Oregonians continued to speak out after the Friday, June 28, news that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a homelessness ordinance in Grants Pass, Oregon, saying the city’s prohibition on outdoor camping does not violate the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
The ruling could pave the way for stricter rules on homelessness in every Oregon community, and the ripple effect could reach across state lines.
In Sandy, Mayor Stan Pulliam expressed support of the SCOTUS decision.
“I agree with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and welcome the increased flexibility it affords to local communities to deal with the homeless crisis. That said, the lower courts ruling that local governments need to offer reasonable alternatives to those individuals needing a place to sleep is morally sound. It is imperative that state leaders make needed revisions to HB 3115 so that we can utilize the increased autonomy over our jurisdictions and do our part as local leaders to adequately address this human crisis.”
Mayoral candidate and Council President Laurie Smallwood similarly agreed with the decision, though she mistakenly attributed it to the state supreme court.
“The Oregon State Supreme Court ruling last week is certainly encouraging,” Smallwood said. “It will now be up to the State of Oregon and local governments to figure out what is next. House Bill 3115 will potentially have to be either repealed or re-evaluated as it requires cities and counties to apply an ‘objectively reasonable’ standard as to how sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm outside on public property is regulated. Basically, it requires allowing community members to sleep and rest on public (not private) property. The objectively reasonable standard is obviously up for interpretation.”
“The Sandy City Council has tightened the camping ordinance and city codes to limit areas in which camping in Sandy is allowed while still staying within the current laws that require allowing persons areas in which to sleep,” she added. “Our community partners like the AntFarm and Sandy Police Department work very diligently on assisting our homeless residents in locating services and assistance. As we all know homelessness is very complex problem caused by a number of factors and has no easy or singular solution. I hope the state uses this ruling to begin looking at serious solutions.”
Sandy’s Interim Police Chief Kim Yamashita reaffirmed the department’s process when addressing unhoused people within city limits.
"We understand the concerns of our elected officials, citizens and staff regarding the homeless matter, particularly as it pertains to trash, human waste and quality of life issues,” Yamashita said. “Given the adoption of HB3115, we remain limited in the tools available to us and continue to address concerns within the confines of the law. We utilize outreach, have two homeless liaisons and provide access to services and referrals when and wherever we can to assist those folks in our community that find themselves homeless.”
At the state level, House District 52 Rep. Jeff Helfrich agreed with the sentiments of Sandy-area leaders, showing support for the SCOTUS decision.
“Our parks were never meant to be campgrounds, and now our cities can finally begin restoring our communities' public spaces,” Helfrich wrote in a statement. “The Supreme Court's ruling is a victory for common sense and highlights what conservative leadership looks like.”
Countering Helfrich's support, House 52 Democratic Candidate Nick Walden Poublon said: "While I believe safety and security must be a central goal of every community, the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the city’s ban on outdoor camping for the homeless population is a significant setback as it addresses only the symptoms of the homelessness condition, not its root causes."
"Criminalizing homelessness without providing adequate alternatives or addressing underlying issues such as affordable housing, mental health (and) addiction services does not reflect the compassionate and inclusive values we strive for in our community," he added. "This ruling could indeed set a precedent that might encourage other cities in Oregon to adopt similar measures. I strongly advocate against such policies in our district and instead focus on housing-first policies that offer dignity and a real chance for improvement to our homeless population. Comprehensive solutions include creating temporary and safe camping sites with sanitary facilities as a transitional solution while we develop more permanent solutions, providing robust support services, including mental health and addiction treatment, job training and reintegration programs, and expanding the availability of affordable housing to reduce the risk of homelessness. Homelessness is a complex issue that requires thoughtful, compassionate policies that respect the dignity of all individuals. As a representative, I am committed to advocating for policies that not only solve problems but also uphold our values of care and respect for every community member. This commitment is unwavering and will guide my actions in addressing this pressing issue."
Others opposed to the high court’s decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson include Northwest Housing Alternatives, an affordable housing nonprofit in the Pacific Northwest.
“Northwest Housing Alternatives is deeply troubled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of targeting and systemically punishing people experiencing homelessness,” said Kelsey Heilman, the nonprofit board’s vice chair, and Trell Anderson, executive director, in a written release. “Everyone deserves a safe place to sleep at night. We know in our collective conscience that there are not enough shelters or affordable housing options in our region — and across the country. If any one of us had a family member experience homelessness, we would want them to be treated with dignity and support, not taken to jail.”
Heilman and Anderson said the court’s ruling “just made it more treacherous than ever before to be an unhoused member of our country. This ruling will needlessly criminalize and dehumanize women, seniors, veterans, the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color who experience homelessness at disproportionate rates. Children could be separated from their parents for just being a homeless family.”
Another nonprofit is taking the same tack.
“Oregon Food Bank is deeply saddened by the City of Grants Pass v. Johnson ruling, which punishes our neighbors for simply trying to survive,” said Loren Naldoza, public policy advocate. “Criminalization will harm people — especially BIPOC communities and people experiencing poverty — and will make our homelessness crisis more difficult and expensive to solve. Housing insecurity isn’t just a housing issue — it’s a key driver of hunger,” Naldoza said, referencing Black, Indigenous and people of color.
Naldoza also quoted from Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the case: “Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. For some people, sleeping outside is their only option.”
One state agency tasked with addressing homelessness and the lack of housing stock is Oregon Housing and Community Services.
“For many, we knew this day was coming, and yet it is still devastating. This is a wake-up call for all of us — cities in particular,” said Andrea Bell, executive director. “We cannot succumb to cynicism or confuse this ruling as a mandate. Many of us have either experienced the struggle to make ends meet or know someone who has. In the face of this shared reality, out-of-sight, out-of-mind positions that criminalize sleeping or sheltering in public spaces only exacerbates the experiences of homelessness.”
Bell said the agency’s position remains unchanged. “We reject homelessness as an inevitable outcome,” she said. “Every person, regardless of their background or where they come from, deserves a place to call home.”
But Senate Republicans in the Oregon Legislature praised the high court’s ruling.
“This decision recognizes the critical need for local governments to manage public spaces effectively, ensuring safety and order for all citizens,” the caucus stated in a written release. “The Court’s ruling supports the city of Grants Pass’s right to enforce ordinances that prevent public spaces from becoming unsafe and unsanitary. By upholding these regulations, the court has validated the efforts of municipalities to protect their communities while safety and dignity of people experiencing homelessness.”
Across the Columbia River in Vancouver, Wash., the city released a written statement saying the court was correct in putting the onus on municipalities, not courts: “The Supreme Court recognized that addressing homelessness is complex and best left — not to judges — but to the people and their elected representatives to regulate. This underscores the importance of continued thoughtful discussion on regulating the livability impacts of unsheltered homelessness in our community.”
Oregonians’ statements regarding the high court ruling came last week from the chair of the Multnomah County Board of Commissioners; chairs of the Oregon House and Senate housing committees; House Republicans; and Sisters of the Road, a Portland-based group that has long advocated for homeless people.
Local Oregon State
Most Popular
Comments / 0