about the City of Portland's camping ban, and constitutional (Martin v Boise) objections: Candee mentioned ordinance 14A.50.050 banning unpermitted "Permanent or Temporary Structures on Public Property". However, there is also section 14A.50.020, Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way (full text below), which bans unpermitted campsites, including use of any type of bedding material for "a temporary place to live." Since in Portland it would often be, for many people, life-threatening to sleep outside with no bedding, it apparently would be -- by the 9th Circuit's 2018/2019 Martin v. Boise holding's reasoning -- unconstitutional, because "cruel and unusual punishment," to punish someone for sheltering/bedding themselves in such circumstances, if that circumstance were unavoidable to them. That is, if there were no other place in the city they were reasonably able to be -- as seems to be to the case, because there is insufficient shelter space, and the camping ban applies to all public property citywide. I am honestly curious, therefore, how City of Portland officials/staff regard the city's camping ban in light of Martin v Boise. I'm sure they've considered it, and likely received legal counsel on the matter, internal and perhaps external. On the other hand, they may not have resolved the point, and it is common across US cities to have similar camping bans and (for those in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction) to be in some kind of ambiguous/untested state of Martin v Boise compliance. It could be they don't (yet) see a credible threat of any legal action on these grounds. Two weeks ago, I and other PDX Shelter Forum organizers met with Seraphie Allen, Mayor's Office Senior Policy Advisor with " oversight in homelessness", and relatedly asked what the procedure would be in resuming dislodging of unhoused campers. She said, and I'm trying sincerely to correctly paraphrase from memory here, that campers would be advised of shelter availability; and, shelter space would be opening up. When asked how many spaces, she said about seven new ones were expected to open soon. From this it sounds like the City may be planning to have, as defense for dislodging campers, a current availability of shelter beds. This leads to issues of what can be validly considered available to a given camper, how city workers or campers can know this at a given moment, and whether it meets Martin v Boise's test of there being more shelter spaces, or alternative places, available than currently unsheltered persons. Cities as in San Francisco may (or may be accused of) keeping some spaces artificially open, or open only to referral from the relocation crews, etc. One way or another, cities would like to be able to say they have shelter or some alternative place for unhoused residents to go. In the interest of informed discussion, I am going to copy this note to, and invite any comment or clarification about the Martin v Boise point from, Seraphie Allen, and also Zach Kearl of the Mayor's Office, who was also on that call. He's a recent M.P.P. graduate and "Hatfield Resident Fellow serving as a policy advisor on homelessness and urban camping impact programs" -Mayor's office staff page. Thank you to Seraphie and Zach for engaging with us, and any light you can shed on this complicated matter, likewise to anyone on this list who can advise. -Tim
14A.50.020 Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way.
A. As used in this Section: 1. "To camp" means to set up, or to remain in or at a campsite, for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a temporary place to live.
2. "Campsite" means any place where any bedding, sleeping bag, or other sleeping matter, or any stove or fire is placed, established, or maintained, whether or not such place incorporates the use of any tent, lean-to, shack, or any other structure, or any vehicle or part thereof. B. It is unlawful for any person to camp in or upon any public property or public right of way, unless otherwise specifically authorized by this Code or by declaration by the Mayor in emergency circumstances.
C. The violation of this Section is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed 30 days or both.
-- Tim McCormick Portland, Oregon On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 4:32 PM Candee Wilson < candee@...> wrote:
The Idaho case forbids the
city to ticket anyone "camping" in public places if there is
nowhere else for them to go. In other words, they cannot
criminalize homelessness. This simply means that anyone sleeping
or camping on the sidewalk cannot be removed either by ticketing
or forced evacuation unless they provide an alternative place to
go.
Unlike Boise, Portland has an ordinance that reads:
14A.50.050 Erecting Permanent or Temporary Structures
on Public Property or Public Rights of Way.
A. It shall be unlawful to
erect, install, place, leave, or set up any type of
permanent or temporary fixture or structure of any
material(s) in or upon non-park public property or public
right-of -way without a permit or other authorization from
the City.
B. In addition to other
remedies provided by law, such an obstruction is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance. The City Engineer, City
Traffic Engineer, or Chief of Police may summarily abate
any such obstruction, or the obstruction may be abated as
prescribed in Chapter 29.60 of this Code.
C. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to merchandise in the course of
lawful receipt or delivery, unless that merchandise
remains upon the public right of way for a period longer
than 2 hours, whereupon the provisions of this Section
apply.
D. The provisions of this
Section do not apply to depositing material in public
right-of-way for less than 2 hours, unless the material is
deposited with the intent to interfere with free passage
or to block or attempt to block or interfere with any
persons(s) using the right-of-way.
Portland, also, cannot ticket someone sleeping in a public
space, but it can remove tents. This is why you will see a
lot of people sleeping in sleeping bags or under blankets or
on cardboard on our sidewalks. The police cannot ticket them
or have them removed unless the are blocking public access
and it does not prevent private security from removing them
from private property. But they can remove tents or
other "structures." Since most of the tents are occupied by
people, both the tents and the people get "swept." BTW, the
city is now referring to the sweeps as "clean-ups."
Due to the Corona Virus, the Mayor has put a halt to the
clean-ups which is why we are seeing all the tents on the
streets, especially in Old Town where it has become an
untenable situation.
Everything else you say, I completely agree with.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/10/2020 9:46 PM, Jeff Liddicoat
wrote:

There is also the Boise, Id court
decision of 2019. It states that a local jurisdiction
cannot outlaw unsanctioned camping unless it provides
adequate sanctioned alternatives to campers. In December
2019 the US Supreme Court let that ruling stand.
The decision is based on the fact that making unsanctioned
camping illegal without providing an alternative amounts to
cruel and unusual punishment. (I invite other more astute
legal minds to offer additional thoughts here.) Some might
argue that walking past an unsafe and unsanitary camp
that endangers the housed community but even more the
unhoused community is in itself cruel and unusual
punishment.
The plan to provide
sanctioned and humane alternatives to fully meet the needs
of our unhoused population allows the city to free itself
from the terrible situation of unsanctioned camps. This
will take time and be tremendously challenging, but if we
don’t establish this as a goal, we will surely never get
there.
And for those who argue
(rightly) that putting campers "out of sight and out of
mind†, as has been done in jurisdiction like New York
City, it becomes even more critical to link services and a
commitment to self reliance to the alternative sheltering
approach. Mental health and addiction services will be
required and necessary to address the more complex needs
of some campers. Self governance, including agreed upon
rules and the requirement that everyone contributes (cash
or work) to the good of the whole will be important. And
last but not least, there must be a commitment to self
sufficiency and employment through vocational training
and job placement services. Self sufficiency and self
esteem are the products of employment. Without
this “people oriented solution†, a focus on shelter
only will never succeed.
david
Thank you for clarifying.
Andy
The ACLU's most important Supreme
Court case involving the rights of people with
mental illness was filed on behalf of Kenneth
Donaldson, who had been involuntarily confined
in a Florida State Hospital for 15 years. He
was not dangerous and had received no medical
treatment. In a landmark decision for mental
health law in 1975, a unanimous Supreme Court
ruled that states cannot confine a
non-dangerous individual who can survive on
his own, or with help from family and friends.
This and a number of other decisions has led
to the inability to help the mentally ill
unless "they are a danger to themselves or
others." Once reaching adulthood, there is
literally nothing a person can do to effect
involuntary treatment. I have three friends
who have tried everything to get treatment for
their relative to no avail. To date, one has
died and the other two are homeless because
they won't get/refuse treatment and they can't
live in the housed community due to their
continuous disrupting behavior.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 2:35
PM, Jim Krauel wrote:
Candee, Which rights that
were granted to "them" by the ACLU would
you like to see stripped ?
"Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want to
help them, they can't."
Candee,
Please say
more about, "Thank
the ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people want
to help them, they
can’t.† What is
the background here, and what is
the issue you are addressing?
Thank
you.
Andy
Harris
Don't
know if this is how to
respond, but I don't know
another way.
Sweeps are a double-edged
sword. On one hand, they are
disruptive to someone whose
only home is a tent. On the
other hand, tent camping on
sidewalks is a violation of a
city ordinance. Until the
city/county/state begin
providing a place where tent
campers can safely place a
tent, sweeps will continue
because the campers won't move
unless they are forced to. I
do not object to sidewalk
camps being swept. They are
not supposed to be there in
the first place. I think it's
wrong to sweep those that have
set up a tent in
out-of-the-way, inconspicuous
places where they aren't
bothering anyone for lack of
having an alternative place to
go that wouldn't be swept.
There should be legal camping
spots throughout the
city/county/state. The
homeless have a way of
creating communities and
policing themselves if left to
their own devices. Of course,
those with mental health and
addiction issues present an
entirely different set of
problems. They tend to be
outcasts in both the homeless
community and the general
community at large. Thank the
ACLU for giving them so many
rights that even when people
want to help them, they can't.
Until the city/county/state
come to terms with the fact
that they cannot build their
way out of the homeless crisis
anytime soon, either through
affordable housing, supportive
housing or shelters, we will
continue to have this
discussion.
Candee Wilson
411 NW Flanders St. #406
Portland, OR 97209
503-789-0332
On 7/9/2020 12:06
AM, Tim McCormick wrote:
The City of
Portland is officially
resuming 'sweeps', or
'cleanups,' of
homeless camps,
focusing on those with 8
or more structures,
blocking sidewalks or
entrances, or with reports
of criminal behavior or
conspicuous drug use.
WW
article: https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/07/07/portland-to-resume-homeless-camp-sweeps/.
Notice from Office of
Management and Finance,
Homelessness and Urban
Camping Impact Reduction
Program (HUCIRP), posted
late last month:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/toolkit/article/756745.
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at
11.48.09 PM.png>
Note, the term 'sweeps' is
generally used by
opponents of these
practices, while officials
in Portland say
'cleanups.' 'Cleanups' is
fairly well-defined, as
the city's current
practices; 'sweeps' is
less so -- for example,
does it imply that campers
are not offered
alternative acceptable
shelter, or assistance in
moving belongings? or that
they would risk arrest for
not complying? Could there
be some form of, say,
'relocation' of campers
that is not a sweep?
We realize this is a very
polarizing, conflicted,
and complex situation.
Please give us,
especially, considered
thoughts on this
situation. If you are
opposed to 'sweeps' or
'cleanups,' tell us what
you might propose as
alternative, or how else
to address concerns of
officials and people who
support them.
If you support them, tell
us why you think others
don't, and how their
concerns might be
addressed.ÂÂ
Note, we had staffers from
HUCIRP, representatives
from Downtown and N.
Portland neighborhood
associations who've
particularly raised
concerns on this, and
organizers from Stop the
Sweeps PDX coalition, at
the PDX Shelter Forum the
other week. We
particularly invite
comments from them, and
thank them for coming
together in this
discussion. ÂÂ
Tim
--
Tim
McCormick
Portland,
OregonÂÂ
<Screen Shot 2020-07-08
at 11.37.57
PM.png>
<Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.48.09 PM.png><Screen
Shot 2020-07-08 at 11.37.57 PM.png>
|
