“Literally No Idea How to Comply”: Oregon’s Camping Bans

ORS 195.530
Written By Guest User

Across the state, the criminalization of unhoused people is spreading like wildfire.

This past month, metropolitan areas all around Oregon scrambled to make the July 1st, 2023 deadline to comply with ORS 195.530 (2021’s HB 3115), and the 2018 Martin v Boise decision. To comply, cities need to ensure that their time, place, and manner laws do not criminalize unsheltered homelessness when there are no alternative forms of shelter available.

To get around this, many cities chose to amend their overarching camp bans to daytime camp bans to meet the “objectively reasonable” qualifier in ORS 195.530. However, how reasonable is it to ban survival camping during the day? Especially when there are insufficient day use centers and services available.

ORS 195.530 also created an unanticipated side effect: cities that did not previously have a camping ban, started introducing them on record. This is one reason why we organize for Right 2 Rest Act - it sets a precedent for what our unhoused community consider to be objectively reasonable - instead of leaving it in the hands of politicians.

Below we’ll discuss how a few municipalities approached amending their camping bans to comply.

Portland

Portland City Council recently amended their daytime camping ban, effectively banning all camping from 8AM to 8PM while intensifying other camping restrictions. The geographic restrictions are sweeping, yet exceptionally unclear. During the first reading of this ordinance, ACLU lawyer Ed Johnson provided oppositional testimony, stating:  “I read ordinances and statutes for a living, and, if I had to sleep outside tonight and comply with this law, I would literally have no idea how to do that.” 

Residents deemed out of compliance with this ordinance can receive two written warnings before facing a $100 citation or up to 30 days in jail. There are no resources available to the public to indicate legal places to camp.

Woman speaking into megaphone in front of crowd of protestors holding anti-ban signs.

Community advocates outside Portland City Hall before the first reading of Mayor Wheeler’s proposed camping ban. (Credit: K. Kendall)

Beaverton

9 miles west, Beaverton simultaneously passed an even more restrictive camping ban. Whereas Portland allows two previous citations before penalty, Beaverton’s ordinance allows penalties from the first offense at the discretion of the Beaverton Police Department. Initially slated to last from 8 AM to 8 PM, Beaverton’s camping ban was lengthened during the approval process, prohibiting camping from 9 PM to 7:30 AM. To justify the change, Mayor Lacey Beaty stated “We adjusted the time based largely on feedback from our community, they're going to businesses in the morning and kids are walking to school. We kind of needed an earlier start time.” It does not appear that any unhoused people were given the same opportunity to provide feedback.

Eugene

To the south, Eugene updated their camping ban ordinance, specifying where camping is prohibited and increasing punishments for violating the ban.  Heather Quaas-Annsa, Director of Philanthropy at Community Supported Shelters, suggested that the changes could increase the frequency of sweeps and make it more difficult for people to know where they are legally allowed to camp. When asked to provide a map to combat the confusion, Councilor Randy Groves retorted “I don’t know how practical it is to develop a map that shows 10 square feet of space where someone can or cannot be.

They also doubled the fine for “willful violators” (those who violate the camping ban ordinance twice in a month) to $500.

Bend

Back in November, Bend instituted their own camping ban, outlawing camping for more than 24 hours on city property. Unhoused people must move locations by 600 feet every day and cannot camp in residentially zoned areas for any length of time.

Medford

Medford amended their camping ban ordinance earlier this year to create exceptions for the 72- hour notification requirement for camp removal, and define an “established campsite” as having existed for five days. One unique clause uses fire risk as a metric to seasonally limit camping in certain public areas. Southern Oregon’s 2020 was devastating and left many people chronically unhoused as housing stock was not replaced in a reasonable amount of time.

In Conclusion

Although anti-camping ordinances face immense critique from local residents and legal entities like the ACLU, city leaders continue to implement city codes that threaten to criminalize unsheltered homelessness. With inadequate shelter options and day use services, we are sure the legality of these ordinances will be contested.

We need legislation that centers the human rights of those most impacted. The Right to Rest Act is a suitable alternative, crafted by the people who will otherwise be inhumanely criminalized by the implementation of the above camping bans.

And, of course, we know the real solution to nationwide homelessness are homes. 

#HOUSEKEYSNOTHANDCUFFS

Resources for further reading

Guest User
Next

Meet the Reps