For the past five months, I have been participating in a workgroup convened by Mayor Tom Potter to address livability and public safety in Portland. The workgroup is in the process of finalizing a draft set of recommendations to present to City Council in mid-December. The draft reflects a collective compromise, an awareness of the diversity and vibrancy of Portland, and a shared desire to make this a more livable city.
The Mayor initiated the workgroup through a Council resolution in May, when the "Obstructions as Nuisances" ordinance was about to expire. Pressure to extend or rewrite the law was mounting. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had just issued its decision in Jones v. City of Los Angeles holding that Los Angeles could not punish involuntary sitting, lying, or sleeping on public sidewalks "that is an unavoidable consequence of being human and homeless." Los Angeles's ordinance applied at all times everywhere. The Court distinguished other cities' ordinances, including Portland's and Seattle's, because they are limited in time and geographic scope and they require that some type of inappropriate conduct be part of the crime. In other words, the Court held, a sidewalk obstruction law is not illegal per se, but to be constitutional, it must have specific limits. It cannot punish people for life-sustaining behavior that is unavoidably linked to their homelessness.
Given this legal landscape, I viewed the workgroup as an opportunity to evaluate whether a "street disorder" problem really exists in Portland, and, in response to specific concerns, to suggest solutions that do not rely on stereotypes but respect civil rights and human needs. If an ordinance was one of the solutions, I wanted to help ensure that it would comply with appropriate legal limits.
The workgroup includes a diverse group of police, business, legal, city government and social service agency representatives. The discussions have been lively and sometimes controversial. Despite our very different perspectives, I have been impressed at the willingness of participants to listen to each other and consider opinions different from their own. In a world of sound bites and email wars, it turned out that sitting in a room together actually led to a genuine and productive conversation.
One important theme that emerged was that the city already has many laws regulating so-called "street disorder." The resolution establishing the workgroup defined street disorder as public drinking, aggressive panhandling, intimidation or harassment, low-level criminal activity, and sidewalk obstruction by persons sleeping and sitting. Almost all of those behaviors are already illegal (while panhandling is not illegal, harassing or threatening other people is). The group suggested ways that police and other entities responsible for public safety can improve enforcement of existing laws. It noted that people living on the street are often targets of crime rather than perpetrators, and that appropriate law enforcement tactics benefit everyone in the community.
Business and police representatives expressed strongly that sidewalk obstruction by persons sleeping and sitting is a problem in Portland, especially in areas which receive a lot of foot traffic. They felt that the current ordinance is too difficult to enforce because it requires police officers to measure a person's physical proximity to the through zone of a sidewalk, which varies depending on the sidewalk's width. Meanwhile, according to them, people sitting and lying on the sidewalk continue to block foot traffic and access to businesses and other places open to the public. Others in the group thought the city should not impose criminal penalties on people who may have nowhere else to be during the day. They were concerned that a law against sitting and lying would be used to exclude people from commercial areas because of their appearance or behavior that is lawful but potentially unpopular, such as panhandling and protesting.
Consensus slowly developed for a set of recommendations that acknowledges each of these concerns by calling for a continuum of public safety strategies. This consensus rests on the idea that four of the recommendations must be implemented together. These include a plan for resource centers open during the daytime (with services like showers, lockers, and housing assistance), a plan to provide additional public seating and benches in areas that have high pedestrian traffic, a public restroom plan, and an ordinance that would make it a violation to sit, lie down, and leave one's belongings in high-pedestrian-traffic areas during daytime hours (with exceptions that include speech-related activities). The workgroup will recommend that the ordinance contain a number of safeguards: police training, documentation of all warnings and citations issued, disposition in community court only without jail time, an oversight committee, a sunset clause, and regular public hearings. I believe these safeguards will ensure that the law is not used to sweep or criminalize homeless people, but rather focuses on a specifically defined behavior that causes problems in the community.
Clearly, these recommendations also rest on the commitment of substantial financial resources. In a new and welcome development, business representatives have indicated that businesses want to provide a substantial amount of funding both for the daytime resource center plan and for safety off the streets at night for homeless people. These funds would be coordinated with efforts already underway through the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness and would be spent consistently with research generated through interviews with homeless people about their resource needs. Providing more public restrooms and seating will also require funding by the city. These improvements would benefit visitors and locals alike, but especially people who do not have access to bathrooms during the day and who sit or lie on the sidewalk in commercial areas because they do not have another place to rest.
Agreeing to these recommendations involves a certain leap of faith by civil rights and homeless advocates. We do not know for sure whether or how City Council will implement the plans or whether they will have the positive effects we hope for. But the willingness of police, business and the city to take steps they haven't before, and the comprehensiveness of the recommendations themselves, convinced me to take that leap of faith, while continuing to advocate for the rights and needs of people who live outside. I hope that once the recommendations are finalized, the public will carefully consider the workgroup's ideas and contribute to the conversation.