Is that a real security guard or a kid dressed up like a security guard? Looks like a kid dressed up like a security guard. Sounds like a kid dressed up like a security guard. ("It's just not posted here.") It IS a security guard.
Oh wait... is the Portland Patrol like a "special" boy scout thing?
Do we all, maybe, need to come up with some sort of ad hoc citizen's review committee, in which we go downtown and remind people of their legal rights vis a vis the Not Cops who seem to be running things downtown these days?
I work at the visitor's center. This rule applies to everyone. I have seen it enforced both inside (at Tri-Met) and outside in the Square.
I know that guard. Do you have any idea the kind of shit he has to deal with day in and day out? And he is always calm and friendly even when some street kid high on meth literally crashes through our doors.
I see you managed to get the name of the person in question, Kaleb, but only managed to mock the guard. Perhaps you ought to broaden your outlook. It's not all some big conspriacy; no one is being persecuted.
Oh, the poor rent-a-cop. What stresses he must endure! (like saying "get off my lawn" upwards of twenty plus times a day...) Why, we should let these folks boss the public around in any way they see fit just to soothe their poor, frazzled nerves. Bless their hearts!
If I see water bubbling from one of the drinking fountains at the square, can I drink it? Or is it posted somewhere that drinking is stealing water from the city?
I have absolutely no problem with the city posting signs next to power outlets proclaiming that they are not for public use. But if there's no sign, it seems perfectly acceptable to charge a phone or laptop from it.
After all, the airport doesn't seem to mind when people do it there, nor do shopping malls, nor do public schools. Why should the square be so different?
To "Suds Sister" -- it seems Matt did not seek out this story, rather that the story came directly to him, so lighten up.
At least the poor kid wasn't trying to do any kind of serious amateur photography. We've already heard about the (as of yet not proven to be written) policy banning tripods and monopods from the square.
I have used the same (I assume, its one of about four?) plug for my lap top, and had the same guard stand and talk with me about the merits of windows 98se compared to newer software... also, the bottom item on this page seems to say that using the internet access is ok, I wonder if there is the assumption with that use that there will be electrical access...
To Bob R.: Matt took the 'side' of the person charging their phone. I only said that this rule applies to everyone. I am not saying that it's a good rule, I am just saying that I have seen it applied evenly and fairly.
And to Rogue: what does the poor rent-a-cop deal with? Lots of mentally ill people, high people, street kids and their dogs fighting, your basic public place stuff. All I am saying is that the guy likely gets paid minimum wage and it's a really shitty job. Don't get on his case for doing it.
Also, Suds, while I feel as bad for the individual as anybody else, this isn't a personal issue about the rent-a-cop involved. It's about all rent-a-cops, and their role in a society that wants "mentally ill people, high people, street kids and their dogs fighting," out of the way so it can get more tourists to shop at Nordstrom.
And I can assure you that in Portland, those pushing THAT agenda typically employ the "ouch, you're hurting me" spin whenever we point out that they hate the poor.
So get off my case and call the city, and ask why Pioneer Square isn't patrolled by regular police. Instead of private security guards with no oversight.
Posting a sign saying that the electricity isn't free is akin to the warning sign that my coffee is hot or the silica packets are not edible. I don't need a sign to tell me what is right or wrong. Lack of a sign doesn't mean crap.
I may be wrong, but I am not finding that rule in the city code having to do with Pioneer Courthouse Square... http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=147802&c=28627
"20.12.230 Pioneer Courthouse Square"
nor in "20.12.170 Use of Certain Devices or Equipment" or anywhere else I could find... nor could I find anything against "monopods"
thanks
Patrick
Since the 'electricity thief' didn't get cited or roughed up in any way - where do you get harassment? Think of it as a nice friendly, verbal version of a sign telling you that you can't plug in there.
Sure it does. Use of open power outlets to charge laptops/phones is a modern convention. It is a convention which is still evolving, but in many circumstances and locations it is commonplace and accepted. I already mentioned airports, schools, and shopping malls.
If the square wants to guide the convention in another way, all they have to do is post a sign or put a locking cover on the outlet.
I'm growing increasingly weary of apparently-unwritten edicts being enforced without follow-up proof.
How much is this "theft" costing the city, anyway? A 1500mAh (milli-amp hour) 3.6v cell phone battery takes about .003kWh to charge at 60% efficiency (total back of the napkin math here). PGE's highest current business peak use rate I could find on their web site is 10.27cents per kWh.
Given that, to fully recharge a phone would cost the square .03 cents (3 hundredths of one cent), or you could charge 100 phones for about a penny. (Can somebody back up my conversion here? I would have assumed 10X as expensive... say 10 phones for a penny.)
How much is the park officer paid to enforce this apparently-unwritten rule, and how does that compare to the cost of the "stolen" electricity?
Matt--I see where you are coming from. I understand your point: http://www.portlandmercury.com/news/portland_s_private_police/Content?oid=288453
FWIW, I have never seen them (the PPL) remove anybody (or tell anyone to leave the square)except for the meth head who smashed through the glass door a few weeks ago, and he needed to go to the hostpital.
"Think of it as a nice friendly, verbal version of a sign telling you that you can't plug in there."
That's all well and good if the verbal warnings are for actual policies which are deliberated and written down somewhere, so that anyone who actually wants to follow-up and learn the rules can do so. Given my past experience with square management's (and the city attorney's office's) failure to produce actual written positions on their legal basis for peculiar interpretations of city code, I remain skeptical.
Next time he should head down to the free electric car charging station and suck down power there. Or head into the mall bathroom and just wash his hands for 30 minutes while he waits.
Wait! A street kid has a cell phone? Does that mean he has a job? How does he pay for the phone? If he can afford the phone can't he afford electricity?
Matt,
next time you see a PPS guy on the square, ask him for a copy of the "rules". in the city's code, there is nothing, maybe they have some sort of on site rules?
thanks
Patrick
Pioneer Square rent-a-cops need to be more closely supervised by the city. Example, there are a total of three signs in Pioneer Square informing passers by that you cannot smoke in the square. These rent-a-cops run faster than an Olympic athlete up to smokers walking on the sidewalk outside the square -- an area not covered by the smoking ordinance (check the law, you CAN legally smoke on the sidewalk along the square as long as you don't enter the square area) -- and scream and yell at them that they cannot smoke. I witnessed one overly zealous rent-a-cop on a recent afternoon jerk the smoke out of a man's mouth who refused to heed his orders. I'm a non-smoker, but I believe in the rule of law. These rent-a-cops are out of control, and they are giving visitors to our city a VERY bad name indeed.
Security= Protecting property from damage or THEFT and enforcing safety rules.A security guard can act if he sees a crime being commited but he has no duty to act he may just CHOOSE to observe and report.
Police officers have a duty to act and enforce laws but do not enforce civil conflicts.They are your Daddy and Mamma when you need them and when you dont well you love to hate them and call them names.
Personally why do we need oversight for security guards when we are totally against being watched ourselves?? Besides everyone in Portland knows that the bottom of the pond hangs around in that corner of the square dealing weed and hanging around all day with thier little babies exposed to all that,muttering expletives and I even saw one threaten an old man who just wanted to sit there but was in the way of "business" good thing they have guards.
Matt I never understood a man from another country with a work visa being able to criticize my country and its laws and ways of doing things we kicked the Brits out long ago and here you come again trying to interfere with an imperfect but necessary system of rules.
Oh, here is another delightful matter. I spent about an hour in the square this afternoon, and I watched someone with a video camera. Not unusual in the least bit except for one thing. He was asked by one of these Boy Scout wannabe rent-a-thugs to stop filming HIM. He explained to the guy that he was in a public space, and he could tape him if he wanted to do so. The rent-a-cop did NOT like it one bit. Hmm. Might be fun to spend an entire Saturday down there with friends with cameras filming these dudes all day :-) And, yes, Matt, he did jerk the cigarette right out of the guy's mouth. I was with two other people who can attest to it. We sent a letter off to the mayor's office about it, but we never heard back from city hall.
Oh, here is another delightful matter. I spent about an hour in the square this afternoon, and I watched someone with a video camera. Not unusual in the least bit except for one thing. He was asked by one of these Boy Scout wannabe rent-a-thugs to stop filming HIM. He explained to the guy that he was in a public space, and he could tape him if he wanted to do so. The rent-a-cop did NOT like it one bit. Hmm. Might be fun to spend an entire Saturday down there with friends with cameras filming these dudes all day :-) And, yes, Matt, he did jerk the cigarette right out of the guy's mouth. I was with two other people who can attest to it. We sent a letter off to the mayor's office about it, but we never heard back from city hall.
You should look closely at section C before you bad mouth people who enforce the laws. Just because he did not cite the section to the Kid does not mean it does not exist. This is a good example of a journalist reporting information without all the facts.
20.08.010 Permits Required for Park Uses.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct or participate in any activity in a Park, for which a permit is required, unless the Parks Reservation Center has issued a permit for the activity. A permit is required for any activity in a Park under any one or more of the following circumstances:
A. The activity is intended to involve, is reasonably likely to involve, or actually involves, as participants and/or spectators, at any one time, 150 or more persons;
B. The activity includes the placement of any temporary or permanent structure, including but not limited to any table, bench, stage, fence, tent or other facility in a Park. No permit is required under this Subsection for the placement of any temporary facility in an area of a Park which the Director has designated for such use without a permit;
C. The activity requires, or is reasonably likely to require, City services additional to those already provided to the public as a matter of course in the Park, including but not limited to: increased police or fire protection; the turning on or off of water; provision of utilities, such as gas, electricity or sewer; placing, removing, opening or closing bollards, gates or fences; or the special preparation of fields or other facilities;
D. The person or persons engaged in the activity seek to exclude, or to have the right to exclude, any member of the public from the activity or from any Park or from any area of any Park;
E. The activity is conducted in any building in any Park, except for personal use of public restrooms; or
F. The activity includes using the Park or Park area in a manner inconsistent with uses designated by the Director for that Park or Park area, or includes conduct that otherwise is prohibited in a Park, including, but not limited to, conducting business, charging admission or otherwise receiving payment for goods or services related to the activity, or possessing, serving or consuming alcoholic beverages.
You should look closely at section C before you bad mouth people who enforce the laws. Just because he did not cite the section to the Kid does not mean it does not exist. This is a good example of a journalist reporting information without all the facts.
20.08.010 Permits Required for Park Uses.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct or participate in any activity in a Park, for which a permit is required, unless the Parks Reservation Center has issued a permit for the activity. A permit is required for any activity in a Park under any one or more of the following circumstances:
A. The activity is intended to involve, is reasonably likely to involve, or actually involves, as participants and/or spectators, at any one time, 150 or more persons;
B. The activity includes the placement of any temporary or permanent structure, including but not limited to any table, bench, stage, fence, tent or other facility in a Park. No permit is required under this Subsection for the placement of any temporary facility in an area of a Park which the Director has designated for such use without a permit;
C. The activity requires, or is reasonably likely to require, City services additional to those already provided to the public as a matter of course in the Park, including but not limited to: increased police or fire protection; the turning on or off of water; provision of utilities, such as gas, electricity or sewer; placing, removing, opening or closing bollards, gates or fences; or the special preparation of fields or other facilities;
D. The person or persons engaged in the activity seek to exclude, or to have the right to exclude, any member of the public from the activity or from any Park or from any area of any Park;
E. The activity is conducted in any building in any Park, except for personal use of public restrooms; or
F. The activity includes using the Park or Park area in a manner inconsistent with uses designated by the Director for that Park or Park area, or includes conduct that otherwise is prohibited in a Park, including, but not limited to, conducting business, charging admission or otherwise receiving payment for goods or services related to the activity, or possessing, serving or consuming alcoholic beverages.
Matt Davis. You said above: "while I feel as bad for the individual as anybody else, this isn't a personal issue about the rent-a-cop involved. It's about all rent-a-cops, and their role in a society that wants "mentally ill people, high people, street kids and their dogs fighting," out of the way so it can get more tourists to shop at Nordstrom."
Honestly, all I see is a four sentence review about an event that happened. If you were in actuality trying to make a social comment about the role of security guards and other such law enforcement in our community, perhaps an actual article citing other such "abuses" and "fake laws" would have been more appropriate. I don't know that your argument that this was in fact a look at their role is legitimate. I don't see any statement about how this isn't a personal reaction to something that you think is unfair.
Perhaps you can use this case as a way to convince the city that there needs to be an more easily accessible accounting of the rules (in plain english). That would be a better use of your journalistic time (I feel personally).
"If you were in actuality trying to make a social comment about the role of security guards and other such law enforcement in our community, perhaps an actual article citing other such "abuses" and "fake laws" would have been more appropriate."
Hmmm. Let's think.
Perhaps you should start here, or just take one out of three stories from my author archive.
Clearly says: City services "ADDITIONAL" to those already
provided to the public ...
(In other words, services in ADDITION, to those already present --
electric is provided to the public in small quantiles. However, larger
quantities of electric use and greater than provided would need a permit..
this is ridiculous plugging in a cellphone is THEFT? OH NO HE'S A TERRORIST!!!! this is exactly what portland DOESNT need, whining and crying about miniscule microgramwatts of electricity....maybe if that was your kid and needed to call you to tell you he loved you, you might think different. and dont give me this "oh he's a meth head, shoot him" crap either rent a cops are ridiculous...STRESSFUL JOB? GIVE ME A BREAK, get a better job then, sounds like this rent a cop is just trying to kick out anyone who doesnt fit his bosses standards...another example of prejudice. this story is complete BS...lock the damn things up then quitcha bitchin. oh and by the way...not every street kid is on meth/drugs. those rent a cops need to check themselves before they run across someone that doesnt care what uniform the guys wearing.
Alright, so, the city is going to insist that it's illegal to plug devices into this open, poorly wired outlets. I think it is time for the state to fine the city of Portland for the safety violation of leaving these outlets open and unprotected. It is obviously a public safety hazard.
Maybe it just a policy of the company he is working for, since the pioneer square outlets are supposed to be used for events, not charging up your cellphone, it makes sense that the city wouldn't want people to use it, therefor wearing it down more quickly, which would cause a problem if an event had to depend on the outlet and it broke because a bunch of people decided that the outlet was made for their own needs rather than for the events that held pioneer square. Also if you're really that desperate to charge you cellphone, just go to the library, its a couple blocks away. Its nice to know that you can make a big deal about something that is most likely a logical decision on the city and security company's part.
Oh wait... is the Portland Patrol like a "special" boy scout thing?
I know that guard. Do you have any idea the kind of shit he has to deal with day in and day out? And he is always calm and friendly even when some street kid high on meth literally crashes through our doors.
I see you managed to get the name of the person in question, Kaleb, but only managed to mock the guard. Perhaps you ought to broaden your outlook. It's not all some big conspriacy; no one is being persecuted.
I have absolutely no problem with the city posting signs next to power outlets proclaiming that they are not for public use. But if there's no sign, it seems perfectly acceptable to charge a phone or laptop from it.
After all, the airport doesn't seem to mind when people do it there, nor do shopping malls, nor do public schools. Why should the square be so different?
To "Suds Sister" -- it seems Matt did not seek out this story, rather that the story came directly to him, so lighten up.
At least the poor kid wasn't trying to do any kind of serious amateur photography. We've already heard about the (as of yet not proven to be written) policy banning tripods and monopods from the square.
And to Rogue: what does the poor rent-a-cop deal with? Lots of mentally ill people, high people, street kids and their dogs fighting, your basic public place stuff. All I am saying is that the guy likely gets paid minimum wage and it's a really shitty job. Don't get on his case for doing it.
And I can assure you that in Portland, those pushing THAT agenda typically employ the "ouch, you're hurting me" spin whenever we point out that they hate the poor.
So get off my case and call the city, and ask why Pioneer Square isn't patrolled by regular police. Instead of private security guards with no oversight.
"20.12.230 Pioneer Courthouse Square"
nor in "20.12.170 Use of Certain Devices or Equipment" or anywhere else I could find... nor could I find anything against "monopods"
thanks
Patrick
Sure it does. Use of open power outlets to charge laptops/phones is a modern convention. It is a convention which is still evolving, but in many circumstances and locations it is commonplace and accepted. I already mentioned airports, schools, and shopping malls.
If the square wants to guide the convention in another way, all they have to do is post a sign or put a locking cover on the outlet.
I'm growing increasingly weary of apparently-unwritten edicts being enforced without follow-up proof.
How much is this "theft" costing the city, anyway? A 1500mAh (milli-amp hour) 3.6v cell phone battery takes about .003kWh to charge at 60% efficiency (total back of the napkin math here). PGE's highest current business peak use rate I could find on their web site is 10.27cents per kWh.
Given that, to fully recharge a phone would cost the square .03 cents (3 hundredths of one cent), or you could charge 100 phones for about a penny. (Can somebody back up my conversion here? I would have assumed 10X as expensive... say 10 phones for a penny.)
How much is the park officer paid to enforce this apparently-unwritten rule, and how does that compare to the cost of the "stolen" electricity?
FWIW, I have never seen them (the PPL) remove anybody (or tell anyone to leave the square)except for the meth head who smashed through the glass door a few weeks ago, and he needed to go to the hostpital.
That's all well and good if the verbal warnings are for actual policies which are deliberated and written down somewhere, so that anyone who actually wants to follow-up and learn the rules can do so. Given my past experience with square management's (and the city attorney's office's) failure to produce actual written positions on their legal basis for peculiar interpretations of city code, I remain skeptical.
Unless you are not a U.S. citizen, I'm not really sure how that would be considered "stealing from the city", anyway. Who pays for that electric bill?
it's an insane policy.
next time you see a PPS guy on the square, ask him for a copy of the "rules". in the city's code, there is nothing, maybe they have some sort of on site rules?
thanks
Patrick
Last I checked, the residents and taxpayers in Portland are "the city". How can a Portland resident "steal" something that already belongs to them?
Wow.
I fancy a smoke right now. Downtown. On the sidewalk somewhere.
Police officers have a duty to act and enforce laws but do not enforce civil conflicts.They are your Daddy and Mamma when you need them and when you dont well you love to hate them and call them names.
20.08.010 Permits Required for Park Uses.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct or participate in any activity in a Park, for which a permit is required, unless the Parks Reservation Center has issued a permit for the activity. A permit is required for any activity in a Park under any one or more of the following circumstances:
A. The activity is intended to involve, is reasonably likely to involve, or actually involves, as participants and/or spectators, at any one time, 150 or more persons;
B. The activity includes the placement of any temporary or permanent structure, including but not limited to any table, bench, stage, fence, tent or other facility in a Park. No permit is required under this Subsection for the placement of any temporary facility in an area of a Park which the Director has designated for such use without a permit;
C. The activity requires, or is reasonably likely to require, City services additional to those already provided to the public as a matter of course in the Park, including but not limited to: increased police or fire protection; the turning on or off of water; provision of utilities, such as gas, electricity or sewer; placing, removing, opening or closing bollards, gates or fences; or the special preparation of fields or other facilities;
D. The person or persons engaged in the activity seek to exclude, or to have the right to exclude, any member of the public from the activity or from any Park or from any area of any Park;
E. The activity is conducted in any building in any Park, except for personal use of public restrooms; or
F. The activity includes using the Park or Park area in a manner inconsistent with uses designated by the Director for that Park or Park area, or includes conduct that otherwise is prohibited in a Park, including, but not limited to, conducting business, charging admission or otherwise receiving payment for goods or services related to the activity, or possessing, serving or consuming alcoholic beverages.
20.08.010 Permits Required for Park Uses.
It is unlawful for any person to conduct or participate in any activity in a Park, for which a permit is required, unless the Parks Reservation Center has issued a permit for the activity. A permit is required for any activity in a Park under any one or more of the following circumstances:
A. The activity is intended to involve, is reasonably likely to involve, or actually involves, as participants and/or spectators, at any one time, 150 or more persons;
B. The activity includes the placement of any temporary or permanent structure, including but not limited to any table, bench, stage, fence, tent or other facility in a Park. No permit is required under this Subsection for the placement of any temporary facility in an area of a Park which the Director has designated for such use without a permit;
C. The activity requires, or is reasonably likely to require, City services additional to those already provided to the public as a matter of course in the Park, including but not limited to: increased police or fire protection; the turning on or off of water; provision of utilities, such as gas, electricity or sewer; placing, removing, opening or closing bollards, gates or fences; or the special preparation of fields or other facilities;
D. The person or persons engaged in the activity seek to exclude, or to have the right to exclude, any member of the public from the activity or from any Park or from any area of any Park;
E. The activity is conducted in any building in any Park, except for personal use of public restrooms; or
F. The activity includes using the Park or Park area in a manner inconsistent with uses designated by the Director for that Park or Park area, or includes conduct that otherwise is prohibited in a Park, including, but not limited to, conducting business, charging admission or otherwise receiving payment for goods or services related to the activity, or possessing, serving or consuming alcoholic beverages.
It's mdavis@portlandmercury.com.
Also, the other two witnesses' details would be more than welcome.
Honestly, all I see is a four sentence review about an event that happened. If you were in actuality trying to make a social comment about the role of security guards and other such law enforcement in our community, perhaps an actual article citing other such "abuses" and "fake laws" would have been more appropriate. I don't know that your argument that this was in fact a look at their role is legitimate. I don't see any statement about how this isn't a personal reaction to something that you think is unfair.
Perhaps you can use this case as a way to convince the city that there needs to be an more easily accessible accounting of the rules (in plain english). That would be a better use of your journalistic time (I feel personally).
Hmmm. Let's think.
Perhaps you should start here, or just take one out of three stories from my author archive.
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Search?cx=018412283168992679552%3Aa5h4vrhagga&cof=FORID%3A9&q=rent-a-cop&sa=Search#945
Clearly says: City services "ADDITIONAL" to those already
provided to the public ...
(In other words, services in ADDITION, to those already present --
electric is provided to the public in small quantiles. However, larger
quantities of electric use and greater than provided would need a permit..