Portland’s Obstructions as Nuisances ordinance: What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
Sidewalks aren’t less obstructed, perhaps just the opposite, with the proliferation of outdoor extensions from eateries and cafes. What people consider nuisances is just as fickle as it ever was, folding “undesirable” appearances and unconsumer-like intentions into criminal behavior such as harassment and intimidation. The ordinance – a pilot project launched under former Mayor Vera Katz – is now three pages long to clarify legal and illegal activities and to align its enforcement with constitutional rights. By comparison, most city ordinances are one or two paragraphs. A photo tutorial even accompanies the law, showing that a person forced to take a step to the right or left to avoid people talking on a sidewalk is, in fact, a victim; enforcement actions can be taken, warnings and citations are in line.
A social scurge, indeed. Remember, this is the heart of a city of diverse cultures and attitudes, a public place of thought, discourse and life, not a shopping mall – at least, not yet.
So now, with the so-called sit-lie law set to sunset, the city won’t let it go. It is extending it into November, when what it should do is amputate it from the books.
Like all pilot projects, the value is in the lessons learned. Success is measured as much by how a project meets its goals as how it doesn’t. Sit-lie, in that respect, is a resounding success for showing what the city can and can’t do with regard to criminalizing behavior. It also documents how the efforts to change downtown as orchestrated by sit-lie champions at the Portland Business Alliance have led the city down the wrong path. In two court challenges, the ordinance was declared unconstitutional, and more recently, an Oregon appeals judge ruled it was pre-empted by state law, making it unenforceable in that case.
The city should drop the law but preserve the lessons learned in its evolution: That after years of confusion and challenges, it has netted only 11 legal citations (eight were issued outside of its jurisdiction) and only eight convictions; That the Portland Business Alliance isn’t happy with it either; it maintains that shoppers are fearful of the poor who expose their plight in public and the young turks who gather — as they have for decades — in the heart of the city. The police have no use for it, calling it hard to navigate and difficult to understand. Even Mayor Potter proclaimed it ineffectual.
And remember, laws against intimidation and harassment and aggressive and violent behavior already exist.
So what has this law protected us from? Ironically, in its tormented life, it has protected us from actions that would stifle free speech and expression to maximize profit. It protects us from efforts to criminalize poverty and homelessness for its visual and social intrusion on our lives. It protects us from becoming a community of intolerance and forces us to recognize the entire economic and social spectrum in which we live. And once we can truly see that, we can no longer act like it isn’t there.
Maybe it is worth something, after all.