Before bashing folks as being “NIMBY activists" for simply wishing to keep reasonable regulations that help maintain Portland’s livability, let’s look at some problems in the reasoning in the recent op-ed, “Addressing Portland’s two homeless crises,” (Nov. 16).

It’s amazing that the authors make no mention of the profit motive that leads developers to build. Whether they are rentals or for-sale to families, units are built for profit. Free market housing will always go to the highest bidder. If people with money weren’t wishing to live here or invest in rentals here, prices would be cheaper. This will continue until people with big bucks are no longer drawn to Portland from higher end markets. Till then, the only solution I see is government investment and subsidy. Not in destroying Portland neighborhoods.

Why do they compare Appalachia and Portland? Portland is a “destination city' for individuals, families and companies.” Appalachia isn't. There are myriad differences. One could make the connection that there are more chronic homeless here because of our efforts to do more for them, and therefore, ask that we do less. Indeed, one could even cite our temperate climate.Homelessness is a serious problem. However, I can't take much of your reasoning seriously. Perhaps your disdain for folks who only want continued livability would be better placed on those who continue to market Portland as a commodity.

Laura Webb, Portland