It’s official: Almost everybody hates the sit/lie law.
As predicted, the mayor’s Street Access for Everyone oversight committee listening session this afternoon was separated into ten groups, each attended by a facilitator who presented back to the larger group at the end. This made it difficult for me, as a reporter, to listen to all of what was being said, and several of those who spoke left before I could get their names. Nevertheless…
The chief architect of the sit/lie law, Mike Kuykendall of the Portland Business Alliance, showed up and sat at a table opposite the law’s chief opponent, Sisters Of The Road’s community organizer Patrick Nolen. Nolen pointed out that 133 of the, so far 159 total police contacts associated with the law have been made by two officers paid for by the PBA; Dobson, and Cox.
In addition, Nolen’s survey of 169 people, asking how they had been treated by the officer enforcing the law, shows that 15 said “friendly,” 28 “firm but fair,” 32 “unfriendly,” 46 “rude or disrespectful,” and 22 “aggressive.” 29 didn’t respond. 2 specific people mentioned Dobson and Cox as either rude or specifically targeting them.
The majority of those present appeared to be testifying against the ordinance, but I did manage to catch up with two retail employees who were big supporters. Read all about the meeting after the jump.
“Right now, as a retailer who works downtown, I don’t feel I have any rights. I’ve never experienced anything like this,” said the unnamed lady in the middle, wearing the pearl necklace, who alleged being spat on by homeless people. “I feel threatened every day working down here.”
“I don’t even leave the store to take a break at work,” said the lady on the left. “You never know what’s going to happen when you go outside. Why on earth would people act that way?”
Another lady, Veronica, who was from Travel Portland, said she was also a supporter of the ordinance. “We have people making complaints about the number of homeless people,” she said. “Sometimes even when it’s just one person complaining, they represent a lot of business.”
Ironically, Ted Papas, owner of the Greek Cusina, showed up to testify in favor of the ordinance too, even though it technically applies to the sidewalk furniture he’s been under pressure to remove from outside his restaurant on the corner of SW 4th and Washington for years.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Rights Lawyer and now, City Commissioner Nick Fish, grilled Central Precinct Commander Mike Reese about the specifics of the law. “How many citations lead to some kind of legal challenge?” he asked. “To my knowledge, none,” Reese responded. [Sit/lie cites are dealt with in community court, where legal representation is minimal…the community court happens to be partly funded by the PBA, and people doing community service do it for the PBA’s community service arm, Clean & Safe.]
Fish also pressed Reese to tell him what kind of people are generally being cited under the law. “It’s a pool of people being cited, for whom generally, officers know that they are homeless?” asked Fish, rhetorically. Reese changed the subject.
City Council Candidate Amanda Fritz grilled mayoral aide Kyle Chisek about why the ordinance isn’t being applied to unpermitted sidewalk signs and sidewalk cafes. Chisek told her that fell under a different jurisdiction, but Fritz did not seem entirely convinced.
Meanwhile Andrea Meyer, legislative director for the ACLU of Oregon, said “there were a number of pieces that we were working to implement as part of the SAFE process [meaning benches, restrooms, a day access center for the homeless, along with the ordinance] and we have been successful with one of them.” She said the committee would need to look carefully at whether it could recommend continuing to support the ordinance.
Others said they felt the law definitely targeted homeless people. Outreach worker Brian Meyer, who works for New Avenues For Youth, said he was helping a young woman, who was sitting and crying on the sidewalk, when a cop drove up, shouting “you can’t sit there,” without making any attempt to engage. When Meyer told the cop who he was, he says the cop froze and told him, “disregard everything I just said.”
“I felt it was definitely profiling of the girl, based on her being apparently homeless, and of me, because I was sitting with her,” said Meyer.
When the ten tables presented back to the group, there was a surprising amount of negativity towards the ordinance.
“The general consensus of my group was the ordinance should be repealed,” said the mayor’s public safety policy manager, Maria Rubio. “And for the following reasons…people feel their rights are being abused, that homeless people are being shoved across the river, there’s an element of where are we supposed to go, people feel the ordinance has been unfairly enforced, there’s concern over the lack of enforcement against sidewalk cafes and sandwich boards, the city did provide services, but they are not enough, and there’s a sense that there are people who get out of control but that homeless people are being judged by others’ bad behavior.”
“The ordinance could be repealed, and an ordinance be enacted that specifically addresses aggressive panhandling,” said Reese, after saying that different parts of downtown could be “very intimidating at times.”
“People tended to think things have not changed much since the ordinance was introduced,” said Owen Ron Kelly, of the Lloyd District. “The women’s crisis line said they have experienced a 200% increase in calls since last year, because the number 1 reason for women being homeless is as a result of experiencing domestic violence.”
“There’s not enough resources out there to help people that are out on the street who are being targeted,” said Mark Hansen, security manager at the Lloyd Center.
“People feel this law creates an us versus them atmosphere,” said Doreen Binder, of Transition Projects, Inc. “They wonder ‘what does SAFE really mean?’ because it really means that the streets are now safe for people from Beaverton.”
“The idea of visibility came up a lot,” said Sean Suib from New Avenues for Youth. “The idea is that the ordinance is counter to that, that it represents the desire to make homeless people and social problems invisible.”
“There’s also concern about the confusion between PPI officers and Portland Police officers,” Suib continued. “And what the implication of that is.”
Laurie Abraham repeated the retailers’ concerns about being spat on. She also said they had experienced “people having sex in front of the business.” (I wish those two ladies had told us where they worked.)
“There’s a concern that homeless people are being targeted, and at the same time on the service side, that we are not providing all the services homeless people need,” said the mayor’s staffer, Kyle Chisek.
“People didn’t support the ordinance at my table,” said Marc Jolin, executive director of JOIN. “They felt it ought to be repealed. They also talked about the ordinance’s negative impact on the community, that it increased tensions, and that it wasn’t bringing us together and was distracting us from a more cooperative approach to solving some of these problems.”
It’s now the job of the mayor’s committee to take all of the testimony and turn it into a report to council. The mayor’s spokesman, Jeremy Van Keuren, could not be specific about when that would be. But given that Fritz and Leonard are both outspoken opponents, and that Fish does appear to be asking some pertinent questions, it might be a good idea for the committee to postpone presenting back to council until after the November election, since the majority of commissioners by that point will most likely be ready to vote the ordinance down.
More in this week’s paper.
Because the majority of the people issued notices and later accused of violating their sit/lie notice are homeless they cannot afford legal representation. Because Kuykendal and cronies at the DA’s office and community court have learned from the Drug Free Zone Debacle that you DO NOT want people to get free attorneys (who may occasionally do their job and fight unjust laws) these are all charged as “violations”. Violations mean that no jail time is possible and the worst penalty is just a fine, so Reese is being disingenuous at best when he says no one challenges the law. He knows perfectly well the system was set up to avoid legal challenges. No one possibly could because no lawyers are taking the case. It doesn’t help when the ACLU is supporting the clearly unconstitutional process either.
Matt,
As you worked hard to make the rounds to all the tables today, it’s understandable that you weren’t able to hear the entirety of everyone’s comments. I’m happy to report that the women at my table, the aforementioned retail employees, were not unequivocal supporters of Sit-Lie. They recognized that its existence has not addressed the concerns that many people have about certain behaviors, and were informed by a former police officer that there are laws – not Sit/Lie – that can be used to deal with spitting, grabbing, harassing, and, quite handily, sex on the sidewalk.
These women also expressed support for the plight of homeless individuals, and recognized their need to rest and sleep in a City that doesn’t yet have the affordable housing stock available to make sure everyone has a safe place to be. I appreciated their willingness to engage in the discussion, to ask questions, and to really listen.
Thanks for following the story, Matt. I hope it draws others into the conversation, because at Sisters Of The Road, we believe that this community wants the best for all of its citizens, that we can learn from our mistakes, and that we have the wisdom to find the solutions together.
The conversation …
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Your colleagues at the Willy Week are reporting that Commish Nick Fish is leaning in favor of sit/lie. Your impression, based on his questions, is that he’s against it? Can someone nail down where, exactly, he stands on this and get him on the record?
And thank you for following this story.
I think Amanda misunderstood Fish. He told her: “I’m very concerned that [the ordinance] is part of a carefully crafted compromise,” Fish says. “We need to make sure that all the pieces of the compromise reached are honored.”
He also quoted 88 percent of the cites going to homeless people. Neither statement, I think, implies support of the ordinance. In fact, I think, given Andrea Meyer’s statement about us succeeding with only one of the five aspects of the ordinance, that Fish, like Meyer, is trying to come up with a demonstrable reason to vote against its continuance.
I’ll go ask him for clarification this morning.
The Flip-Flopping of a Fish:
[I think Amanda misunderstood Fish.]
Matt, unfortunately you misunderstood Fish: he is being VERY clear telling you EXACTLY what he thinks- “that this is a carefully crafted compromise to be concerned of”, and “we need to make sure that all the pieces of the compromise reached are HONORED.”
HELLO.
He is as slippery as they come, he is of the privileged elite line of famous senators, bankers, and international traitors who supported and profited from the Nazis. He is related to Prescott, GWH, and George Bush himself, among other notable characters. His father is an adviser to GEORGE SOROS himself.
HE IS A SLIMY FAKE, and he will bend like a jellyfish any way the prevailing wind blows.
Right now it’s blowing toward corrupt complicity, but if the populace hold him accountable, he will squeal like a PIG. (no offense to genuine pigs everywhere!)
Alright, alright, less of the rhetoric, thank you. Stay on topic, please.
THIS IS THE TOPIC!
HE is a FAKE and he will say WHATEVER the pressing questioner wants to hear.
HE CANNOT BE TRUSTED and must be watched like a hawk 24/7 for schemin’, dealin’, and treasonin’.
HE is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or a fish in a slick suit.
Don’t give him an inch, cause he will take a MILE.
The only solution to dealing with the likes of him is to STRONG-ARM him into doing the RIGHT thing for THE PEOPLE.
I’ll try to avoid the snark as best I can, but one reason that “everyone” there was negative on it is that many of the people who support it are busy on a Monday afternoon.
This law is problematic for sure, but I support it. I work, eat, and do personal business downtown every day. I don’t really want to return to the days of four street kids and two dogs and their giant packs splayed out all over 3/4’s of a sidewalk. It blocks people who have to use the sidewalks. And yes, its bad for business and tourism – and those are relevant concerns.
The law is enforced against the homeless because that was the intention. I’m not sure why we all have to act like babes in the woods on that one. Other folks don’t sit around on the sidewalks very much. The sidewalks I see are about 40% spit and 40% cigarette butts.
It’s good that Amanda Fritz has taken up the issue of signs and sidewalk cafes – the majority of the actual sidewalk obstruction is by signs and sidewalk cafes (Pinocchio’s on Salmon is pretty bad, as is the infamous Greek Cuisina).
The actual sidewalk space “blocked” by homeless people is minimal. It’s just that they’re so unsightly and icky!
Blabby, I hope the economy doesn’t implode on YOU, and you have to eat every word you say for want of real food when YOUR ass is homeless and on the street.
GOD HELP US.
have we become COMPLETELY soulless???
we need serious ETHICS CLEANSING.