April 17, 2003
'Public Camping' Versus 'Obstruction As Nuisance'
Today's Portland Mercury covers the eviction of the Portland Peace Encampment, and suggests that had there been arrests, the opportunity would have arisen to challenge the city's ban on public camping:
When the police finally did arrive--a full four days later--they seized the remaining equipment, from peace signs to bins of food. But they made no arrests and did not charge anyone with a crime. Which is, some might say, too bad.
It's too bad because the Peace Camp had an opportunity to legally challenge the city's so-called camping ban. For the past decade, City Hall, Mayor Vera Katz and the police have wielded the camping ban as a means to chase away unwanteds. Backed up by the First Amendment and free speech guarantees, the Peace Camp could finally deep-six the camping ban (but first they needed to be arrested). What's more, the campers have displayed the spunk and resolve needed to challenge the city's policy.
Problem is, the city reportedly backed off on using "Camping Prohibited on Public Property and Public Rights of Way" as the means of evicting the encampment, deciding instead to rely on the "Obstructions as Nuisances" ordinance instead.
So unless the city changed its mind a second time prior to actually moving in on the encampment, the Mercury has this story wrong.