I can't possibly see a repeal happening, at least not in the next few years. Governor Kotek was the chief sponsor of HB3115, and though the Democrats lost their supermajority in the legislature, there's no way a repeal would get through. It would need to be written as a bill in a referendum to be voted on in a ballot measure. This would take months of work. I imagine Kotek, the Democrats in the legislature, and most politicians in the NW part of the state would fight it, and a campaign to keep the law in place would be well funded as well (as this article shows, there's apparently plenty of money). Even if the measure rescinding it were voted on, and passed, a lawsuit would immediately be filed, and sent to state courts, most of which have shown what could be called "left-leaning" when there's any doubt. So the bill could possibly be doa even if passed. The only way Martin v. Boise will be altered is by counter lawsuits and law enforcement. Laws coming against other laws. For example, the ADA lawsuit being filed. Anti-litter laws that exist, etc. While many homeless people are just down on their luck, a great many more are addicts, and with that comes a lot of petty crime, specifically theft and shoplifting, so a hard push to stop that would be another step.
HB3115 was Tina Kotek's baby. And she wants to be the Governor for the whole state? She should ask the legislature to rescind it, and her statewide destruction of single family neighborhoods should be next.
Great article. One clarification though. So a city only needs to have open shelter spots before enforcement of a no camping law can occur right? You seem to imply that a city has to have open beds for ALL the homeless in their area before they can enforce their no camping laws. Some towns enforce their camping bans every day until such time shelters are full. That means we in Portland could enforce a no camping ban the majority of the time as we usually have shelter spots open.
It is not clear exactly WHAT the 9th meant, and unfortunately every city and county have run like cowards and simply stopped doing ANY enforcement, when clearly that is not what is required.
This is a common governmental response to a court decision that says, essentially, "tread carefully IF you do X." All too often the legal advice those municipalities get is to do NOTHING, and thereby avoid incurring the wrath of the court.
There can’t be anyone who truly thinks that this US Supreme Court, if it agreed to hear a case, would come to a conclusion that the government has a duty to provide a place to live for anyone, anytime, or that people have a constitutional right to expect government to provide such things. So isn’t the more important thing to do is find or create a situation and case to get heard at SCOTUS? We need a rational locality in Oregon or another state to push this.
From your lips to God's ears. I knew at the time that HB3115 would saddle municipalities with greater restrictions than those found in the Boise decision.
Willamette Week is reporting that the city of Portland has reached a tentative settlement with the parties who sued the city to enforce the ADA:
"[The terms] include: the city prioritizing the clearing of sidewalk-blocking camps and setting up a hotline to report such campsites (the city already operates an online portal for that purpose); the city allocating at least $3 million annually to remove tents; the city publishing annual reports to track its compliance with the settlement; and each plaintiff receiving $5,000 and reimbursement for attorney fees."
If I were a party to the case, I wouldn't be enthused about the proposed settlement. Disabled people whose paths are obstructed by homeless people don't need prioritized camp clearances. They need obstacle-free sidewalks right then and there. At the moment the problem isn't Boise but local governments' long-term bungling of the homeless crisis, most notably the failure to provide stable shelter for the unhoused.
The $3 million proposed for funding the removal of tents doesn't seem like nearly enough, particularly in relation to the tens of millions of dollars local governments have failed to spend to get the homeless of the streets.
It's likely the usual radical homeless activists will turn out in force when City Council deliberates on May 31 whether or not to approve the settlement. They will, as usual, tell lies, half-truths and deploy thought-ending rhetoric (e.g. "criminalizing poverty"). The Oregonian may do a hit job on the settlement the way it did when the camping ban was first proposed last October, reporting selectively in a way that benefits the activists and presenting supporters of the settlement in a bad light.
Or not - perhaps they've gotten the word that between Rene, Mingus and Ted the tide is turning against those who want to see unregulated encampments persist forever.
As one of the plaintiffs, my perspective is that this agreement is far from perfect, but it was the best we would likely get - certainly in any relevant timeframe (about 8 months from filing to a Federally sanctioned agreement). The perpetually aggrieved will be there next Wednesday, but we have 3, maybe 4, sure votes and they are working on getting all 5 votes. The vast majority of the city is behind us (says independent polling) and, I believe, the 83-17 demolition on the Cap Gains tax is also a reflection of a change in the way the wind is blowing.
P.s. 8 million first year; 3 million thereafter, thinking that the year 1 push will get most of the folks that will go to the camps, but not the hard core feral. The annual 3 million will focus on the hard core rest.
We really had to “stay in our lane” and not try and solve all of the problems with this agreement.
Thank you very much for your insights. I plan to write the mayor and the other commissioners first thing tomorrow to urge them to approve the settlement.
I've taken to calling the perpetually aggrieved anarcho-libertarians because it's the only way to capture their politics. They appear to see themselves as fighting a class war to secure for the houseless the right to unregulated camping in perpetuity. Simultaneously, they're using the homeless (or addicts or the mentally ill or even criminals) as pawns in their fight against governmental authority in general. Activist reporters parrot their thought-ending talking points and present government and business in a bad light. This state of affairs just can't be allowed to continue.
And the local homeless nonprofits are using the street homeless as their money ticket to keep taxpayer $$ flowing to them. They have a motive to keep people on the street. The more there are in cruel street camps, the more money they say they need.
Not sure I’d agree with the part about governmental authority. A good part of this crowd LOVES weaponizing the levers of governance to extract money and explicitly or implicitly reduce citizen rights and any influence contrary to the Progressive narrative(s).
MANY of the violent and screachingly aggrieved are recipients of the NGO grift. Race, climate, gender, class grievance grifters extracting regular and sizable money from our common coffers.
Your last sentence captures my sentiments well. I believe the vast majority of Portlanders agree - finally sick and tired of the destructive ideology/policy regularly and harmfully instituted by Progressives.
DWT is not cheap, that is for sure. John DiLorenzo doesn’t take cases he isn’t going to win. He is a good lawyer, well connected and plugged in politically.
This case has been talked about for some time - it was only in the last year or so the political winds made it viable. The ADA civil rights violations are blantant, obvious and actually quite systemic. I had a representative from the DOJ out in March 2022; I walked him around - he said, “no doubt about it.”
I sued on behalf of my friend I take care of; which is to say I am able bodied. My fellow plaintiffs have real and significant disabilities, but none of them are sheep being used by “big business” as some from the media have portrayed. Lead plaintiff Tina Tozier is a lioness badass (Para-Olympian) These people fought for the basic right to get around that the rest of us take for granted; a right Progressives raped.
It’s come down to $. The homeless nonprofits don’t want their taxpayer $$$ to go away so they’ll do anything to keep people on the cruel streets in perpetuity. They need them there so they can fund their salaries, paid vacations, generous health insurance benefits, and 401(k) plans
I can't possibly see a repeal happening, at least not in the next few years. Governor Kotek was the chief sponsor of HB3115, and though the Democrats lost their supermajority in the legislature, there's no way a repeal would get through. It would need to be written as a bill in a referendum to be voted on in a ballot measure. This would take months of work. I imagine Kotek, the Democrats in the legislature, and most politicians in the NW part of the state would fight it, and a campaign to keep the law in place would be well funded as well (as this article shows, there's apparently plenty of money). Even if the measure rescinding it were voted on, and passed, a lawsuit would immediately be filed, and sent to state courts, most of which have shown what could be called "left-leaning" when there's any doubt. So the bill could possibly be doa even if passed. The only way Martin v. Boise will be altered is by counter lawsuits and law enforcement. Laws coming against other laws. For example, the ADA lawsuit being filed. Anti-litter laws that exist, etc. While many homeless people are just down on their luck, a great many more are addicts, and with that comes a lot of petty crime, specifically theft and shoplifting, so a hard push to stop that would be another step.
HB3115 was Tina Kotek's baby. And she wants to be the Governor for the whole state? She should ask the legislature to rescind it, and her statewide destruction of single family neighborhoods should be next.
I think we need 2 repeal measures on our ballot.
HB 3115 and Measure 110.
In passing:
https://twitter.com/kevinvdahlgren/status/1609300954112987137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1609300954112987137%7Ctwgr%5Ed0e7fa85757496ada88d52e037897017a62dcce3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2Fvictoria-taft%2F2023%2F05%2F24%2Fremember-the-homeless-addict-who-said-portland-was-loving-them-to-death-weve-got-an-update-n1697702
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2023/05/24/remember-the-homeless-addict-who-said-portland-was-loving-them-to-death-weve-got-an-update-n1697702
Great article. One clarification though. So a city only needs to have open shelter spots before enforcement of a no camping law can occur right? You seem to imply that a city has to have open beds for ALL the homeless in their area before they can enforce their no camping laws. Some towns enforce their camping bans every day until such time shelters are full. That means we in Portland could enforce a no camping ban the majority of the time as we usually have shelter spots open.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/investigations/260-shelter-beds-portland-homeless-arent-used/283-f028c410-3bf0-4425-bc3b-94eaeeaa10ee
It is not clear exactly WHAT the 9th meant, and unfortunately every city and county have run like cowards and simply stopped doing ANY enforcement, when clearly that is not what is required.
This is a common governmental response to a court decision that says, essentially, "tread carefully IF you do X." All too often the legal advice those municipalities get is to do NOTHING, and thereby avoid incurring the wrath of the court.
There can’t be anyone who truly thinks that this US Supreme Court, if it agreed to hear a case, would come to a conclusion that the government has a duty to provide a place to live for anyone, anytime, or that people have a constitutional right to expect government to provide such things. So isn’t the more important thing to do is find or create a situation and case to get heard at SCOTUS? We need a rational locality in Oregon or another state to push this.
From your lips to God's ears. I knew at the time that HB3115 would saddle municipalities with greater restrictions than those found in the Boise decision.
Willamette Week is reporting that the city of Portland has reached a tentative settlement with the parties who sued the city to enforce the ADA:
"[The terms] include: the city prioritizing the clearing of sidewalk-blocking camps and setting up a hotline to report such campsites (the city already operates an online portal for that purpose); the city allocating at least $3 million annually to remove tents; the city publishing annual reports to track its compliance with the settlement; and each plaintiff receiving $5,000 and reimbursement for attorney fees."
https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/05/24/city-reaches-tentative-settlement-in-americans-with-disabilities-act-lawsuit-over-sidewalks/?mc_cid=a6e6cfaf64&mc_eid=6e4c39d97a
If I were a party to the case, I wouldn't be enthused about the proposed settlement. Disabled people whose paths are obstructed by homeless people don't need prioritized camp clearances. They need obstacle-free sidewalks right then and there. At the moment the problem isn't Boise but local governments' long-term bungling of the homeless crisis, most notably the failure to provide stable shelter for the unhoused.
The $3 million proposed for funding the removal of tents doesn't seem like nearly enough, particularly in relation to the tens of millions of dollars local governments have failed to spend to get the homeless of the streets.
It's likely the usual radical homeless activists will turn out in force when City Council deliberates on May 31 whether or not to approve the settlement. They will, as usual, tell lies, half-truths and deploy thought-ending rhetoric (e.g. "criminalizing poverty"). The Oregonian may do a hit job on the settlement the way it did when the camping ban was first proposed last October, reporting selectively in a way that benefits the activists and presenting supporters of the settlement in a bad light.
Or not - perhaps they've gotten the word that between Rene, Mingus and Ted the tide is turning against those who want to see unregulated encampments persist forever.
As one of the plaintiffs, my perspective is that this agreement is far from perfect, but it was the best we would likely get - certainly in any relevant timeframe (about 8 months from filing to a Federally sanctioned agreement). The perpetually aggrieved will be there next Wednesday, but we have 3, maybe 4, sure votes and they are working on getting all 5 votes. The vast majority of the city is behind us (says independent polling) and, I believe, the 83-17 demolition on the Cap Gains tax is also a reflection of a change in the way the wind is blowing.
P.s. 8 million first year; 3 million thereafter, thinking that the year 1 push will get most of the folks that will go to the camps, but not the hard core feral. The annual 3 million will focus on the hard core rest.
We really had to “stay in our lane” and not try and solve all of the problems with this agreement.
Thank you very much for your insights. I plan to write the mayor and the other commissioners first thing tomorrow to urge them to approve the settlement.
I've taken to calling the perpetually aggrieved anarcho-libertarians because it's the only way to capture their politics. They appear to see themselves as fighting a class war to secure for the houseless the right to unregulated camping in perpetuity. Simultaneously, they're using the homeless (or addicts or the mentally ill or even criminals) as pawns in their fight against governmental authority in general. Activist reporters parrot their thought-ending talking points and present government and business in a bad light. This state of affairs just can't be allowed to continue.
And the local homeless nonprofits are using the street homeless as their money ticket to keep taxpayer $$ flowing to them. They have a motive to keep people on the street. The more there are in cruel street camps, the more money they say they need.
Thank you for writing the posse in charge!
Not sure I’d agree with the part about governmental authority. A good part of this crowd LOVES weaponizing the levers of governance to extract money and explicitly or implicitly reduce citizen rights and any influence contrary to the Progressive narrative(s).
MANY of the violent and screachingly aggrieved are recipients of the NGO grift. Race, climate, gender, class grievance grifters extracting regular and sizable money from our common coffers.
Your last sentence captures my sentiments well. I believe the vast majority of Portlanders agree - finally sick and tired of the destructive ideology/policy regularly and harmfully instituted by Progressives.
Yeah looks like the plaintiff attorney was the big winner here NOT the disabled of Portland. But I still support this “baby step”
This will be on the AM PORTLAND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. 930 AM 5/312023.
TIME TO SHOW UP AND OUTNUMBER THE HOMELESS ACTIVISTS.
City Hall is at 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204.
Sign ups to testify (in person or online) begin tomorrow 5/26/23
DWT is not cheap, that is for sure. John DiLorenzo doesn’t take cases he isn’t going to win. He is a good lawyer, well connected and plugged in politically.
This case has been talked about for some time - it was only in the last year or so the political winds made it viable. The ADA civil rights violations are blantant, obvious and actually quite systemic. I had a representative from the DOJ out in March 2022; I walked him around - he said, “no doubt about it.”
I sued on behalf of my friend I take care of; which is to say I am able bodied. My fellow plaintiffs have real and significant disabilities, but none of them are sheep being used by “big business” as some from the media have portrayed. Lead plaintiff Tina Tozier is a lioness badass (Para-Olympian) These people fought for the basic right to get around that the rest of us take for granted; a right Progressives raped.
It’s come down to $. The homeless nonprofits don’t want their taxpayer $$$ to go away so they’ll do anything to keep people on the cruel streets in perpetuity. They need them there so they can fund their salaries, paid vacations, generous health insurance benefits, and 401(k) plans