« That's Britney Spears?!? | Main | "So What Do You Think of the Second Ammendment Now?" »
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
News Sit/Lie Law Begins Enforcement
Posted by on Wed, Aug 15 at 12:15 PM
City Council has voted this morning to begin enforcement of the controversial sit/lie law—which will outlaw sitting or lying on the sidewalks downtown. It’s a sad day, since I don’t believe you can compromise when it comes to treating people like human beings, rather than detritus to be swept into the river.
The most telling point in this morning’s testimony was when a downtown jeweler, Tim Greve, from Carl Greve jewelers, told council that the sit/lie ordinance will “directly ensure the success” of the new Brooks Brothers store opening in the Galleria, on SW Morrison.
Selling Seersuckers. That’s what this ordinance is really all about.
The law is targeted at the homeless, despite repeated denials from the mayor’s office, whose Street Access For Everyone (SAFE) committee came up with it. SAFE is comprised of homeless advocates from non-profits JOIN, Sisters of the Road and the Oregon Law Center, as well as law enforcement. But the driving force behind the law is the Portland Business Alliance (PBA)—whose representative Mike Kuykendall has co-chaired the SAFE oversight committee since January. The PBA has also stumped up $150,000 for services to move the process along.
Council last delayed enforcement of the law in June, when Commissioner Randy Leonard said the PBA was pursuing an “enforcement-centric” approach, without ensuring the attendant compromises were in place, including benches for the homeless and adequate restrooms. Now, most of those are here, but Leonard opposed enforcement again this morning, because the SAFE oversight committee has opened a 24-hour restroom in City Hall, nowhere near where the homeless congregate in their largest numbers, in Old Town.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: PBA’s Mike Kuykendall, Oregon Law Center’s Monica Goracke, and Jared Spencer from the mayor’s office. Testifying before council this morning…
The committee faced questioning from Leonard after delivering its presentation, and he eventually proposed an amendment to the SAFE report proposing to open the Pioneer Courthouse Square restroom, too. But it was voted down by the other City Commissioners, who then voted to adopt the ordinance as it stands.
It just so happens that Pioneer Courthouse Square is Commissioner Dan Saltzman’s property—because it’s technically a park, and he’s the parks commissioner. Saltzman banned smoking there without consulting council, and wants the place to be attractive for suburban shoppers. He’s got no interest in the toilets serving people without money to spend downtown.
That’s the short story, but Leonard’s continued questioning of the committee’s goals and how it has gone about its work has served, I feel, to push the Portland Business Alliance and “family-friendly” commissioners like Dan Saltzman to justify and defend their indefensible motivation on these issues.
Leonard also had some words to the homeless advocates who have been involved in the process. He didn’t say: “you’ve been brainwashed by the Portland Business Alliance,” but he came close:
“I appreciate how hard it is for people advocating particularly for the homeless to find audiences to their concerns. And through that process, you have to compromise. I mean no disrespect in not supporting this report, but I hope you’ll take my words seriously. I oftentimes have to go out to check my frame of references with the community that I represent. I oftentimes check in with the people who aren’t involved in politics, because in spite of our best goals and desires, it’s easy at some times to lose sight of why it is you do what you do. Because you get involved in discussions and compromises, and you lose sight of why it is that you do, what you do.”Dan Handelman of activist group Portland Copwatch raised the question of whether it’s alright to “trade off people’s civil liberties,” just because you’re giving them a toilet to use. “This law is just about moving people along,” he said.
There’s more detailed council testimony after the jump.
"Can you tell me exactly where homeless people are living near City Hall?" Leonard asked Monica Goracke. "City Hall is eight blocks from Pioneer Square and 15 blocks from Old Town, and late at night, there is nobody in this area or standing at the bus stops, versus Pioneer Square, and honestly, when I wanted to suspend enforcement in June, I honestly just assumed that the Pioneer Square one would be the restroom you would fix. I'm just at a loss to see how City Hall is a viable overnight restroom."
"City Hall is seen as both a symbolic place—a huge message of support for the homeless people," responded Goracke.
"Well I appreciate that, but I wasn't looking for symbolism when somebody wanted to relieve themselves," said Leonard. "I'm feeling a little bit as though this was not a sensible choice. Pioneer Courthouse square has a restroom that's actually set up in a way to have security there. And again, the issue here is serving the population. I have never lost sight of that. It's not about symbolism, or about anyone feeling as if their feelings were hurt. A very important concern for me is the ability for human beings to relieve themselves."
Jared Spencer of the mayor's office told Leonard that 51 people have used the City Hall restrooms from August 2 to yesterday, August 14.
"51 people," says Leonard. "So in two weeks, 51 people have used it. I really think when we said an overnight restroom we were looking at more than four people per night. Why would a person oftentimes mentally ill walk 15 blocks to use this restroom?"
"I'd hope you'd have asked these questions when you were thinking about this. I'm not one that likes to just criticize—the solution that I've offered to the mayor and the PBA is the 1st and Davis, and Pioneer Square option. Why can't we just agree now that we'll pick one of those two, now?"
"My first impression was that [opening City Hall's restrooms] was a cynical recommendation and not intended to fulfill the recommendation."
"I can assure you there was no cynicism or attempt to thwart the mandate," responded Goracke. "We honestly believe that City Hall was a good choice."
"I hope that the entire council would vote to hire security for Pioneer Courthouse Square," said Leonard. "I am really focused on this being really available for people. I'd predict in a year from now, there will be one person a night using the City Hall restroom. I just want it to be convenient, accessible, and if there are other issues, we can fix them."
"I think at the end of the day, folks in Old Town aren't going to walk up here. And at the end of the day I would support [opening the Pioneer Courthouse Square bathroom]," said Marc Jolin, of Join. "I do think it is significant that City Hall is being opened to meet a basic need of the homeless in this community. I think it's important that we're using this opportunity to use public resources to meet the needs of homeless people."
"I hope my colleagues will join with me today, to mandate that Pioneer Square will be opened today, to help real people with real problems, without a symbolic issue that doesn't necessarily address the problem," said Leonard.
Dan Handelman of activist group Portland Copwatch added: "If this report is accepted, the sit/lie ordinance is going to go into effect. It's frustrating that there hasn't been more discussion about the ramifications of that. We're all hoping there's more places to find shelter and bathrooms. All this work should be done. But the question is then whether it's okay to trade off people's civil liberties. It's as though we're enacting some kind of Jim Crow law after freeing slaves. It's as though we've found somewhere for homeless to go, but we don't want to have to see them. I think you're going to have to consider whether this is something that is really necessary?"
"We're also concerned about the verbal warnings that will be issued without record by the Police Bureau and downtown Clean & Safe officers—who, since they look very much like police officers, people are going to move along. This law is just about moving people along, and it's not necessarily about enforcement. We won't know how often it's being used, but it's going to be used mostly against poor people, homeless people, and probably young people."
"Was this process a pain in the ass?" asked Doreen Binder, of Transition Projects. "Yes. But for the Portland Business Allliance to come up with the money is to be applauded. This has created more community partners than we've had before, and this is not the end. The creation of the permanent access center is vitally important."
At 11am Randy Leonard moved, with support from Sam Adams, to amend the report to open Pioneer Square's restroom overnight. He said the intent of his motion was to go ahead and implement the report and the ordinance on the condition that the Pioneer Square restroom would be open 30 days from now to augment the existing City Hall Restroom. "It shouldn't be a point of controversy," he said.
Adams voted against it but said he appreciated the sentiment behind it. "I'd like to see more focus on an additional restroom further towards Old Town Chinatown," he said.
Potter and Saltzman voted no.
Saltzman said: "I think that we've reached the milestones for this committee but it's time to accept this report as is, and move on. This committee has labored long and hard but it's time to move on."
The report was accepted, 3-1 (Leonard, no, Saltzman, Potter, Adams, yes), so enforcement can now begin.
Potter says the committee has met his expectations, and that more people have become interested in finding solutions to the problem. "I see what we're doing today as part of the ten year plan to end homelessness. And my commitment is to work with the community to ensure that as we move along, we do it as much in collaboration as we can. But we've not solved this problem. We've opened the door to solve other problems in this community."
Comments
I plan to test the theory as soon as Brooks Brothers opens. For the record, I LOOK AMAZING in a Seersucker. Even if I haven't washed for a week.
You'd all better save a spot then. I can't wait to stretch out and relax in front of Brooks Brothers!
What will happen if hundreds or thousands of us go downtown and all lay on the sidewalk at once?
Batons and tear gas, no doubt.
I bet I will have some interaction with PPI and or PPD over this ordnance.
Being as I have been (and soon to be again) a private resident of the downtown area and do work for a company with offices in downtown I am in the "neighborhood" a lot. I could easily be mistaken by those who are unwise and with poor olfactory senses (I shower at a minimum daily) as the type of person targeted by this ordnance, because lets be honest this isn't just about homeless people, it's about anyone who seems unsavory.
If or when I have to face this stupid ordnance I will politely tell someone who tries to "move me along" to take a hike.
Dex: Please take pictures. And write me about what happens, at mdavis@portlandmercury.com.
If more than three homeless people sit together in one spot and claim they are involved in a protest, then it's outside the bounds of the law as "free speech activity."
Which, aside from meaning council is making arbitrary judgments about when it's okay to infringe someone's civil rights, also highlights the utter ridiculousness of this law. It's a simple "fuck you" designed to move homeless people out of the way—people who don't have the will to organize themselves and resist.
When we think about civil rights abuses, most of us think of the 1950s, but what's going on right in front of our noses with the poor is just as bad. And I don't think history will judge us any better on it.
Incidentally, I should add that Patrick Nolen of Sisters of the Road, who testified in council today, has done outreach to more than 1500 homeless people on the ordinance. So it's not like he's out of touch with his constituency.
Why don't they just lure the homeless out of the downtown area by waving free liquor and wafting burritos in from of them?
Because contrary to stereotypes, not all of them drink. Sisters' book, "Voices From The Street," has some interesting statistics that refute most people's perceptions of homeless' drinking.
Matt,
thanks for the comment about the 1,500 people outreached to. Although Sisters has always made its view of our city not needing a Sidewalk Obstruction ordinance clear, we have also made it clear that we feel it is important that groups like us, are at the table when our community is being discussed. I, as the rest of the committee, have taken my role on the SAFE Oversight Committee very seriously. Genny, Neil and I have been involved in all aspects of this, working for our communities' needs and wishes.
we were involved in the RFP proccess, the bench sighting, the original 24 hour restroom concept and advocacy of it, amongst many other valuable additions to this proccess.
Am I happy for a Sidewalk Obstruction ordinance? no, but I am happy and feel a bit of hope, both because of the gains we have made, and because we feel that our voice and voices like ours is more and more wanted and expected at the table.
thanks
Patrick
I lived next door to a homeless shelter for a year and had to deal with homeless people passing out in my front yard, passing out on my porch, we had a knife covered in blood thrown into our yard, garbage tossed in our yard daily, and car break ins during the day while groups of homeless people lay 10-15 feet away. The answer to the problem is for this community and this state to stop offering services. Unless you have had to deal with the homeless situation either with your business or home, you should keep your opinion to yourself if you feel so inclined, invite a homeless person to live with you if you really want to be a good samaritan.
Hear hear to post 11. Homeless bums here have some holier-than-thou sense of entitlement which makes me cringe. Too many people here think they deserve charity services even though many of them actively chose to live the way they are. It doesn't take too long of watching these people to know that not many of them are mentally ill or otherwise afflicted in a way that keeps them from holding a job and being a member of society in general. They are straight out LAZY. I'm tired of smelling their piss, empty beer bottles, cigarettes and weed (gotta love broke people getting pot). Sit/Lie is a good start but the property owners need to boot out their bleeding heart tenants who run these boo-hoo services for the "needy".
Tired,
I was homeless for 8 years. I have vollunteered, been a member of the board of directors, and worked for Sisters Of The Road in the heart of the Old Town/Chinatown neighborhood for the last five. I understand homelessness from both a business and the level of a person witnessing it.
I respect your worries, I have never lived or slept in a shelter, I was always to affraid after I waited in line for three hours one night only to be driven off by an knife fight.
what I disagree with you on is the sollution. having been homeless and having spent the last few years trying to figure out what a good sollution is, I feel I have a decent incite in to what a sollution or partial sollution to this problem would look like.
I feel that one of the big problems is that you get what you pay for. If we expect people to pee and poop outside, live without the dignitys that come so easy to we who are currently housed such as paying our own way and having our own space, sleep with one eye open to protect themselves, perform for meals and congegrate in places only that are deemed appropriate, then we have to expect a decay in the way those same people react to things.
we are treating them like animals. when you treat someone like an animal, it has been my expierence that eventually they start acting as one.
there are things I said and did while homeless that I regret today, not because I feel ashamed that I was homeless or that I smelled funny, or wore the same clothes for a week at a time, but because I feel bad for the people that I hurt because I allowed myself to be convinced that I was a "lesser than" and act as expected.
thanks
Patrick
In no way do I think that homeless people are somehow not equal as people. However; I don't believe that equality means regular working citizens should all pay an equal share of expenses for the homeless. Apparently everyone is weary of the homeless...including patrick. Whenever I walk by a homeless person I worry about getting stabbed. In fact, I once was pulled over for a traffic stop, and would have received a ticket but a HOMELESS PERSON STABBED SOMEONE and they were looking for him and didn't have time to write a ticket. So I guess I have the homeless to thank for one thing..to bad i have 20 times as many reasons not to be thankful for them.
How many times do people need to point out that advocacy is not about you or an organization. It's funny to me to see all these advocates talking about how they are involved in a process and the history they or their organization has. None of that matters if you are not willing to stand up to the power brokers and do the unpopular thing.
The entire SAFE process was a joke.
How many times do people need to point out that advocacy is not about you or an organization. It's funny to me to see all these advocates talking about how they are involved in a process and the history they or their organization has. None of that matters if you are not willing to stand up to the power brokers and do the unpopular thing.
The entire SAFE process was a joke.
I lived in downtown Indianapolis for two years, at the nexus of that town's network of shelters, methadone centers and outreach programs. Their clientele included lots and lots of homeless veterans who eked out a living as lab rats for Eli Lilly's drug research.
So I suppose I qualify to speak under Tired's limited definition of who should or shouldn't keep his opinion to himself.
Portland's homeless nexus, Old Town/Chinatown, has always felt sketchy to me, but not because of the homeless. Same with that corner of downtown Indianapolis. Shelters and such are never located in someplace like the West Hills -- ever notice that? They're always in places you'd rather not walk at night.
The homeless are not a safety problem. Nobody sitting or lying on a sidewalk is a safety problem. At worst, they're a cosmetic problem for commercial interests. And I don't think people with badges and guns should be empowered to enforce cosmetic standards for Brooks Brothers. It's a waste of law enforcement.
Tired, Logan 5: I'm surprised at your comments, because I don't see where they can be coming from. I just can't imagine feeling like you do about these people.
The idea that homeless people are lazy or deserve to be in their position is the reason you feel justified in being so angry towards them, and treating them like problems to be treated, rather than human beings.
I defer to Patrick's comment for the appropriate response: "We are treating them like animals. when you treat someone like an animal, it has been my experience that eventually they start acting as one."
If the PBA and the city politicos spent as much time, money and effort working with the county to restore mental health services as they have on this bullshit we would actually be making real progress on the homeless problem.
Jeez, Dave. You sure you don't want to run for mayor?
First off, there are some really great comments in here. I am a home-owner and resident in Old Town/Chinatown (yes there are some of us who live there all the time). It's a great and diverse area of the city, and I love it.
I am right across the street from Blanchet house and a block from The Palms Hotel. For Chinatown, that qualifies as "the thick of it". There are a lot of established social services in the area, and though they can seem scary and unwanted, they are not the source of the problem I see every day as I leave my home, and return.
Frankly, and I wish this was not the case, the people sleeping in doorways, sprawled on the sidewalks, loitering on the corners of 4th & Burnside, Davis, and Everett (among others) are where the vast majority of conflicts, and unsavory situations arise. It isn't the people in line at Blanchet, or those who live art the Palms (though the police and medics show up there regularly). It's very often those people who are going to get told to keep walking by the Sit/Lie enforcement.
The enforcement of this stopped early in the year in Old Town. I noticed a dramatic rise in street fights, puddles of urine, and general dirtiness of the area. Both in my perception and in actuality. It has unfortunately become a much less safe-feeling place. I've live here for 3 years, and the last 9 months have been the most uncomfortable in the district.
This isn't the fault of homeless people. There's a lot going on, including massive construction for the Max, and a shift in the Bus Mall. All of those things plus Sit/Lie add up. But I really do have to say I think it is crucial for a neighborhood to feel as safe and clean as possible in order for it to grow and flourish. In a place like Old Town, sit/lie makes a lot of sense and I welcome its return.
But it's also clear that the Portland Business Alliance has a lot of influence here, and they're not really thinking about Old Town. Old Town is the place that needs the effort, and it's where the problem is the most acute. The social service options available deserve our attention, and the people there deserve things like public bathrooms.
That said, the residents and visitors deserve clean streets and are right to demand safety.
S
It's always a tradeoff. Everything is.
I'm curious how much of what Sasha is describing is safety and how much is the perception of safety. How much is danger, and how much is just fear? "Street fights" aren't safe to be in, of course; "puddles of urine" could carry disease. But what percentage of crimes against persons in Old Town/Chinatown are homeless-on-homeless crime, and what percentage are homeless-on-homedweller? Maybe Matt can look that up.
I've never felt afraid of people sitting or lying on a sidewalk. How afraid should I feel?
I am an American Asian and was told to "go home to my country" when I ignored the homeless panhandler and walked by. Is this the so called free speech??? Why should I respect these people? Respect should be earned. And I do not respect these homeless kids and panhandlers, that do not want to follow any rules and expect our hard-earned money given to them.
Just recently, a Street Root vendor made the same exact remark when I told him to not jump in front of me to sell his newspaper. Did they all go to the same School for Racist Pigs? Mind you, the Street Root vendor is Afro-American!!!
Is this what our forefathers intended our First Amendment for:to be used to verbally abuse and offend other fellow Americans?
Tham,
Yes, that's free speech. It's often ugly. And judging by the tone of American politics since about 1789, it appears to be what the forefathers intended. (Oregon free-speech laws are even more permissive than the First Amendment.)
I notice you don't say you felt threatened or afraid, just offended. I'm glad to hear that, at least.
Will,
I think that's a very important distinction. A lot of this is more about the perception of fear, both of the unknown (homeless appear scary to the uninitiated) and of valid things such as crime (whether by association or in actuality).
They're intertwined, but I believe sit-lie is more about the perception.
S
Shelters and such are never located in someplace like the West Hills -- ever notice that? They're always in places you'd rather not walk at night.
They're usually in places you don't want to walk at night because that's where the homeless people are... and the homeless people are there because that's where the services are. And so on. Put a shelter in West Hills and both the neighbors and the population it's designed to serve would complain.
I did come off a bit angry and for that I apologize. But I stand by the gist of my statements. I try to gauge a situation completely before making such a broad judgment which in this case means I sit around where the homeless congregate and pay attention to what kind of people they truly are. I understand that there are plenty of people who need help but I still feel that the majority of people downtown who beg for handouts truly are capable of holding a job. And I also believe that even though they are homeless, they have an attitude that many jobs are below them, such as farm work - there are plenty of jobs available in that field BTW (no pun intended). This may just be the cloud that comes with the silver lining of having so many people around here who care about the less fortunate.
Logan5:
"I did come off a bit angry and for that I apologize": You came across as a dick. Personally, I can accept your apology nonetheless.
"I try to gauge a situation completely before making such a broad judgment which in this case means I sit around where the homeless congregate...": Can't do that anymore, eh?
"...and pay attention to what kind of people they truly are": You're the guy who can tell by watching someone whether they're mentally ill, correct?...
"I understand that there are plenty of people who need help...": ...So can you also tell which ones do need help and which ones don't?
"...but I still feel that the majority of people downtown who beg for handouts truly are capable of holding a job": Hard to get one when you can't get a shower, much less a permanent residence for your resume. But, hey, they should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and... um... something. RIGHT??
"And I also believe...": Beliefs are good. I like facts, myself.
"...that even though they are homeless, they have an attitude that many jobs are below them, such as farm work...": Does that belief come from facts or from your curbside psychoanalyses?
"This may just be the cloud that comes with the silver lining of having so many people around here who care about the less fortunate": Logan, are you standing by your statement in favor of booting out "bleeding heart tenants who run these boo-hoo services for the 'needy'"? Please tell us exactly how that would make things better. For anybody. Where would the homeless go? Would they all jump the first freight train south and wind up in, let's say, Salinas? Would they stop sleeping in our doorways and pissing in our streets? Would they dust themselves off and suddenly start writing ad copy for Wieden+Kennedy?
You've established your belief that homelessness is (often) a lifestyle choice. Not once have you suggested it's a public-safety hazard (other than the ubiquitous "piss" issue, which the City Council potties of course will take care of). It's a morality issue with you. It's a safety issue with me, but in a sense it's also moral: If people are not hurting other people, LEAVE THEM ALONE.
Logan,
Where are those farm jobs? I would love to point people in that direction?
Israel Bayer
Street Roots
Israel, if you're looking for specific farms, I couldn't tell you. The video just mentions Hood River/Parkdale and "100s" of growers. A quick drive up the Fruit Loop and I'm sure there will be signs up.
For the future, perhaps the growers out there could get together and build a small place for the workers to stay, ala the Edgefield back in the day.
I already mentioned where they can go to work and they certainly don't need to be in front of Rite Aid or under the Burnside Bridge and not downtown at all. If a person can stand and carry a backpack, that person can pick fruit. Laziness and self-righteousness are not mental illnesses. It doesn't take a PhD to determine that.
Yes, I do stand by my statement about closing the shelters downtown. They would be more useful around areas where many jobs actually exist. As mentioned before, a work house in the Hood River area would do wonders. And it would remove the blight on a valuable business area which provides even more revenue for those who have the interest in helping the less fortunate through donations, etc.
As people most defiantly migrate here because of the ease of obtaining a handout in liberal cities (Santa Cruz is another good example of a city like this and look at the mess that happened there), yes, I do believe they would move on if the freebies stopped. Salinas would be a wonderful choice as there's plenty of jobs there and the cost of living is lower allowing an easier transition back to normal life.
If Israel finds a way to connect Portland's homeless to jobs on the other side of Mt. Hood, I hope Street Roots runs it right on the front page.
Last I checked, it takes at least a psychiatric nurse practitioner to determine mental illness. I don't accept your diagnoses, Dr. Logan.
Nothing you've posted makes me think your position is based on anything other than a) cosmetics ("the blight on a valuable business area"), or b) morality ("Laziness and self-righteousness..."). There's a case to be made for cosmetic standards in a business district; it should not be the police's role to enforce (your) dress code, or to enforce (your) morality.
The sit/lie ordinance is only legitimate if there is a public-safety reason for it. I still don't see one.
I never stated that my opinion was a professional one, it's just based on my life experience and empirical evidence. It should be noted that people just like me vote on issues like these so our "unprofessional" input is most definitely valid. I would be more then happy to consider the input of a formally educated counselor but know that they often lean towards "mental illness" as a description for typical human ups and downs in emotions. And I have a psychologist and 40 year volunteer counselor (to the homeless and imprisoned no less) in my immediate family to back me up on that.
Perception is pretty much everything in this world and the smell of urine, feces and unkempt people is offensive and unsafe as it cultivates a certain level of fear. But for whatever reasons they have, most people don't want to live in a city where that type of environment prevails. That's why we create laws and ordinances, to keep things predictable. And that means safe.
I thought this ordinance was simply to validate the legality of allowing law enforcement to arrest. I certainly hope the cops and the private henchmen (they are another story) aren't going to just arbitrarily pick people off the sidewalk but instead use the ordinance to take care of egregious offenders. That will be another problem if they do but they do need these legal tools on hand at the moment.
"I never stated that my opinion was a professional one...": Correct. The "Doctor" bit was sarcasm on my part.
"...it's just based on my life experience and empirical evidence": My own opinion is also based on life experience and empirical evidence. So we're even.
"I certainly hope the cops and the private henchmen (they are another story) aren't going to just arbitrarily pick people off the sidewalk...": We agree on something, at last. Thanks.
When some cop or wanna-be sticks a PR-24 into the ribs of a Street Roots salesman and tells him to "move along," we'll get a test case. And you KNOW something like that's going to happen, Logan. It's just a matter of time.
"...but instead use the ordinance to take care of egregious offenders": The "egregious offenders" once again fall into that gray area of mental illness/drug addictiom/"Laziness and self-righteousness." And I can't accept that those egregious offenses merit police intervention. You can. Good for you, because your side won this round. My side lost, because the public didn't turn out to counter the PBA's evil scheme. Bad on us. Bad on me, because I didn't show up to rail against the plan. I don't live or work Downtown.
At this point the discussion is moot, because the law is on the books, for better or for worse. To me, it's stone bullshit. I wish Israel and Patrick well in the good work they're doing. And I can only tip my fedora in Matt's general direction, for keeping this story more or less in the public's face; his reporting on this travesty has been zealous, if not effective.
"He was zealous, if not effective."
we have the same problems in Ashland. liberal city, nice park, doting tourists... even have a name for the dirty kids that come to town every summer to play "vagrant" we call 'em CRUSTIES
sorry, no homeless shelter here, keep on riding by.
"As people most defiantly migrate here because of the ease of obtaining a handout in liberal cities (Santa Cruz is another good example of a city like this and look at the mess that happened there), yes, I do believe they would move on if the freebies stopped. Salinas would be a wonderful choice as there's plenty of jobs there and the cost of living is lower allowing an easier transition back to normal life."
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).
Our Friends
- UrbanHonking
- Your Daily Awesome
- Portland Metroblogs
- Hype Machine
- Lelo in NoPo
- Furious Nads!
- Oregon Media Insiders
- Huffington Post
- Loaded Orygun
- Food Fight Grocery
- Jesus Christ's Blog
- Willamette Week
- BlueOregon
- Pampelmoose
- The Etchasketchist
Our Enemies
- Russian Amputee Brides
- God Hates Fags (Westboro Baptist Church)
- Portland Indy Media
- Oregon Republican Party
- Jack Bog's Blog
- The Stranger
- Men Who Look Like Kenny Rogers
- Any Dumbass Still Using MySpace
- Portland Monthly
- Life Decisions International
- Courtney Taylor-Taylor
- The Earthly Minions of Emperor Klaktu
All contents © 2006 Index Publishing • Privacy Policy • Contact Info • Production Guidelines
So what about the people who are carrying around multiple bags of Seersuckers they bought at Brooks Brothers? If they sit down to rest in between shopping destinations will they be told to move along, or does this law only apply to those that look like they don't take daily showers?