I noticed that the police didn't enforce this law during the SL parade last week, will they enforce it this week?

It's due to start enforcement on Saturday June 9, the day of the big parade. Although don't worry if you're a fatty from Gresham with your name on the sidewalk—there's an exemption for "permitted events." You only need to really worry if you happen to be homeless. Or a lone street preacher sat on a chair.

If Leonard gets his way, enforcement may be further delayed. We'll let you know.

Lemme get this strait...
Its illegal to sit/lie anywhere they say they don't want you, but part of the "agreement" for conditions of this ordnance was for the installation of a set number of benches?

So if I sit or lie on one of these predesignated benches am I'm exempt from the law? Or... Will I get moved along if I'm not carrying a Sax Fifth Avenue bag?

Here I have a new idea for a law, here it goes:
A law restricting any freedom will be deemed unconstitutional if the purpose of the aforementioned to is to protect the profits of any commercial interest.

I tried to make it as confusing as legal speak... but basically, if you want to pass a law that keeps me from saying something or being somewhere or doing something in public simply because it might cause you to make less money then; no, go screw your self.

Sorry for ranting but this crap really gets on my nerves.

As I mentioned, the PBA did not return a call for comment. But they're representing their constituents, and have been straightforward about their motivation: THEY WANT THIS LAW TO MAKE MORE MONEY.

In return for the law, they've agreed to provide a certain number of benches, restrooms and a day access center.

Nice job, Matt. And good on Randy for sticking by the original terms as much as possible.

They don't call him "the candelabra of city hall" for nothing.

They don't call him "the candelabra of city hall" for nothing.

Did we ever settle on what the other commissioners were?

Just found out that, pending a full evaluation of the situation, Sten would be vote #2 on Randy's motion. Erik has supported Randy's position on this from the beginning--it was a package deal.

Your turn, Matt--is Sam #3?

We're awaiting a call back from Adams' office. B!X, Adams is City Hall's chandelier.

As a reporter who was initially impressed with the SAFE group's intention, I don't see how the commissioners cannot vote for Leonard's resolution, now that the SAFE oversight group has essentially completely changed its focus.

Our two recent stories on the SAFE group backing down from its original promises:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=321191&category=22101
http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=304811&category=22101

And here's our story from back in November on the SAFE groups original promises:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=77020&category=22101

Quite a change, eh?

From the SAFE group's recommendations:

""We must emphasize that the work-group consensus is founded on all four [recommendations] being implemented with equal priority and urgency," the draft recommendations read. That means in the committee's eyes, there can be no new Sit-Lie Ordinance without a day center, and no day center without benches or restrooms. Now, it's up to Mayor Potter to convince the council to sign off on the entire package."

"Although don't worry if you're a fatty from Gresham with your name on the sidewalk..."

Is that you, Karla Starr?

Your comment has seriously forced me to reconsider my definition of humor and body image.