News Apr 22, 2010 at 4:00 am

City Tries Yet Another Sit-Lie Approach


homeless versus disabled
alcoholism versus diabetes

if it is well and truely about disabled people, that is fine, but two questions:
1) why are cafes allowed to block disableled people then?
2) what is covered under this law that is not covered under the ADA?
Cafes are not allowed to block disabled access to the streets; in fact, new laws have them paying hundreds of dollars per year to rent a few feet of the sidwalk and allow at least a six foot clearance.
Sidewalks are often obstructed by businesses which consider them to be their own property, and not a public right of way.

Sidewalk cafe regulation guide:…

At the absolute minimum, at least 5 and a half feet must be clear for pedestrian traffic. It doesn't matter, of course, as the city does not enforce it. As enforcement is not done, and since businesses don't seem to be aware of the use guidelines, they probably aren't paying the required fees either.
Looks like another fine clusterf**k brought to you by PBA and City Council members who focus on the wrong issues. Despite promises broken for years on providing enough funding for critical services, they try to keep this dog hunting. After 4 times of being told by the courts you can't do this because there are ALREADY laws in place to deal with this, they think they can still pull a rabbit out of their hat. Oh well, my handicapped significant other are already making plans. We will file a complaint against EVERY sidewalk cafe that blocks the area they plan on covering according to the cities own video. If they really want to use the ADA act, the great thing is, cafes are NOT exempt.
I know some people in chairs. They have a ton of life challenges. I support 100% a guaranteed right of way for them. The proposed city program cracks down on cafes, signboards and people sitting on the sidewalk equally. (Don't get me started on dead tree, litter generating, paper boxes! Move that S*** indoors!)
As we will see, in the coming warmer months, the invasion of "Traveling Youth"
Angsty teens who litter our streets wherever they convene, mostly drunk or high, with packs of dogs (who bite other dogs), and an infuriating sense of entitlement that brings down an entire community.
This is what this plan is for, and thank god.
I don't care who you are or where you came from or what your doing, as long as you are a decent person, that knows how to exist in a community of people. People who don't "OWE" you a thing, they will give out of kindness or ignorance. Reap what you sow

Dale and questioningsam
As 'crip and proud' you and questioningsam express my sentiments exactly.
May I nominate for complaint consideration by you and your significant other the row of 3-4 bars/cafes on the south side of NW Glisan from the corner of 21st to the door of Trader Joe's?
Secondly, while you there, add the other the bars/cafes on the other 3 corners, particularly the picnic table joint on the NW corner.

Do the PBA and the city's lawyers (or those at the firm it outsourced to loose the federal civil rights class action) truly believe that a justification of "our newest version has been drafted to ensure our sidewalks are in full and strict compliance with the public accommodation mandates with Title II of the ADA " is going to pass the sniff test when the next class action comes on for a do over before Judge King and his federal judicial colleagues?

Sam and PBA: see "moot' Black's Law Dictionary

Blah blah blah. Typical Portland NIMBY bulsh*t. I may not be willing to give up my civil liberties in the war on terror, but I certainly am willing to give them up if it will keep from being accosted by pan-handlers with every step I take.
"The proposed city program cracks down on cafes, signboards and people sitting on the sidewalk equally."

That is why the cafes have to be moved to the final two feet of the sidewalk? right? because all is fare for everyone... right? please say the law hold's both cafes and people in the same way? or does the ADA allow businesses to block the sidewalks and not people?

If I was the lawyer that got called in this time to sue the city over it, I would not back down or take a political out. Make them suffer, punish them for knowingly ignoring the ADA act by enforcing a law that holds people to differnet standards than objects (objects can be an issue in the ADA, just not in Amanda Fritz's version.)

"Last Friday night, April 16, the Downtown Chapel on 6th and West Burnside moved its line of chairs from alongside the church to the curbside, as a way of figuring out how to comply with the proposed law. Tired homeless people waited for up to two hours for a meal as the rush-hour traffic sped by, inches behind them."

I work at the Downtown Chapel, and this really isn't an accurate portrayal of the event or our intentions. We did set-up the chairs along the curbside of the sidewalk, however the intent behind it is being misrepresented. Our goal was to educate people on what the ordinance included, encouraging people to make their own decisions about if they agreed or disagreed, and then participate in the process. We provided multiple different opportunities for people to voice their opinions including a comment box in our Hospitality Center. We plan to share these opinions with City Council.

The last sentence about "tired homeless people" is also completely over-the-top and not an accurate description of a simple meal, with people passing through the line many times in a short period of time, with a buffer of sidewalk and parked cars between them and traffic.

The Downtown Chapel provides a community of hope and healing for people in transition, people facing issues of urban poverty, or those who cannot advocate for themselves.

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

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