would take one person to aid, that would help.
Every statistic presented so far points to one primary issue: we have a drug addiction crisis far more than a homelessness problem. It is drug addiction that is tearing apart our community—driving up crime rates, pushing businesses and families away, and overwhelming local resources. If we focus on addressing the issue of chronic drug addiction, we would be in a much better position to help the relatively small number of individuals who are genuinely experiencing hardship and seeking assistance.
This community cannot continue down a path of lawlessness, which is largely being fueled by long-term, drug-addicted vagrants. We have shelter beds available for many unhoused individuals, but many refuse to follow basic rules—this alone speaks volumes about the real root of the problem.
People also need to think practically. If someone cannot afford to live here, they should seriously consider relocating to an area that better fits their financial situation. My family moved here from San Diego—a place with an extremely high cost of living—so that we could retire early. Sometimes, a little common sense and planning can go a long way.
At the end of the day, this is not primarily a homelessness crisis. It’s a chronic drug addiction crisis, and it’s undermining the safety and well-being of our entire community. Furthermore, with a much larger city just 30 miles south that already offers extensive services, it makes little sense for our small, resource-limited town to duplicate those efforts. We must prioritize wisely and focus on what we can realistically sustain.
Are you suggesting that the City of Grants Pass send all of the homeless to Medford?
No, but I am suggesting we cannot possibly be expected to take care of every illness and every problem that some of these people have. I am always dumbfounded by the response I get from some people what I say that. Yet we (the entire community) is expected to go to Medford for so many medical specialties that Grants Pass doesn’t (and can’t) offer. So why must we be expected to build and house every single medical issue that these homeless people have – if in fact Grants Pass doesn’t do it for the housed people? So no, I am not saying send all homeless people to Medford but the people we can’t take care of with the resources we have and Medford does has – you bet.
I’m trying to understand your solution. There are about 150 people in tents in the three main camps. The two across from City Hall and the one next to the Police station. There are another maybe 50 people in Kesterson & Debo parks. So about 200 let’s say. What is your solution to get these 200 people out of the camp sites?
My solution and I have written about it a lot and can be found at;
Homelessness: Options and Solutions from My Perspective
https://avoicewithin.org/homelessness-options-and-solutions-from-my-perspective/
In summary:
– Mid barrier shelters that is no larger than 2 acres that should hold at least 200 people – but not so many that it can easily expand to 500-600 people which will happen if you *allow* it. As some people have financial interests in the homeless industrial complex. Remembering the judge is looking for space to hold 150 people from the current the injunction.
-The mid-barrier shelter may have low barrier entry but that is it. It will be expected you enter a monitored drug rehab program.
– Shelter is run by nonprofits with rules that are enforced by the nonprofits.
– No city investments or stake in any of it.
– Chances are, no matter what you do the city will have to have one small camp somewhere because of HB3115 but that won’t be much of a camp.
This will help the people who want help and need help. The other people are the career drug addicted vagrants – the ones that are creating the lawlessness, the crimes and are destroying our community. The lawlessness needs to stop.
There is some issue and I don’t know where the bottle neck is at but it is either with: The chief of police, the lack of police, the DA or the court system or a combination but no where does it say homelessness equals lawlessness and our laws if enforced 24/7 would solve a great deal of this problem.
One other thing, the enabling has to stop. This enabling of free food, free tents, free syringes is what is keeping the drug addicts going in their life style and they aren’t given the chance to hit the bottom so they want to stop.
Is there a nonprofit in Grants Pass that, in your opinion, has the financial ability to:
a. Obtain and secure two acres in the City limits (inside city limits would be a condition of the judge)
b. Pay for security
c. Run a drug-rehab program that everyone (who is drug or alcohol addicted) must enter
You mention that the enabling has to stop, so this nonprofit would not provide any shelter or food.
Sounds like your solution is to place these 200 homeless on a large lot, with no services other than drug treatment. Am I understanding your comment correctly?
It is assumed if people enter the shelter they will not be enabled by food or shelter since they are required to be drug free or in a program and working to improve their live – that is not enabling, that is giving a hand up.
It is assumed the shelter which is ran by nonprofits will be guiding everyone to the services they need, with a navigation center. Whether the services are located in Grants Pass or in Medford – the police have been doing that for sometime now but now there will be one central location for doing just that.
The general concept of the “Pathway to Stability” is about what we are looking for – just don’t let them get side tracked with their 7.8 acres Vine Street property or anything that large or we will be in worse shape than what we started. U-Turn for Christ has done a good job with rounding up all the nonprofits to support and work on this Pathway to Stability program.
Funding, that is what this upcoming forum is about or at least headed in that direction. Surely nobody expect or even can think that the city (taxpayers) are expected to fund such adventure.
Note edited to include a long list of nonprofits located in Grants Pass to help the homeless: https://avoicewithin.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Community-Resource-List-Josephine-County-2024.pdf