Last week, Portland City Council unanimously approved new regulations for camping on public property. Effective immediately, the proposal allows people to camp on public property if there are no shelter beds available and also puts more restrictions on what is allowed while camping. This new ban limits the use of propane heaters, selling bicycle parts and blocking access to private property to name a few.
The new ban replaces one that was introduced last year, but has been put on hold due to a judge’s order. Service providers say they are concerned about the impacts these new regulations might have. Lauren Armony is the systemic change program director for Sisters of the Road. Sandra Comstock is the executive director of Hygiene4All. They both join us to share their concerns.
Note: This transcript was computer generated and edited by a volunteer.
Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud. I’m Dave Miller. Portland has new restrictions for camping on public property. The city council approved them unanimously last week, and they are now in effect, they went into effect immediately. They ban public camping if a person has access to what’s described as “reasonable alternative shelter.” But if that shelter is not available, the new rules put more restrictions on how and where people can camp.
We invited a city representative to join us to talk about the new rules. They referred us to a website about the ordinance, and told us they’ll follow up. The Portland Police Bureau also declined, writing “we are still determining what this looks like and our exact role.” So today, instead, we’re gonna get the perspectives of two service providers who work directly with people experiencing homelessness. Lauren Armony is a systemic change program director for Sisters of the Road. Sandra Comstock is the executive director of Hygiene4All. Welcome to both of you.
Sandra Comstock: Thank you. Thank you for having us.
Lauren Armony: Thank you.
Miller: Lauren first, can you explain the basics of this new ordinance as you understand them? And in particular, what’s going to be restricted in terms of camping?
Armony: So my understanding of the new ordinance is that it will come into compliance with the Martin v. Boise ruling, and also, HB 3115 passed by Oregon State Legislature in 2021. So they had to take a lot of the specific time, place, and manner elements out of the proposed daytime camping ban from last year.
So now, we have a list of activities that are generally prohibited. But we also, as you shared, have this disclaimer saying it is only effective when there are offers of reasonable shelter. And there are plenty of specifics, including you need to have everything within two feet of your tent. There are also statements sharing, you can have things packed up by you, you can have a blanket by you. We are still very unclear if that means we can have picnics or not, to be quite honest. You can have a blanket by you, folded up. But can it be under you? Can it be over you? We’re still very unclear. Also in that ordinance for updates to the parade route camping guidelines.
A lot of it was very vague and that is part of the issue of the ordinance.
Miller: Sandra, if someone has access to reasonable shelter, they cannot camp on public property or the public right of way. What does access to reasonable alternative shelter mean?
Comstock: Well, that’s a good question. Because we’ve got 10,000 people living on the streets, and 2,000, more or less, shelter beds that are available. So logically and legally speaking, we cannot find in jail the 8,000 who haven’t literally anywhere to go. Who are the police officers gonna offer shelter beds to? And how the heck are they gonna be able to offer them?
I think what we’re looking at is they’ll be enforcing it on people in acute crisis, who seem the most scary and get the most 911 calls. So in other words, our most severely mentally ill, and especially Black and Brown people in crisis, are gonna be targeted. And in effect, police will be funneling people in acute crisis into shelters, imposing harm and distress on those living in those shelters. And I don’t know anyone in those shelters who likes to be up at night from people and in distress. And I don’t know any shelter workers who look forward to situations like that. And they don’t even have the beds enforce the law. So logically, they’re gonna have to hold back 10-15% of beds, which means replacing 10% of beds for people that want them with people that don’t want them, and who are in crisis and are ill equipped to go into the shelters in the first place.
Miller: We did actually ask the city this morning, we emailed them about this particular question, because it seems so central. The question we asked was “how many shelter beds are going to be held, is that something you’re going to be doing?” And they responded in an email with this statement: “We have an ongoing agreement with our county partners that sets aside 100 congregate shelter beds for the Mayor’s Street Services Coordination Center team to utilize during outreach. Additionally, we have ongoing access to the ever growing (over 600) city shelters.”
That is a direct response there, that the plan for them is to hold at least 100 spots in congregate shelters available, say, if they’re going to be doing sweeps. That way, they would have a place to send someone. You’re saying the only way to do that is to turn away people who voluntarily want to be in those shelters.
Comstock: Exactly. You’re funneling in people that don’t want to be in shelters who are the most difficult to serve and at least likely to succeed there. And you’re keeping out other people that want to be in shelters, making shelters less livable, less desirable. And also putting shelter workers in a position where they’re gonna be hard to recruit and keep.
Miller: Lauren, there’s also the question of what constitutes a reasonable alternative shelter separate from just raw numbers. And this gets at some of the questions that folks may have heard if they listened to the oral arguments over the Grants Pass case at the Supreme Court. What if there is a congregate shelter spot available, but somebody has a serious mental health issue that makes it really hard for them to be around other people in that kind of a setting? Would that qualify as a reasonable spot?
Armony: I think we need to decide that as a society. Because based on our organization’s values, and our community’s collective experience, one shelter bed is not accessible to everyone. Like you said, people with mental health needs should be able to get that support in order to make that shelter reasonable. We have people escaping domestic violence that should not be put into congregate shelters. And we do not have enough domestic violence shelters in the Portland metro area. We have youth who faced abuse, or who are transgender, non-conforming LGBTQIA+ communities who are not able to access shelter. We do not have enough family shelter. I don’t know how we can use the raw data of number of beds to encapsulate the experiences and needs of our people who are currently experiencing unsheltered houselessness.
Comstock: Totally agree.
Miller: Although I can imagine someone saying, “well, now the goalposts are being moved again.” At first it was, if there is shelter, according to Martin V Boise, then you can have various versions of sanctions or criminalizing people if they don’t go to it. Now you’re saying it’s more complicated than that. We have to think about individual people’s circumstances, and the beds or shelters that are available to them. But where does that leave you in terms of what should happen tonight, given the number of people who are sleeping outside? Where should that leave law enforcement or social service providers who would like to help people get off the street?
Armony: You are explaining the predicament we’ve been facing for decades. We need to look at the root causes of this issue, as we look at short term solutions. Right now, a basic solution is to not forcibly displace people, because that creates more vulnerability and breeds more violence on the streets. So when we look at what should happen tonight, we need to let people who want to access shelter, access the available shelter. Then provide people the resources they need to survive the night and not threaten to punish them for not being able to access shelter that meets their needs.
Moving forward, long term, we need to figure out as a society how we’re going to address our ongoing housing crisis and mental health crisis and addiction crisis. I don’t want us to get distracted by what to do today for these long term goals.
Miller: Sandra, what about you? In a sense, the question is, as Lauren expanded it, the enormity of addressing in a long term, meaningful way, the entire issue of homelessness.
Comstock: Well, first off, logically I don’t think anyone in their right minds believes finding jailing and saddling grandma with a debt is going to help her get housed. Grandma’s problem is that she’s got a monthly social security check of $1,700 a month, and apartments in Portland cost $1,200. We have studies that show, nationally, that individual homelessness actually increases with these punishment mechanisms and laws like Portland’s passing, 1.6-8.1%. So this is no solution. We need to focus and spend that money and other money that we spend sweeping, on housing. And we can do housing vouchers right away. We can purchase buildings that are turnkey ready and we can continue to address the real issue. Because neither shelters nor policing is gonna make this problem go away. And in fact, shelters cost almost twice as much as permanent supportive housing.
If we’re really talking about changing anything, I think this is not going to change a thing that’s happening on the streets. And the politicians know that. It’s a train wreck. It’s a cynical ploy for city leaders to look like they’re doing something when they know full well it’s a costly, harmful ruse to dupe the public.
Miller: Lauren, it is worth saying again though that this was unanimous, a 5-0 vote. What does it tell you about where the city is politically, that this ordinance passed with no no votes?
Armony: I think that we have not seen any leaders locally and nationally who are willing to address this issue to the extent that it needs. We are not seeing many leaders, especially at the city or county level, arguing to take more housing out of the free market, add more money to eviction representation, advocate to lift the state preemption on local rent controls. What are our leaders doing? We see these private meetings with Portland Metro Chamber and other groups that are interested in capitalizing on developing and gentrifying Portland getting more air time and support from our city, than we’re seeing for actual citizens.
It’s very clear, it’s very blatant that, although Ted Wheeler said this ordinance was a last ditch effort to get indigent, unhoused people off the street and into shelter, how can we have a last ditch effort solution when we have a mountain to climb to actually get [inaudible] … housing. I would love for you to ask our leaders that question – what are the real barriers that aren’t just imposed by our economic system and capitalist interests?
Miller: That can be on the list of questions that I ask when we do talk to a city official about these new rules.
Sandra Comstock, just briefly – if the Supreme Court does get rid of Martin v. Boise’s requirement that there be enough shelter beds before camping can be prohibited, would you expect a different ordinance in the city of Portland?
Comstock: They might go back to the old ordinance if they scratch the Martin v. Boise. I can tell you right now that we have the studies to show that this will only increase houselessness. And right now, it’s not just people living on the streets that are saddled with this problem. It’s construction workers, preschool, kitchen, retail workers who need to stay housed and are paying more than half their salaries in rent right now. This is not just a houseless problem. This is a problem for any person that’s making less than $30 an hour.
Miller: Sandra Comstock and Lauren Armony, thanks very much.
Comstock / Armony: Thank you.
Miller: Sandra Comstock is the executive director of Hygiene4All. Lauren Armony, Sister of the Road’s systemic change director.
Contact “Think Out Loud®”
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.