Mayor Sam Adams began moving swiftly toward replacing the
now-defunct sit-lie ordinance on Tuesday morning, August
18—just days after Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge
Stephen Bushong annihilated the old one at a special
“clarification” session on Friday afternoon, August 14.
Bushong cited a host of cases—including one old anti-loitering
law going back to 1968—to show that any sit-lie law would have
trouble passing constitutional muster. He also cited the example
of a Supreme Court case against Chicago’s “gang congregation” ordinance
from 2002, which was also struck down as unconstitutional.
In that case, the Supreme Court stated: “The freedom to loiter
for innocent purposes is part of the liberty identified by the 14th
Amendment.”
“That’s a pretty broad liberty interest,” said Bushong. He said the
city was free to appeal his ruling, or if it preferred, to instruct
policy makers to “attempt to craft an ordinance that would be
consistent with the rule of law.”
Yeah, good luck with that. Can Adams’ chief of staff, Tom
Miller, guarantee the new iteration of the law won’t be struck down
as unconstitutional, just like those of the past?
“We met with the judge for clarity of his opinion last Friday and
the judge told us that this is a very complex area of law, and as such,
there are no guarantees that whatever tool we aim to provide,
that it won’t be ruled unconstitutional down the road,” Miller told me
on Tuesday.
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?
“We have an obligation to the citizens of Portland but it also goes
without saying that we need to adhere to the constitution,”
Miller said, declining a $10 bet that the new ordinance would be ruled
unconstitutional again in another 18 months.
“History is on your side, obviously,” he said.
So the mayor doesn’t care if the law is found unconstitutional
again, in the end?
“That statement implies a level of cynicism that the city
does not share,” said Miller.
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.
“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.
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
——–
“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.