SIT/LIE LAW PUT ON HOLD
AFTER PUBLIC OBJECTION

In its original rewrite of the criminal section of the city code that governs Portland's "public order and policy" (Title 14) several months ago, the City proposed adding numerous new violations, including the "Sit/Lie" Ordinance (see PPR #26).

In hopes of strengthening the existing "walk and talk" policy of PPB, by which officers recommend to panhandlers that they seek social services, the Association for Portland Progress (APP) sent the City Attorney's office a letter suggesting a law prohibiting a person to "stand, sit, or lie on a public right of way" if it would cause a pedestrian to "reasonably take action to move around or avoid" that person (Portland Mercury, May 23). The APP, an association of downtown businesses, administered their own survey and the findings--that 62 percent of downtown merchants identified "aggressive panhandling as a serious problem that's impacted their business" (Portland Tribune, May 17)--supported their call for a stricter law. In contrast, a reporter for street roots did her own survey and found the top concern was drug dealing, not panhandling.

Because this rewrite, under the guidance of now-resigned deputy city attorney David Lesh, was ostensibly only a clean-up revision, no public announcement of changes was made and no public input was sought (Tribune, April 2). However, some citizens learned of it and objections have been widespread. Many people are outraged that the city government would attempt to change laws secretly. Others are worried about the selective enforcement this would promote as well as the disproportionate impact it would have on homeless people.

Some detractors see the Sit/Lie law as a logical absurdity. Many people obstruct pedestrian traffic. This includes people waiting for buses, people stopping to talk or window shop, people who camp out for a cherished spot on parade routes, people who stop to listen to or watch street performers, people who wait in line to buy food at the food stands, etc. Because police could not arrest or ticket all of these people, they would select whom they ticket.

The law is also possibly in violation of Oregon's free-speech protections, not to mention the right to assemble. This is why now-resigned Commissioner Charlie Hales opposed the ordinance (Sten also opposes it) (Tribune, May 17). The ACLU also objects that the ordinance is unconstitutional.

Due to public pressure, the city omitted the substantive changes to the code and passed instead only minor language and numbering amendments on May 29.

For more info call the Oregon Law Center at 503-295-2760.

Peopl e's Police Report #27 Table of Contents
People's Police Report Index Page
Return to Copwatch home page