This Week in the Mercury
Friday, August 8, 2008
News Sit-Lie Ordinance Reduces Room To Tears
Posted by Matt Davis on Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I spent a surprisingly emotional two hours last night at the truth commission on the sit-lie ordinance, held at Sisters of the Road cafe on NW 6th and Everett. I say "surprisingly emotional," because while I've been outraged by the ordinance since before it began enforcement last August, I didn't realize how hurt I was by it, how hurtful the very idea is to a city's emotional well being.
55 people showed up to give testimony on their experiences of the ordinance, and Sisters was kind enough to provide beef stew, tomato soup, and bread for people who wanted it. There's always a special atmosphere in the cafe...but last night, it seemed to take on the raw trust of group therapy, or perhaps an AA meeting. And, as also happens at such groups, people were able to share the most difficult and powerful of emotions: Their shame.
"I saw my son downtown this morning," said Barry, an HIV positive father of four who had stopped by the cafe because he was hungry, and simply stumbled across the commission meeting. "And I was ashamed because I had holes in my pants. And I'm ashamed, because I don't want my son to grow up like me."
Barry began crying during his testimony, and I saw Sisters' community organizer Patrick Nolen reach out and take hold of his hand to give him strength, which, frankly, just bust my heart right to pieces, because Nolen is this big bear of a guy and he wrestled in college, but there was such empathy and compassion in the gesture, and all of a sudden I understood: Nolen is going to win.
It was Nolen's idea to hold the truth commission yesterday, after Sisters withdrew from the mayor's Street Access For Everyone committee back in May, describing the Sit/Lie ordinance as "morally abhorrent." Nolen, I feel, understands that we, the citizens of Portland, are shaming people like Barry with this sit/lie ordinance. And he knows how that feels, because he was homeless himself for eight years.
But here's the difference: Nolen realizes that homeless people's shame is, in fact, our shame as citizens of the city of Portland. And he'll take your judgment and your hatred, and throw it back to you as love. Nobody can win against a man like that, because you know what? A man like that is simply, and always, right.
"Portland is a very exemplary city for a lot of things," Barry continued. "But not for homeless people right now. We need to help them, not say oh, because you're homeless, you're a piece of shit. You're a piece of garbage."
By this point, tears were dribbling down my cheeks. And I really, really, really hate crying in public. More after the jump.
"I'm a veteran," said Ben, another person who testified. "I spent my time serving so that people could sit and sleep on the streets, and now we're told we can't do that. The problem with this law is that homeless people have been around for thousands of years, and no matter what you do, you're not going to get rid of them. We're being told, suddenly, that there's no place to lay your head. My suggestion would be to have the politicians live on the street for a month."
"I think the sit-lie ordinance is a social status thing, and I don't think it's fair," said Ibrahim Mubarak, who had shown up to testify in his overcoat, with a backpack containing his belongings. "People who are working on their lunch breaks come out on the sidewalks and they talk, and nobody's targeting people like them. They're criminalizing people who are homeless. It used to be that the government was for the people...we can voice our opinion, we can protest, but we need other people to step up and help us. Because if they can do this to us, they can do it to you, too..."
Speaking of politicians...fortunately, I don't think anybody saw me crying, because I wasn't the only person who appeared profoundly affected by the testimony being given. City Commissioner Nick Fish was gracious enough to attend along with staffer Jamaal Folsom, and they spent more than two hours listening to what was being said.
Afterwards, Fish told me he was there "to listen, not to speak," but admitted that the testimony had been "very powerful and very helpful." He also told me he's been grilled repeatedly on these issues by a barista at Peet's coffee on Broadway, who happens to be an avid Blogtown reader, which made me proud.
City council candidates Amanda Fritz and Charles Lewis were also present. Lewis spoke to the crowd and left, while Fritz, like Fish, simply listened for more than two hours, and stayed around afterward to talk.
"[The ordinance] makes it illegal to be sleeping and homeless," said Fritz. "And that's not okay. I would have to hear something new and compelling to renew and continue this."
It was also reassuring to see Marc Jolin, Executive Director of homeless nonprofit JOIN, sitting in the audience taking copious notes, in front of the mayor's public advocate, Jeremy Van Keuren. Both men had taken time of their own to come and listen to what was said, and I think such sincerity about the process speaks volumes for their commitment to these issues.
"I think the testimony is compelling from folks on the street," said Jolin, afterward. "And I hope they show up to the SAFE oversight committee's hearing on Monday."
The SAFE oversight committee, indeed, is holding a separate hearing to guage community responses to the ordinance next week, on Monday August 11 at 3pm, at the First Unitarian Church at 1011 SW 12th, before drafting a report to go back to city council with in September. Van Keuren, who will be facilitating at that meeting, said: "I don't have all the answers. But I think it is important to consider the perspective of these folks when we try to decide what to do with this ordinance."
Former city council candidate Jeff Bissonnette was one of three members of the truth commission, whose job it was to listen to the testimony.
"I think this was an incredibly powerful experience," he said. "To hear people talk directly about they're experiencing, what it's like to be on the street and not have a place to go. While the city has been making great efforts to deal with the issue in terms of the 10 year plan [to end homelessness], I think we need to recognize we're heading into a very different economic time."
I really, sincerely hope city council is listening to, and hearing, what was said last night.
The last time we surveyed the City Commissioners, only Randy Leonard was willing to speak out against the ordinance on civil rights grounds. But it remains unclear whether he would be willing to actually vote against its continuance in September. Meanwhile, Commissioner Dan Saltzman and mayor-elect Sam Adams are understood to be in favor of continuing the ordinance, along with Tom Potter.
But a new council, come November, comprised of Fish and, probably, Fritz, or perhaps Lewis, would most likely have two members who appear concerned by the ordinance. If Leonard's civil rights concerns could be converted into standing up and voting against the ordinance, we may well see its defeat next year.
In the meantime, I am ashamed to live in Portland, Oregon. And so, by God, should you be.
Showing 1-41 of 41
Whatever. Its not like they pay any taxes or do anything more than ask people for money and lay in the park and scare children and smell bad.
http://idrinktheline.wordpress.com/
Boo hoo. Take care of us mommy government. I didn't make these people homeless.
I give plenty to charity causes and will not take the BLAME. Shame is a strong enough motivating force for me to take care of myself and my family and not blame everybody else.
"And he'll take your judgment and your hatred, and throw it back to you as love. Nobody can win against a man like that, because you know what? A man like that is simply, and always, right."
Idrinktheline and D don't seem to get it. The whole point of the movement to get rid of the sit lie is to get the government to leave people alone. The issue is about getting rid of the city's(and its privatized police's) ability to interfere with a person who is just sitting there.
The city tried to blend the "let's give people help and give them free toilets" idea with the "lock 'em all up if they look weird" idea. That got the people like the suckers on the SAFE committee to join in. Then the city pulled the services part and just went ahead with the enforcement part. We should be ashamed of even pretending one of the city's pretend committees would be anything other than a huge waste of time and distraction from the real city decisions.
At this point no one is really asking for the citizens of Portland's money or taxes or anything like that. They are just saying leave us alone. We should encourage our government to stop wasting our city's time, energy and money running around playing pretend totalitarian state.
I'm sorry, but what does "the shame of being homeless" have to do with the sit/lie ordinance? I understand there have been crackdowns on where homeless people congregate to sleep, but I still have issue with larger groups of individuals taking over sidewalks and making it hard for people to get from one place to another, whether they're the so-called "gutter punks" downtown or people without a place to stay. I've been homeless before and I've slept on the street - it's not fun, but things get out of hand when dozens of people with nothing to lose take over an area and start calling it theirs.
IDrink and D,
as someone who was there, I would like to point out a couple of things that are important.
first, I would like to point out that there are actually a lot of homeless people that do pay taxes. saying that homeless people do not have jobs or do not pay taxes is very much one of the touch phrases that a lot of people use to reframe or spin the issue away from the important facts... like that we have people who have no place to sleep... including America's fastest growing homeless population, children. there are many people who are homeless who are underemployed and can not find a place to live with the meager ammount they earn from their low wage job... I worked for a local university while homeless, I was happy because they had showers in the employee locker room.
Secondly, laying in the park. I am of the belief that if someone has no other place to lay their head that a park is a very ok place for them to be. I dont think we should be pissed because someone has the same needs that we all do. rarely do I go a night without sleep, I think it unfair to ask others to do that.
third. there are two pieces to this D, A) I feel that the federal cuts in low income housing over the last 30 years have contributed to our homeless problem, so yes, it is something that the government may be needed to help us out of... B) this is something that your average person needs to recognize as a problem for them and their community. each person who is homeless in Portland (and elsewhere) is a human being. they are someone who has parents, has loved ones, has friends... someone who shares many common bonds with us. the moment we stop recognizing a subsect of the population as humans is the moment we start doing horrific things to each other that no person should accept.
thank you
Patrick
"But I still have issue with larger groups of individuals taking over sidewalks and making it hard for people to get from one place to another."
Meanwhile, Street Roots has a fantastic photograph of a private policeman standing next to a sign obstructing the sidewalk, with a Portland Business Alliance logo on it.
http://streetroots.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/truth-commission-offers-tears-and-insight/
The Portland Business Alliance has been the driving force behind the so-called "sit/lie" ordinance. Mike Kuykendall, the organization's vice president for downtown services, told the Oregonian last year that he thought less than 10% of the tickets given out under the ordinance would be to homeless people.
77 of the 88 citations so far have been to people without an address.
The city is yet to pursue any serious sanctions against businesses for having unpermitted A-boards outside, even though city attorney David Woboril admitted to the SAFE oversight committee that he thought they probably did fall under the sidewalk obstruction ordinance.
"The moment we stop recognizing a subsect of the population as humans is the moment we start doing horrific things to each other that no person should accept."
Or as one person giving testimony put it last night, "this ordinance is a stealthy form of genocide."
My mistake. That sign features a different logo.
The private cop is paid for by the PBA.
I'm against the sit/lie ordinance. I think the PBA and their hired stormtrooper robots are fascist. I also feel a modicum of compassion for unfortunate homeless individuals.
What I don't have patience for is a bunch of filthy, lazy pin-cushioned punks blocking the sidewalk for hours on end. I don't need an ordinance to kick your ass if you hassle me for money or refuse to let me pass freely.
Matt Davis, your platitudes are blocking the sidewalk. How about some fucking solutions, mate?
"this ordinance is a stealthy form of genocide."
Good god, Davis. You really are going above and beyond to assuage the guilt over buying that condo, aren't you?
When is an intelligent discourse going to begin on this subject? One on hand you have the oversimplified judgments of 'D' and 'I drink..', on the other you have Mr. Davis quoting, " This ordinance is a stealthy form of genocide". What the fuck!? There's a whole lot of nuance that's being ignored here. Matt you're an intelligent individual, it's time for you to stop with the over-emoting and sensationalism, and get to work. Until you start engaging in real journalism, and at least trying to see how each side sees this pretty complicated issue, we'll just continue to see this rather boring tit-for-tat, while an important and thoughtful debate on the issue never gets off the ground. I don't want you to feel picked on, but really, it's your job.
Is this still going on? Wtf, it's not acceptable to sleep on the sidewalk, period.
If I fall asleep in the middle of the sidewalk, I fully expect to be harassed, this isn't some homeless utopia here.
My whole life here people have complained about the homeless issue, worked their collective ass off to improve condditions and it's just never good enough. You ever hear homeless being appreciative of anything? I certainly haven't.
miracle minnie - BULL.
There are many things obstructing the sidewalk - unlicensed signs, unlicensed sidewalk cafes (if you don't see an orange permit card, it's unlicensed - and TED PAPAS, I AM LOOKING AT YOU), construction, those professional panhandlers for Children International, Greenpeace and Mercy Corps (you should know better!), but homeless people are a very small physical presence.
No, it's because homeless people offend the city's delicate sensibilities. The city spends all this money and grants all these tax breaks to make it a yuppie playground, and these people ruin the ambiance for everybody.
I don't particularly like being panhandled or seeing able-bodied young people going into a life on the streets, but that doesn't mean they should be cited or arrested.
What, you've never heard of Keep it Simple, Stupid? Or Occam's Razor ? Lets just ship 'em all to California and be done with it.
You all know damn well that the 'homeless' we are talking about junkies, drunks and gutter punks and not the mentally ill and those souls who truly need help. Take off the PC blinders.
As for 'oversimplified' I never said I endorsed the ordinance.
But let's do something that at least tries for a solution rather than sitting around at CITY MEETINGS crying like helpless little B1+@e$.
Good lord, when did this nation become such blubbering pansies.
"Matt you're an intelligent individual, it's time for you to stop with the over-emoting and sensationalism, and get to work."
Jason, there's only one right course of action where this ordinance is concerned. Choose your side.
I also suggest asking some holocaust survivors if they agree the 'genocide' metaphor would apply.
Matt, I agree that by way of this (or any) ordinance you can only be "for" or "against" it. The caveats lie in the drafting of these documents. I also agree that it is your right to espouse your particular beliefs on whether this ordinance is just or unjust. Hell, I also believe that this ordinance has potential for being a tool for the abuse of the people who need help more than just about anyone else in our community. The issue I have Matt, is that these simple proclamations are too facile for someone of your position and abilities. The tough mental exercise, and test of your writing abilities is getting into the gray area that defines the motive(s) behind this ordinance. Here's a hint-it's more complicated than homeless people= lazy, bad for business, etc.
idrinktheline,
I say to you that you have no ideal what so ever about homelessness, as a speaker at this event I felt that everyone who attended understood what the problems are with the Sit/Lie & Camping laws are and who the are targeting. I say WHATEVER to you as well, One day when you get your last pay check and cant afford anything and you are sleeping on the streets look me up cause I sure know were there are some good places around Portland that you can be harassed by anyone with a radio to call for back up.
I would like to thank, Patrick N. for showing the concerns that need to get out to the community and tell them and show them what is happening to the Homeless and there are people who listen.
Its called a savings account, try spending less than you earn and put money into it. And if you get laid off, get another job. Or sign up for welfare, or collect unemployment. I find it damn ponderous that you went from your last paycheck to living on the streets.
I prefer the guys who just want money for beer. At least they are honest.
I'm against the sit/lie ordinance. I think the PBA and their hired stormtrooper robots are fascist. I also feel a modicum of compassion for unfortunate homeless individuals.
What I don't have patience for is a bunch of filthy, lazy pin-cushioned punks blocking the sidewalk for hours on end. I don't need an ordinance to kick your ass if you hassle me for money or refuse to let me pass freely.
Matt Davis, your platitudes are blocking the sidewalk. How about some fucking solutions, mate?
You come up with solutions. I'm just fucking furious, right now.
"getting into the gray area that defines the motive(s) behind this ordinance. "
There is no gray area. Homeless people are bad for business. It's black and white.
It's much easier for us to be a$$hats, mad, sad or emotional about a problem that like most - require thought involving logic and rationality to solve.
And like Portland's government almost always does, they'll also take the emotional route.
In economics, when you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Like homelessness.
"they are someone who has parents, has loved ones, has friends"
I'm not attacking, but asking, why don't they stay with one of those people?
D,
maybe you did not note, but I dont think anyone who spoke was asking for something to be subsidized... actually, quite the opposite, they seem to be asking for the PBA to stop subsidizing an unfair law...
Homelessness in Portland is subsidized by the Oregon bottle bill, free needles, change givers, several private and public agencies providing services, and an overall condoning public who says one thing in the city hall meeting and another behind closed doors.
Could some of the people who are shocked by the ordinance possibly let homeless people stay in their homes? Matt, maybe you could start it off?
Dalasv,
been there and done that. I have stayed on a friends floor when I was homeless, and it helped me to get my first job back, which led me to getting housing and moving on wiht my life after my homelessness... I also have been the person who has let people stay on my couch and floor...
I think the point that you and others seem to miss about Matt's article is that this law, like a temporary shelter bed, or the anti-camping law, or even technically, letting someone sleep on your couch does not end homelessness. I would challenge you, or anyone else that wants the sit/lie law to name ONE person that this law has ended their homelessness... otherwise I would say that we have had Sit/Lie style laws for the last 20 years or so and it might be time to move on and try something different.
we are looking silly going to the same old ideas, getting the same old results, and wondering why nothing is changing.
thanks
Patrick
This is not about sympathy. It's not about morality or ethics. It's not about right and wrong, and it is most certainly not about ending homelessness.
It's fucking about whether or not we choose to continue funding private security to enforce an unconstitutional ordinance in public space. That is the crux.
Sit-lie is the police state meets the nanny state. I say no. I work hard, I pay taxes, and I want to see my tax dollars being spent on shit like schools and libraries and parks and streets.
NOT on busting folk who have done me no dirt, and whose only crime is being homeless.
I offer my assistance to help D and idrinktheline remove their heads from between their asscheeks. It's obvious they've been planted there far too long.
This is not about sympathy. It's not about morality or ethics. It's not about right and wrong, and it is most certainly not about ending homelessness.
It's fucking about whether or not we choose to continue funding private security to enforce an unconstitutional ordinance in public space. That is the crux.
Sit-lie is the police state meets the nanny state. I say no. I work hard, I pay taxes, and I want to see my tax dollars being spent on shit like schools and libraries and parks and streets.
NOT on busting folk who have done me no dirt, and whose only crime is being homeless.
I offer my assistance to help D and idrinktheline remove their heads from between their asscheeks. It's obvious they've been planted there far too long.
Sit/Lie punishes the victim. We have no safety nets that are worth a damn. Not everybody can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Most people in that situation have spent most of their lives in the regular stream of working life and have just hit a rough patch. Using degrading language on or about them is just a sign of the massive ignorance of the speaker, who is only making the situation worse.
"If Leonard's civil rights concern could be converted into standing up and voting against the ordinance, we may well see its defeat next year."
That really is not fair, Matt, to imply I voted for the ordinance last year. As I know you know, I did vote against it and have told you and others nothing has changed to cause me to vote otherwise if it should come up for a vote again.
Just as an aside, during the council debate last year, I told Patrick Nolan, Sisters of the Road and the other homeless advocates at last years council hearing on the sit/lie, that they were being misled by the business community and that I was disappointed that they were not advocating for defeat of the sit/lie for the homeless.
I warned them that without all of the agreed to amenities in place before the ordinance passed and with the inherent civil rights violations in the ordinance, that it was doomed to failure and that it was not even a close call for me to vote no.
Some of the now opponents of the sit/lie were visibly angry at me.
I hate to say I told you so....but.........
And Matt, it is fine with me if you choose not to be fair, but at least be accurate.
Randy,
I know I personally would like to say that you were right. We at Sisters wanted to give it the "college try" though as it seemed a good opportunity to see if we could make good things happen with the PBA and others.
you were correct though, and the law has done exactly as we feared, and you predicted.
Although I dont discount that there may have been other service providers that were upset over the last round at Council, I dont think that anyone at Sisters could be counted in that number. we understood where you were at on the ordinance.
thank you for commenting and following this important issue
Patrick
I'd like to add that, while it may have been a mistake for anyone in the community to have expressed support for the SAFE resolution, it doesn't absolve the City of its responsibility to implement the strategies as promised. If we were misled when we were assured that the sit-lie ordinance would not target homeless people in its enforcement, it doesn't make it our fault that it's happening. It needs to stop.
Randy,
I know you voted against the ordinance. And I'm greatful you've made a commitment here to vote against it again, next time. My beef is that I don't recall you mentioning civil rights, explicitly, as your reason for doing so. You may have fudged something out about people having the right to assemble, but you never got up and shouted "this ordinance interferes with people's civil rights."
The ordinance was bound to pass, regardless. If you'd really believed the ordinance was going to be this awful, I wish you'd have used your considerable influence and energy to persuade your friends on council that voting against it was a good idea. Isn't that what the commission form of government is all about? To stop bullies running away with the city's agenda?
Sam Adams voted for it. You guys are best pals. Why didn't you sit the poor chap down and say, "Sammy, I know you want to appear tough on crime, but there are better ways to do it."
Erik Sten would have been on your side, surely.
Your "no" vote...while I'm pleased you're clarifying your position, now, I didn't see you setting yourself on fire last time. And you're supposed to be the commissioner who stands up for the bullied.
Way to stand up for them this time, though. Do you think there's a chance the ordinance mightn't be renewed this September? Or are we going to have to wait until Amanda is elected?
Michael,
I agree. Also, is it ever okay to trade away people's civil rights for services it's only decent to provide them with?
Anyone who supports the "sit and lie" ordinance should be made to stand every time they eat.
> And Matt, it is fine with me if you choose not to
> be fair, but at least be accurate.
That ship sailed a while back.
> I know you voted against the ordinance. ... My beef
> is that I don't recall you mentioning civil rights,
> explicitly, as your reason for doing so.
And to express this "beef", you strongly implied in your published article that Leonard voted the opposite of his actual vote in order to support your tear-stained thesis. Awesome.
In addition, this is a violation of your "never apologize, never explain" rule.
In addition to that addition, this is a perfect example of why Amy needs to hire a copy editor with experience in fact checking and libel.
i'm so fucking furious i can barely make a coherent sentence, but something needs to be said here.
bullshit ordinances like sit/lie are just another way for people who have money to demonize those who don't. then you get people like 'D' and 'Idrink' who somehow think they're part of the elite. they're not. if they were, they wouldn't be posting on the effing mercury blog. the true elite have no need to defend themselves, because they're insulated with money from problems, all of which we can solve in our capitalist society with money.
when you don't have money, you have to solve your problems some other way. and those very human needs, like ones for sleep, become crimes under sit/lie. seriously? i can't believe anyone can defend that bullshit. 'you just have no right to be, because you're not feeding the economy.' FUCK YOU. the economy may be your god, but it sure as fuck isn't mine.
the solution to homelessness is to get people into housing. really. it sincerely is exactly that simple. and putting people into permanent housing actually works, unlike temporary shelters and other places where any sane person would feel unsafe and unwelcome. show of hands: who all has ever actually set foot in a homeless shelter? okay, all those with your hands down, why not? 'cause there's no fucking reason to go there, that's why. it's only one step away from incarceration.
but boy, it's the 'bootstrappers' that really frost my shorts. 'if i can pull myself up by MY bootstraps, by god anyone should be able to.' oh. well, good for you. but you know what? people living without housing right now are exactly like the people who *are* living with housing right now. how many people have you met in your life? and how many have you made friends with? a pretty small percentage, right? because most people just aren't your cup of tea. people living outside are just like that. they are people who may or may not be people you would invite to dinner, but they have a right to be just like everyone else. if they're so in your way you can't get past on the sidewalk, i'll bet you found your first thing in common. you both would like them to have somewhere else to go. that's reason enough to support permanent housing efforts, rather than scary, dangerous shelter bullshit.
homeless need housing. that's it. they're not asking to be held to a higher standard than anyone else. some of them, like some of all people, are probably folks you think are lazy. which doesn't fucking matter. lazy pieces o' shit like G.W. wind up in the white house because *they were born with money*. he's not better than anyone, he just has more money. and like nearly every other fucking person on the planet, he was born into a class and stayed there. class mobility is just one of those cute little fairy tales the Haves like to publish to keep Have-nots from getting out of the 'propping up the economy with shit-jobs' business. because once the bottom is out of that pyramid - and it seems to be crumbling now - there ain't anyone left for them to rob. they need us. they just don't want to look at us.
fuck them.
for the douchehounds who think joe homeless is such a drain on our town and such an obstacle on our bus-mall, i'm sorry but you know fuck-all about where your tax dollars are actually going. hint: they go into the pockets of members of the PBA, who use that dough to prop up their businesses. they take public money, often in the form of tax breaks no private payer would ever hope for, and by laundering it with the magic wand of business-ownership put it into their own goddammned pockets. and then cry about how the people without money who have the nerve to Be Downtown are blocking the view of their store-fronts. fuck them. seriously.
Small Group Business Coaching
Group Coaching For Businesses On A Budget!
The Group Coaching will bring several qualities into your business development: Business Coaching, Collaboration of other businesses, sounding board and multiple skill sets.
Band of the Week
Heroes & Villains
About Portland Mercury
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Comments (41) RSS