If you are interested in joining our mailing list, please submit your email below.
Our friends at Portland Copwatch (a local watchdog group documenting police brutality, misconduct and collusion with City government) sent a heated letter yesterday to Mayor Charlie Hales and City Commissioners questioning the constitutionality and rash procedure in evicting our City Hall Vigil against the “Camping” Ban of over 19 months. They were on-site of our Vigil the weekend before and day of the eviction on Tuesday. Below is a copy of their email; judge for yourself if their (and our) concerns are worthy for consideration:
———- Forwarded message ———-
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:16:49
From: Portland Copwatch <
To: Mayor Charlie Hales <
Commissioner Amanda Fritz <>
Cc: Baruti Artharee, Chad Stover, Gail Shibley, News Media Subject: CONCERNS on the Rights Violations at Portland’s City Hall
Mayor Hales and Commissioner Fritz
We are writing out of deep frustration regarding the City’s eviction of the 19-month-long prayer vigil and pro-camping rights protest on the 4th Ave side of City Hall. Despite the urgings of the well-heeled folks at Channel 6, the Oregonian, other media outlets, and the Portland Business Alliance, the City still should have engaged in a more thoughtful process than unilaterally re-zoning City properties and shutting off the First Amendment rights of all Portlanders at the seat of City government. It would not surprise us if a lawsuit eventually overturns the plans to require permits for First Amendment activities while welcoming the money-making ventures of food carts onto the once-open space. (No doubt, lines at these carts will lead to difficulties entering/leaving City Hall as much if not more than the ongoing protests.)
As a group that has led or participated in dozens of rallies and news conferences on the 4th Avenue steps of City Hall, of which perhaps one or two were in any way “permitted,” we strongly object to the Office of Management and Finances rules that were apparently promulgated with no public comment period on July 19.
We further would note that the decision to reclassify the sidewalk outside City Hall (and three other buildings) as special sidewalks with only “through pedestrian zones” and nowhere to sit or lie appears to have been done in violation of ordinance #183754, and its contained City Code PCC 14A.50.030. That Code states:
The Director of the Bureau of Transportation may expand the pedestrian use zone defined into encompass an entire sidewalk, but ***only in response to a heightened threat to the life or safety of non-pedestrian users.***
While there has been a lot of talk about 100 plus complaints (including offensive, but still First Amendment protected, profanity and name calling), we doubt that these constitute a “heightened threat of the life or safety of non-pedestrian users.” In fact, it appears that the folks classified as “pedestrian users” are the ones complaining about the non-pedestrian users, not the other way around.
To make matters worse, the entire debate about the proper way to share use of the public space, which was the visionary purpose of Sit/Lie 4.0 also known as the Sidewalk Management Plan (SMP), had a venue to discuss such matters until October of 2012 which was unceremoniously dissolved and never spoken of again. Commissioner Fritz’s Sharing Public Sidewalks Advisory Committee was charged by the creating ordinance as follows:
“The Sharing Public Sidewalks Advisory Committee shall monitor the implementation and enforcement of the new sidewalk use code for Council.”
Furthermore, the Resolution passed in October 2010 leading to the SMP stated:
12. City Council will propose an ongoing program to monitor, and improve Sidewalk Management Plan, with an oversight committee including representatives from all stakeholders. Commissioner Amanda Fritz will lead discussions to outline the program and propose an ongoing Commissioner liaison to the oversight committee.
Rather than reconvene the existing Committee, the Mayor and the City forged ahead with a plan that, while thankfully not enforced through police violence as we feared, nonetheless created a step backward in building trust in the community of folks who are experiencing houselessness and their allies. (The resulting backlash was clear in the rowdy, lengthy City Council hearing held Wednesday morning July 24.) Last year when the sidewalk at City Hall was power washed, and before that when the special markers were put up restricting the use of the sidewalks, there was at least a semblance of discussion of these things since the Sidewalk Management group was still meeting then.
It has also been reported to us that the 24-hour spiritually based structure which had been on the plaza for well over a year was dismantled by corrections inmates and Hands On Portland volunteers. This seems to be another disgusting effort by City Hall of pitting disenfranchised folks against each other, in the same way the SMP was done under the guise of protecting people with disabilities against homeless people.
Finally, we want to urge the Mayor to stop looking to Salem for a solution to this issue. The courts have spoken, the Oregon and US Constitutions are clear about rights to free speech and free expression. What needs to be fixed is the Sit/Lie ordinance itself, which continues to relegate people without anywhere else to go to the curb side of the sidewalks in a city where it rains 8-9 months of the year.
We look forward to the Council retracting the currently instituted policies, revisiting the ordinance at least to re-assert the roles of various Council members (two of whom are no longer serving) and the Advisory Committee, and having a discussion on the way to move forward that doesn’t involve decisions made behind closed doors.
Thank you
Dan Handelman and Regina Hannon
for Portland Copwatch
PS We also would like to note that the Sidewalk Use City Code does not give the Transportation Director the power to re-designate sidewalks in its main body, but rather in the Definitions section (A-3). We’ve run into this troublesome use of definitions which have broad legal implications with our oversight system, both in the IPR ordinance and the DOJ Agreement. This is no way to make public policy.