News Aug 20, 2009 at 4:00 am

Sit on It

Comments

1
"However, I am disgusted—disgusted that our city places the interest of business and clear sidewalks above the constitutional rulings of its judges and the rights of its people."

Right's of its people?

What about the rights of the disabled to get around?
Blocking the sidewalk is infringing upon the rights of pedestrians, the elderly and those with canes, walkers, wheelchairs and scooters as well as those with strollers.

What of their rights?

To be told to sit no where or lie no where is of course wrong... but public access to travel on our sidewalks is also a right Matt Davis.

That is why they're called sideWALKS.
Not bum-cots, hobo-asphalt-couch or anything else. Side- WALKS.

Citizens are taxed to build and maintain sidewalks so they can get around.


Remember when everyone was so indignant that some bar & restaurant owners chose to use up too much sidewalk space with their cafe seating? Because it made getting around difficult? Because disabled persons were inconvienced?
Even though businesses at least keep people employed, provide services & pay taxes?

Unless the new, punitive measures taken against Portland's businesses are struck down as well what you are talking about is SPECIAL RIGHTS for panhandlers. Rights that other citizens and business owners don't have.

You seem to not believe in equal rights, you seem to believe you have the power to determine who has what rights at your own personal whim.

Do you determine this by how pitiable you think a person is? Is that it?
And you've decided for yourself, and hope to decide for all of us that a panhandler has seperate and greater than equal rigths to the sidewalk, correct?

A sidewalk cannot serve its INTENDED purpose to ALL citizens EQUALLY while also being a sitting lounge for your chosen few.




2
i'm just going to assume that the self righteous dude below me got a sugar rush off his starbucks iced coffee and is too high to really comprehend what is happening.. we're talking about constitutional rights here, the same ones that actually defend their right to post bullshit like that.

are you actually a human being?

right on to matt davis for telling it like it is
3
--------
"Yeah, good luck with that. ... "

"So the new law might well be ruled unconstitutional in a year, but in the meantime cops will be able to go about harassing people with it, just the same?"

"... declining a $10 bet that the new ordinance would be ruled unconstitutional again in another 18 months."

"... So the mayor doesn't care if the law is found unconstitutional again, in the end?"

"... Actually, on this issue, I don't think I am a cynic. However, I am disgusted—disgusted that our city places the interest of business and clear sidewalks above the constitutional rulings of its judges and the rights of its people."
-----------

Even when I agree with you, you sound like a douche bag. If this is News and not Opinion lets try making the slant a bit more subtle and the questions a little less high-school, shall we?

And can you please just present the facts and let the reader decide to be disgusted or not? You are the reporter, you already get to cherry pick the facts to present, and how to frame them. Try to use that power to evoke the feeling you want from your audience, rather than dictating to the reader how they should feel.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.