« what is a city without its lights? | Main | alan murdock on foreign office architects »

obstruction as nuisance?

sidewalkclosed.jpg

Last year, Mayor Vera Katz created new enforcement guidelines for the "obstruction as nuisance" ordinance, which prohibits citizens from blocking pedestrian traffic on downtown sidewalks - only downtown sidewalks, in fact. We all knew which populations would be targeted: the homeless, the mentally ill, people of color, and other "untouchables." Perhaps coincidentally, these guidelines went into effect just a few shorts weeks before President Bush made a fundraising visit . . .

One year later, the mayor has strengthened enforcement again. Where before there were broad allowances for people attending events, there are now limitations. You may occupy a downtown sidewalk only for an event that lasts eight hours or less. While this might sound generous, it is actually a covert attempt to "clean up" the city's least favorite expression of free speech - the Portland Peace Encampment, a nonstop peace vigil that - until it was dismantled earlier in the week - has held strong since the first bombs were dropped in Iraq.

And just in time for Bush to visit again . . .

The major problem here - besides the obvious constitutional issues - is that Mayor Vera Katz seems to think a city is the sum total of its streets and businesses, the cleanliness and order of its grid, the sidewalks and storefronts and skyscrapers. But a city is not just a place. If that were true, then any collection of buildings and streets could rightly be called urban. Imagine you walk onto a movie set - all skyscrapers and apartment buildings, restaurants and public squares, but no people. You wouldn't call it a city, and you certainly wouldn't call it urban.

In the Winter 2003 issue of Places magazine, Nico Larco defined the major characteristics of urbanity: interaction, density, public space, variation, memory and the stranger, to name a few. The Stranger represents the experience of interacting with something or someone new - someone that might even make you uncomfortable. Or even frighten you. Can you imagine downtown Portland without the dreadlocks, the panhandlers, the punks, the protestors, the preachers and screamers and drummers? Mayor Katz, if you can't stand the noises, smells, touches and vocabularies of the stranger, then why are you here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*There is some confusion about the ordinance that was used to dismantle the Peace Camp. KBOO reports that the peace encampment was raided as a result of strict enforcement of the obstructions-as-nuisance ordinance, and the editor at Portland Communique reports the same. I believe they are correct. Now the task is to figure out whether new, tighter restrictions were invoked.

Note: Some people seem to use the term "obstruction as nuisance" and "sit-lie" interchangeably, and in my original post I used the term "sit-lie ordinance." These are not interchangeable, and in fact, there is no official "sit-lie" ordinance - only tougher enforcement of "obstruction as nuisance." I have since corrected my post. See the comments section for more.

Special thanks to Portland Communique, for thoughtful comments and good information. Check there for more.

And here is a link to Portland City Code. Go to Title 14, and you will find the Obstructions as Nuisances ordinance.

UPDATE: There is a sit-in at Portland City Hall on Friday, August 15th, at 12:00 noon. This sit-in will protest the new enforcement guidelines for the obstruction-as-nuisance ordinance. The new guidelines went into effect August 12, 2003, and were used to dismantle the Portland Peace Encampment. The new guidelines were made by the mayor, the police bureau, and the city attorneys. (And if I weren't home sick with a massive ear infection that refuses to go away - making me dizzy and sleepy and almost completely deaf - I would attending the sit-in myself).

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference obstruction as nuisance?:

» So Just What Is Going On With The Obstructions As Nuisances Ordinance Anyway? from The One True b!X's PORTLAND COMMUNIQUE
Now, I had indeed seen a small item in The Oregonian stating that the Portland Peace Encampment had been cleared this week by the Portland Police Bureau. Since the website which carries news from the... [Read More]

» Bodies, Rest and Motion from Balle
Le città sono un insieme di tante cose: di memoria, di desideri, di segni d'un linguaggio; le città sono luoghi di scambio, come spiegano tutti i libri di storia dell'economia, ma questi scambi non sono soltanto scambi di merci,... [Read More]

Comments (9)

Pretty disgusting, and sad to see this kind of thing happening in Portland, of all places. The same anti-sitting ordinances were passed here in Santa Barbara a few years back: as a matter of fact Gary Trudeau satirized the whole thing in Doonesbury... I'll look up the (digital) strips if you are interested

Thanks, Paolo. I'm definitely interested. And I agree - very sad.

Where'd this info come from (I must have missed it somehow)? I know they finally kicked out Peace Camp, but that was under strict enforcement of the obstructions-as-nuisances ordinance (one of the City ordinances used in the absence of any official sit-lie law). Where'd you get the news of these particular additions to how "sit-lie" as a concept is being enforced?

It was discussed on KBOO this morning - you might want to check for even more information there. I may be mistaken about the peace encampment, but I am fairly certain the sit-lie ordinance has been strengthened . - K.

Yeah I just did some digging on Portland Indymedia. There's some dispute as to just how and why the enforcement guidelines for Obstructions As Nuisances were changed this week. One story is that a "pilot project" which included, for lack of a better term off the top of my head, lax enforcement of Obstructions As Nuisances just ended, and so full-on enforcement guidelines went into effect. While ordinances are adopted by Council, how they are put into effect is the purview of whoever is in charge of the Bureau in question -- in this case, the Mayor, acting in her capacity as Chief of Police I suppose. Sort of like Congress passes laws, but regulatory agencies figure out the nitty-gritty of how to enact/enforce them.

Time to poke some City Hall contacts, I guess, and figure out what's what.

I just listened to the KBOO report about the Peace Encampment, and just as you say, it was under the obstructions-as-nuisance ordinance . . . mea culpa. I shall correct my post on that point. It's the same issue, though. The same problem with a mayor who doesn't understand the meaning of "urban" and "free speech." Alas. Thanks, K.

Thanks - I'll do some digging, too. The very fact that it's this confusing is a problem in and of itself . . .

There was also a call-in discussion on KBOO this morning, though I don't know if it's available online. -K

Well, we're certainly in agreement on the effect of it, regardless of what the ordinance is called. I'll see what the Police Bureau's spokesman has on it, and see if some City Hall staffers can scare up any info for me.

mmmh, can't seem to get ping to work, but the strips are at: http://www.paologardinali.com/balle/archives/000033.html#more

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on August 14, 2003 6:37 PM.

The previous post in this blog was what is a city without its lights?.

The next post in this blog is alan murdock on foreign office architects.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by Movable Type 3.32
Hosted by LivingDot