City Commissioner Amanda Fritz met with 22 people last
Thursday night, June 4, to plan her outreach effort on the sit-lie
law. The meeting followed Fritz’s move last month to extend the
ordinance for six months so that Portlanders can rehash the same old
arguments for and against it before a council vote in September.
Ironically, Fritz could probably have killed the sit-lie, had she
voted against it in May. But by sincerely promising to discuss it for
the next six months, she has now afforded fellow City Commissioner
Nick Fish the opportunity to cover his ass politically to be the
swing vote in September for the law’s perpetual continuation. By then,
it is expected Fish will have completed the deal to build his
long-promised Resource Access Center (RAC) for the homeless in
Old Town. His philosophy seems to be that by building the RAC, he can
then vote to continue enforcing an ordinance that criminalizes
homelessness.
Yes, he may be a former civil rights attorney, but Fish is now
categorically a politician. He sent a staffer to last week’s meeting
instead of attending personally like Fritz, and with all due respect to
the staffer, the contrast felt like Fish was sending a message to the
group that he was somehow above their discussion.
For her part, Fritz listened earnestly for over 90 minutes to
homeless activist Patrick Nolen, Mike Kuykendall from the
Portland Business Alliance, and others as they re-articulated
opposing and intractable positions on the law. I actually felt sorry
for the commissioner at one point for reopening such a can of
worms.
Having covered these discussions for three years I felt a
nostalgic sense of déjà vu during much of the
meeting, except for the welcome addition of Hotlips pizza on the
taxpayers’ dime. A facilitator took notes. Then at the end of the
session, Fritz thanked people for being “willing to suspend disbelief
and come here and participate tonight.
“I frankly don’t know how this process is going to turn out in
September,” Fritz continued. “It has the potential to be a success and
it has the potential to be a disaster.”
It would be easy for me to continue slamming Fritz for her efforts
on this ordinance, but it takes a rare combination of political
naivety and political courage to admit to a meeting of constituents
that your approach could be disastrous. It would be nice to see
Commissioner Fish putting the same amount of skin into the game.
I wonder how anti-sit-lie folks would feel if the sitting and lying were taking place on their front lawn? Or on the sidewalk in front of their house where their children are playing?
Sparacus (if that really is your name…)
I dont know about anyone else, but as for me… Portland already has laws against blocking a sidewalk… but those laws make the police and courts prove there was intent, unlike this law. this law is just about moving people around.
if you want a _real_ solution to the old guy sleeping out in front of your house, how about something other than one that works for ten minutes. maybe jobs and housing instead of an officer telling the old guy “move a few feet to your right would you?”
Goodfella,
And I’m sure that is your name.
Jobs and housing are created by someone’s work. If you’re homeless, then it’s someone else’s work. This is not a value judgment. It is a fact.
If people loiter, camp and sleep wherever they want, it causes the people who work to avoid those areas, thereby hurting the businesses and individuals who work. If the people who work don’t make money, they can’t pay for the jobs and housing.
There is no old guy sleeping outside my house. I have very BIG dogs.
P.S. I am a registered democrat who works in social services with low-income and disabled consumers.
It does not “criminalize homelessness”. It creates an enforceable law for any person who seems to forget what “sidewalk” means. It is a walk way. For walking. Not sitting or lying or sleeping. There are benches and parks in downtown where sitting and lying are available for recreational use.
Before anyone starts blindly defending the “homeless” in Portland I would suggest finding out why many of them are in the situation they are in. Having worked with many of them they reasons are generally not because they lost their good job to layoffs and cannot find work. Generally the reasons are that they are selfish, lazy, entitled addicts who know a good story to tell to make them seem more like a victim and less of the cause of many of their own problems.
We are all selfish, lazy, and entitled addicts.
We are Americans.
DW,
you sound like you halfway know what you are talking about. of course if you knew what you were talking about you would know that there are already laws against blocking a sidewalk. all this does is give a law that allows people to be bullied.
as for the reasons around homelessness, there are those that are there due to addiction. there are also those that are there because they are underemployed.. and those that are dealing with mental illness…
of course, if you worked around homelessness like you claim, you would know that describing them the way you do is a bit hyperbolic…
I thought Comm. Fish couldn’t complete the RAC center deal unless the city wins the court case brought by the Friends of Urban Renewal.