Blogtown, PDX

Thursday, April 10, 2008

News Signs of Trouble: City Only Punishing Human Sidewalk Obstructions

Posted by Matt Davis on Thu, Apr 10 at 2:45 PM

The city is only punishing human beings under its sidewalk obstruction ordinance, and letting unlicensed sidewalk signs go unpunished because it doesn’t want to harm small business, according to the city’s sign specialist, speaking at this morning’s Street Access For Everyone Committee.

TWO BITS OF ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR DOWNTOWN: BUT DISPARATE PUNISHMENT…

The mayor’s office and Portland Business Alliance have been arguing all along that the sidewalk obstruction ordinance was about providing everyone equal access to the sidewalk for everyone, and that the law was not targeted at people, especially any specific group of people. But the city has yet to punish a single unlicensed sign under the ordinance. Meanwhile, it has gone after plenty of homeless people.

"Nobody from the city attorney's office ever said [the sidewalk obstruction ordinance] affected us," said Janice Dole, the city's non-electrical sign specialist, at this morning's meeting. "And when I've talked to the police before about enforcing this they said they weren't willing to have any part of it."

It's Dole's job to write the permits for 4000 sign-holders in downtown Portland. A business can pay her office $48 for a 1-year permit, $86 for a 2-year permit, or $450 for a permit that never expires. Her department walks through every commercial area on a yearly basis, checking for unlicensed signs, and if it spots them, it sends three warning letters over a 120-day period, before removing the sign and fining the business $35.

The problem is that as well as contravening the permitting process, unlicensed A-boards also contravene the new sidewalk obstruction ordinance. Under it, violations—illegal sign owners, or people sitting or lying on the sidewalk, obstructing passage—are potentially subject to a $400 fine, and there's no such thing as a warning letter or 120-day process.

"Both are laws that say you can't have something unpermitted on the sidewalk and it appears to me that one is being enforced, the other one isn't being enforced that much," says Patrick Nolen of Sisters of the Road.

With the sign portion going unenforced, "there's a perception of unfairness that if someone leaves their belongings out on the street we're threatening them with a $400 fine," said Marc Jolin, of homeless nonprofit JOIN. "But we're only fining people $35 for obstructing the sidewalk with a sign for their business, when it seems clear to me that that's also a violation of the sidewalk obstruction ordinance."

Dole also admitted stopping enforcement in Old Town/Chinatown and downtown recently at the request of the Old Town neighborhood association, "because we didn't want to make anybody go out of business," she said. Her department is supposed to only allow one sign per entrance, and the signs are supposed to be six inches from the curb. Dole said the department only responds to complaints because it "doesn't want to be unreasonable."

"It's a contradiction," said Doreen Binder of Transition Projects, inc.

In an effort to go after people with unlicensed signs, the Portland Business Alliance's Clean & Safe officers have been logging their contacts with unlicensed sign owners. In March, they logged 117 conversations with unlicensed sign owners, but the city hasn't been following up with punishments for any of them.

Here are a few signs I counted in twenty minutes walking around downtown this morning, all of which appear to be missing the city permit sticker, and don't appear to be following the city's placement rules:

SIGNS: SAME LAW, DIFFERENT TREATMENT?

Permalink

Comments

ew...you sat on the ground? it's wet!

Posted by miguelaron | April 10, 2008 3:03 PM

Matt, are you really expecting people to say "well damn, I guess we should relax our enforcement of keeping homeless from occupying permanent spots on the sidewalks in order to bring them in compliance with street signs"? Nope. We'll just start enforcing the signs.

And if you haven't noticed, those signs are portable and pack up and move once in a while. Because any other kind of usage would be an unfair dominant use of public space.

Posted by El Seven | April 10, 2008 3:04 PM

"Those signs are portable and pack up and move once in a while."

So are homeless people.

Posted by Amy J. Ruiz | April 10, 2008 3:22 PM

This is called good journalism. Keep holding our elected officials and legislators to their word. thank you.

Posted by Aaron | April 10, 2008 3:31 PM

Why does this sound familiar? What else is on the sidewalk?

Posted by martin | April 10, 2008 3:33 PM

How about arresting and fining smokers for littering? Why is this never enforced?

Posted by indy | April 10, 2008 3:54 PM

That's because we have laws that force them to move occasionally, Amy. If we didn't, every downtown sidewalk would be a permanent encampment for homeless. Why is this not clear?

Who doesn't take advantage of something free?

Posted by El Seven | April 10, 2008 3:57 PM

Indy, please explain the specific connection between littering and the sidewalk obstruction ordinance. Thanks.

Posted by Jon | April 10, 2008 4:43 PM

Simple reason for this Matt. Illegal signs represent a possible revenue increase, meaning an increase to the tax base. This makes a sign inherently more valuable to the city than a homeless person sitting down for awhile.

Once again in Portland, money talks and the people are told to walk.

However, I see a potential upside to this. For $48 a year, anyone should be able to sponsor a homeless person for a signage permit, giving that person full legal right to exist on public property.

This could generate as much as $70,000 in city revenue (using the city's official estimate of Portland's homeless), not to mention the savings on private security firms being paid to enforce bad laws. It sounds-like a win-win to me.

I am of course being sarcastic. It would be much easier, and more effective, for the Commissioners to admit they made a mistake by passing the sit-lie ordinance.

The ordinance was designed from the beginning to target homeless people, and nothing else. Anyone who says otherwise is either disingenuous or misinformed.

Sit-lie is unfair, undemocratic, possibly unconstitutional, and violates every principle which most Portlander's claim to value. It should be repealed immediately, with apologies tendered by the commissioners who passed this monstrosity.

This, however, being Portland, I'm not holding my breath.

(btw, Matt, kudos on last weeks Old Town article...one of your best.)

Richard Walden,
Board member, Old Town/Chinatown Neighborhood Association

Posted by Richard Walden | April 10, 2008 5:02 PM

I'm impressed that the Clean 'n Safe guys actually contact the businesses about their sign permits! Too bad there's no follow-up, though.

Posted by Nanah | April 10, 2008 6:31 PM

So we're supposed to let the homeless just sit all day on the sidewalk, anywhere? And what happens then, people complain that they don't feel safe, don't like to dodge the shopping carts and piles of personal belongings, don't like the increased feces and urine. Businesses complain that the homeless drive customers away. And we get another sit-lie ordinance passed.

I don't know the answer, I'm not sure there is one. While some are homeless by circumstance others are by choice. At least that's what I hear when talking to them (both here and SF). But I don't think hanging our on the sidewalk all day is their "right". Sorry if that's sounds harsh but sidewalks are for the public to move around in the city. What about everyone who needs to get around yet finds them blocked by shopping carts and personal belongings?

I'm not heartless. But really, what's the answer? If you're the city who do you respond to, tax paying citizens or transients who may or may not be citizens?

Should they enforce the sign permits, absolutely. Should they let the homeless hang out where ever? No. Could the city improve facilities for the homeless, yes. Is there a better way to have the homeless "move along" rather than sit-lie, I'm sure there is. should we ignore the law and let the homeless hangout? No.

Homelessness has been around for longer than any of us. I'm not even going to pretend to have an answer, but public spaces exist for the public benefit. If one segments use impacts the greater publics' use there is an issue.

Given the budget issues in this city we can't do everything we may think is the right thing to do. So I don't think there will every be a solution, rather an ever changing variety of ways of managing it.

Posted by jt | April 11, 2008 9:06 AM

Portland always makes me laugh, we go on and on about what a libral and progressive place we are, but when given the chance we put our hand over our wallet and walk on, not wanting anything to do with spending "our" money to get "those people" off of "our" sidewalk...
what does SAFE cost the city in hours? how much does the PBA pay their Blackwater Portland guys? I bet with all the money paid for sweeps, kicking, waking up, moving along, cleaning up after, fining, sending to court, and jailing homeless folk we could probably house quite a few of them.
now, when you consider how many of them are dealing with mental illness (is LA County Jail still the largest mental health provider in the nation?) these activities are akin to beating up the poor retarded kid in the wheelchair durring afternoon recess in high school. I hope the PBA, the city and others are proud of themselves. way to go guys.

Posted by Andy McNabb | April 11, 2008 11:04 AM

Our Friends

Our Enemies

Northwest Internal Arts offers in depth instruction in Tai Chi, Yi Quan, and Qi Gong. Classes are available in the morning, noon, and evening. 503-459-8464