From the July 10 edition of Street Roots
Commissioners Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish will be leading two community discussions this month on the controversial Safe Access For Everyone (SAFE) program that supports a range of different homeless services and oversees the obstruction as nuisance law, otherwise known as sit-lie for its ban on people sitting or lying on sidewalks in downtown Portland.
In May, after much fanfare, City Hall extended the sit-lie ordinance until October pending more community discussions on what to do with the law in the long term.
In June, a Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Stephen K. Bushong ruled the ordinance unconstitutional. Days later the police stopped enforcing the law until further notice, throwing the ordinance and the larger issue of sidewalk access into even more disarray.
Street Roots recently talked with Fritz to get her perspective on the ordinance and the community discussions later this month.
Israel Bayer: What are you hoping to accomplish with the community forums around the SAFE committee?
Amanda Fritz: What they’re for is a conversation, a dialogue, a listening tool. It has always been about the process and coming together so that the streets can be used by everyone. It was never only about the ordinance. It is about the big picture. What services have been created because of this process? In many ways, since the ordinance has been declared unconstitutional, the conversation is even more important.
I.B.: Does the ruling striking down the sit-lie ordinance affect the process and/or the outcomes?
A.F.: It changes the dynamics and in many ways I hope it is positive. I hope the conversation doesn’t become “sit-lie or no sit-lie.” I think the conversation has to be bigger than that.
It also highlights a concern that Commissioner Fish raised in terms of criminalizing homelessness. What the court ruling said was, you can’t do (sit-lie) this because state law says we have a disorderly conduct law that comes with a maximum of one year in prison.
We have concerns about the charge from advocates that sit-lie criminalizes homeless people, when it fact, it made it a citation rather than a misdemeanor.
I.B.: But isn’t forfeiting your right to counsel through a citation process a violation of a person’s civil rights?
A.F.: You’re right, there are a lot of different twists and turns with this issue. But in my six months at City Hall I’ve come to realize that we all care about the homeless and having a place to go, and that the sidewalk obstruction ordinance was truly a tool meant to get people services.
I.B.: Have the city attorney or others at City Hall inquired into why the sit-lie law was needed then, if something else was in place?
A.F.: Obviously, we wanted something that wasn’t criminalizing people and throwing people in jail for being homeless.
I.B.: So the police bureau and the business community have been advocating all this time to decriminalize homelessness?
A.F.: I don’t know what the motivation was because I wasn’t involved at that time. What we need to look at now is what options do we have and move forward.
I.B.: Is anyone outside of downtown engaged in this issue?
A.F.: I have heard a lot about the constitutional concerns about the law and very little about what was being done to address the needs of people. That was one of my motivations in helping set up this process. It’s a lot more complicated than it appears. It was impressive to me that a lot of people from different spectrums had stepped up to the table over the last two years and worked together for a solution.
I.B.: If the sit-lie lives on in one form or another, is there a chance that the ordinance will be piloted in other neighborhoods outside of downtown?
A.F.: That is a question I’m wondering about. Really, what we are talking about is the use of the sidewalk. I know from campaigning last year and seeing a lot of really crowded sidewalks where merchants, pedestrians and others use the sidewalks, they might have some interest.
I.B.: Will the city work to fund the services being offered for people experiencing homelessness if the law doesn’t stand up to a City Council vote or in the courts?
A.F.: That’s the question. It seems to me for multiple reasons everyone should recognize that the services are needed. Regardless of sit-lie, people are going to need a place to go during the day and at night. I specifically didn’t ask the funders if they are willing to continue funding if we extend the ordinance or not. It’s about doing the right thing for everyone involved. We need to have more discussion and information and listen to people.
I.B.: Why spend so much time on process? Shouldn’t the city bring in a third party to determine the effectiveness and cost analysis of laws that criminalize people experiencing homelessness?
A.F.: That’s an interesting question. My counter to that is that we often spend thousands of dollars on a study and it sits on a shelf. I also know it’s about what practical common sense things we can do. Let’s start with those.
With the ordinance being found unconstitutional, it’s an opportunity to find out what we are trying to accomplish. It’s an opportunity for opponents of the law to declare victory, but that doesn’t change the need or the reality that people downtown need to have access to sidewalks. Again, this is a bigger issue than one ordinance. What’s the next step? We have to work together and respect one another and find a way to move forward.
I.B.: Is there anything you would like to add?
Community meetings on the city's SAFE programs
Saturday, July 18, 10AM-noon, Kaiser Town Hall, 3704 N. Interstate Ave.
Tuesday, July 21, 7-9PM, First Unitarian Church, 1011 SW 12th Ave
