homeless

More PPB Madness: Ignoring State Law on Homeless Camps by: torridjoe Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 13:50:54 PM PST The new issue of Street Roots came out last week, and you can help them celebrate their 10-year anniversary by giving a little bit of holiday cheer through the Willy Week Give Guide. Why would you want to do such a thing? Because besides empowering people in transition, and creating a dignified way for people to earn money through their own efforts...the paper is a pretty damn good little rag, folks. If you haven't paid a dollar for a copy since the days of heartfelt but lame poetry and scads of white space, dig down and pony up for one the next time you see a vendor. You'll be pleasantly surprised. SR's original reporting is virtually second to none in this city is on anything regarding homeless issues (as you might expect), and this month they're on top of a little-publicized change in Portland Police practices towards homeless camps on public property.  The new guidelines say homeless and civil rights advocates, have created definition loopholes and exceptions to the 24-hour posting requirement, making it permissible for police to not give notice before a sweep. The old guidelines mandated that exceptions to providing 24-hour notice were made for camps on private or state property, and in cases where illegal activities and emergencies occurred. The new guidelines continue to provide those exceptions, but now add city and parks property to the list. They also interpret permanent postings and signs prohibiting camping as providing sufficient notice before a sweep. If you mentally ticked off private, state and city property as places where notice is no longer given, you'd be left pretty much with the Multno courthouse and the various federal buildings around town--none of which tend to be places where homeless people like to camp. So the gross effect of this rule change is that the 24 hr notice rule has almost no chance of ever being granted to a camper anymore.  Which might be something just to grumble about as the number of people needing transitional services continues to spike during this recession...except that it also appears to violate state law: “I don’t think the police have the authority to do that under state law,” says David Fidanque, the executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. Fidanque is referring to ORS 203.079, the state law requiring that 24-hour notice be given to camps not on “public property that is a day-use recreational area” or a “designated campground.” The law also says removal of camps needs to be done in a “humane and just manner.”  The constitutionality of Portland’s anti-camping ordinance already is under question. [Oregon Law Center attorney Monica] Goracke sent a demand letter to the city attorney in November 2007, stating concerns that the ordinance cruelly and unusually punishes homeless individuals because of their status as homeless. “I don’t think the ordinance as it is currently applied is humane in letter or in spirit,” Goracke says. Goracke is currently working with the city attorney’s office to reach a settlement. She says if the case makes it to court, she would tack on the new guidelines to the case. But what really caught my eye--and reminded me of the arrogant, it's-your-problem-not-ours attitude being displayed by PPB union chief Scott Westerman--were these comments from Sgt. Matt Egan, in charge of rewriting the rules: Sgt. Matt Engen, who patrols Old Town/Chinatown and was in charge of re-writing the guidelines, maintains that the new guidelines are both legal and humane. “If an officer was going to act inhumanely, I really don’t think a few words on a piece of paper would change that,” Engen says. When pressed to provide an example of a place where homeless individuals could legally camp and be given 24-hour notice, Engen offered no specifics.  I can only hope that Egan is just trying to spin us, and doesn't actually believe that laws enforce themselves. It's painfully clear that while nothing prevents the free will of officers in the field, a rule that seeks to ensure humane treatment for a city's residents--if ENFORCED can provide a disincentive to break that rule. Not having the rule creates no such disincentive, obviously. In Egan's mind, cops are just going to be dicks if they want to, and there's no utility in trying to craft guidelines seeking to avoid such behavior. Maybe the previous rule was not being broadly enforced, fine. See how far you get trying to obtain compliance with a rule that DOESN'T EXIST.  And still Portland's finest wonder why a fair segment of the citizenry thinks they're a mean-spirited group of jackboots. Not even state law shall impede their quest for total control! Discuss :: (0 Comments)

First Round: Multno Judge Upholds Sit-Lie by: torridjoe Mon Sep 22, 2008 at 08:00:00 AM PDT As Matt Davis points out at Mercury Blogtown, this isn't the final verdict by any stretch, but the first decision is in on Portland's "sit-lie" law, and a Multnomah County judge has upheld its constitutionality and reasonableness. If there were an Intrade market on the likelihood of appeal, I'd say 95 cents might win you a nickel. Marr's got the report: Meyer called Monica Goracke, attorney for the Oregon Law Center, and co-chair of the mayor's Street Access For Everyone oversight committee, as a witness on Newman's behalf. Goracke reportedly described downtown and where the homeless tend to congregate, and said the law was focused on those areas. Meanwhile homeless activist and pastor Ken Loyd testified about the homeless in Portland, too. Downtown cop Craig Dobson reportedly said he'd cited Newman even though he had a sign saying he was "protesting" the law. It's understood that Hannon ruled that the ordinance is constitutional because it only leads to a violation, and not a criminal prosecution. But Meyer disagrees. "We want to appeal it. I think the judge is wrong on the law. This law really falls on the homeless and basically I think it allows the state to herd the homeless," he says.[ital orig] I understand the legal point being made, but on a common sense level it's ludicrous to have an exemption for "protesting" the ordinance. ANYONE being cited is essentially protesting it, unless we assume someone out there is thinking, "Yes, I deserve to be punished for sitting here quietly on this public sidewalk" while the cop writes the citation. Everyone potentially to be cited just needs to say "I'm protesting" and they're off the hook? Then there's the other odd part of the ruling, that simply citing (ie, fining) someone rather than convicting them of a criminal offense makes it OK.  I've been following this case avidly for a while, but this seems like an entirely unimportant way station along the path of final ajudication. The 9th District has already had to take up similar cases before, and I don't expect the broader legal concepts to get much play until the appeals reach at least Oregon's Supreme Court. And there are few states in the union with a court so predisposed towards free expression and movement. (Note the futility of blocking nude joints like Stars Cabaret in Tualatin).  Based on case precedent, the venue and the body likely to hear it, I'm hopeful. Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Return to LO home...!