Portland City Council advanced a plan to restrict camping on public property Wednesday, following an impassioned, nearly 4-hour-long hearing that stretched into the evening.

The plan, led by Mayor Ted Wheeler, prohibits people from engaging in certain activities while camping on public property — like building fires and blocking sidewalks — and imposes criminal penalties on violators.

The Wednesday vote rejected a dueling proposal pitched by Commissioner Rene Gonzalez. It also reflects a shift in strategy from city council on how to address unsheltered homelessness in Portland, after more than a decade of debate, while federal regulations on camping bans remain in flux.

“All it takes is one look at the situation on Portland’s streets to acknowledge that the status quo is not working as well as we would like it to,” Wheeler said. “Today, this council can show that Portland can lead with urgency and accountability to put in place clearly enforceable and legal regulations to manage our public spaces.”

Wheeler’s proposal allows people to camp on public property, but only if there isn’t adequate shelter space available. This is in line with state and federal law, which currently bans cities from penalizing people for resting on public property if there isn’t shelter space available. (This is an issue in Multnomah County, which is currently short thousands of shelter beds).

The proposal also limits those camping in public from using a propane heater, digging into the ground, starting a fire, selling bicycles or car parts, blocking access to private property, and other activities. Those who violate these rules could be fined up to $100 or be sentenced to up to seven days in jail.

The hearing illuminated a growing division in City Hall between Wheeler and mayoral hopeful Gonzalez, who attempted to gut Wheeler’s plan Wednesday.

“I would like to highlight my office’s substantive concerns with Mayor Wheeler’s proposal,” Gonzalez said. “The code is based on a bad legal foundation.”

Gonzalez first floated an alternative to Wheeler’s proposal last week, proposing fines of up to $500 and six months in jail to people who violate the camping policy. His plan also gave the mayor sole power to adopt and tweak any camping policy. Wheeler’s proposal requires changes be approved by City Council.

Gonzalez had argued that granting the mayor sole authority over a camping policy would make it easier for the city to swiftly change the rule in the future, if needed.

In his final proposal, introduced as an amendment less than two hours before the hearing, Gonzalez had watered down the penalties included in his previous plans, suggesting a fine of up to $1,000 and no jail time. But it wasn’t enough to attract support to overhaul Wheeler’s plan.

Wheeler, Mapps, and Rubio all voted against Gonzalez’s amendment.

“I’m concerned that by centralizing discretionary authority under one individual instead of a legislative body …this could be [entering] perilous territory,” Rubio said.

She and Mapps pointed to the eleventh-hour changes in Gonzalez’s proposal ahead of the hearing, which gave them — and the public — little time to digest the policy.

“I think that there’s some confusion,” Mapps said, “and democracy and dialogue would benefit through more time for folks to process what is being proposed.”

Several members of the public who testified echoed this concern, calling the rushed amendment “legislation by chaos” and “disrespectful.” Many of them rejected both Gonzalez and Wheeler’s proposal for prioritizing penalties for people experiencing homelessness over offering social services and shelter. Yet several others urged commissioners to support Gonzalez’s proposal, saying that it would send a stronger message that unsheltered people are not welcome on city streets.

Council members did unanimously approve two other amendments.

One, suggested by Rubio, requires that police make data on the demographics of those arrested under this policy readily available to the public, as well as the frequency of those arrests. Another, pitched by Mapps, directs a team of executive city staff to regularly review city regulations related to homelessness and make legal and policy recommendations to the mayor about those rules.

The lawfulness of a public camping policy was central to the Wednesday hearing, due to several legal unknowns.

On Monday, the U.S Supreme Court heard arguments in a case from Grants Pass, where the city argued that penalizing unsheltered people for sleeping outside doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution — despite an earlier federal ruling saying otherwise. Justices are expected to issue a ruling in June. The outcome could fundamentally change how cities like Portland are able to regulate homeless camping.

But it wouldn’t be an immediate change. If the court rules in Grants Pass’ favor, Portland would still need to adhere to a state law that bans cities from penalizing people for resting on public property if there isn’t shelter space available. Some state lawmakers have signaled their interest in overturning that law, if the court should rule against it.

While some members of the public urged the city to wait for the Supreme Court ruling before adopting a policy, Wheeler spoke with a sense of urgency.

“We need to act now,” he said. “Every day that we delay in implementing clear reasonable regulations, we see the continued impact on our streets,” Wheeler said that applies to people experiencing homelessness in Portland as well as “every resident and every visitor to the city.”

This is the second camping policy to land in City Hall in the past year. A previous proposal, approved by City Council last June, was put on hold by a lawsuit accusing the policy of being unconstitutional. If this new policy is approved, the city will rescind last year’s proposal. It’s not clear if the new policy will face a new legal challenge.

At Wednesday’s council hearing, City Attorney Robert Taylor said he was confident the policy would withstand a legal challenge.

Other lawyers disagreed. Juan Chavez, an attorney with the Oregon Justice Resource Center, testified that he believed both Gonzalez and Wheeler’s policies violated the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

“Both are premised on survival in the city without adequate shelter,” Chavez said. “[Both] will undoubtedly face legal challenges because of those flaws.”

An attorney with the ACLU of Oregon also argued that Wheeler’s plan could be found unconstitutional if the city isn’t offering adequate shelter to those living outside.

Even Gonzalez predicted that the policy would face litigation because it is too complicated. Wheeler didn’t necessarily disagree.

“We still may get sued,” he said. “In fact, I would be somewhat surprised if we don’t get sued. However, what we tried to do here was to make sure that we have the best possible ordinance to survive that process and come out on the other side.”

The fast-tracked discussion lands at a time of heightened politicking in City Hall, where each member of City Council is either running for office or working to cement a legacy. Commissioners Gonzalez, Mapps, and Rubio are all running to replace Wheeler in 2025. Wheeler is not running for re-election. Commissioner Dan Ryan is running for a seat on city council.

City Council will vote to adopt this proposal in two weeks. If approved, the new policy will go into effect 30 days later.

News Source : https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/25/portland-city-council-approves-mayor-wheeler-camping-policy/