Oregon cities hoping to win new authority to restrict homeless camps are rushing to convince lawmakers to take their request seriously 鈥� and pushing a new poll they say shows change is needed.
The League of Oregon Cities is circulating data that suggest most voters disapprove of elected officials鈥� attempts to stem the state鈥檚 homeless crisis and support stronger policies to restrict camping.
But the league, which lobbies on behalf of Oregon鈥檚 241 cities, is quickly running out of time. If none of its proposals are scheduled for a future hearing by this Friday, the issue is likely dead for the year.
鈥淲e鈥檙e working the hallways and the members, and we鈥檙e asking to get this scheduled and have that conversation,鈥� said Scott Winkels, a lobbyist at the LOC. 鈥淲e鈥檙e happy to negotiate, but we do need to get this scheduled.鈥�
The league鈥檚 survey of 800 Oregon voters was conducted by DHM Research from Feb. 26 to March 4. It used phone conversations and text messages that directed voters to an online questionnaire. The margin of error is 3.5%.
Among the findings, highlighted by DHM in a summary document:
- The majority of voters aren鈥檛 happy with how officials are tackling homelessness 鈥� and take an especially dim view of the state鈥檚 efforts. The survey found 68% of respondents didn鈥檛 approve of state leaders鈥� efforts, while 62% disapproved of local leaders.
- 59% of voters support a ban on camping in public places, even if shelter space isn鈥檛 available. That wasn鈥檛 true of Democratic respondents or young voters, two groups that signaled they opposed such a policy.
- Three-quarters of voters said they supported laws that allow cities to remove camps after giving a warning to residents of the camp 鈥� a practice that is currently allowed.
- And a broad majority of respondents supported restricting camps on playgrounds (85%), near public schools (84%), and on sidewalks (78%). Voters also overwhelmingly support policies requiring campers to pick up trash in their encampments, with 95% of respondents signaling support for such a policy.
Winkels said Monday the results are a stark sign that voters are fed up with the status quo.
But homeless advocates who oppose stricter camping restrictions saw nothing new in the data.
鈥淭his polling confirms what we already know: Oregonians are frustrated with their elected leaders at all levels over the homelessness crisis,鈥� said Sybil Hebb, director of legislative advocacy at the Oregon Law Center, which represents houseless residents. 鈥淎nd Oregonians support current law, which already allows cities to set reasonable limits on camping in public spaces and sweep camps with notice.鈥�
The poll is the latest salvo in an ongoing debate over how the state should regulate homeless camping. It follows a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that the southern Oregon city of Grants Pass didn鈥檛 violate the U.S. Constitution with its anti-camping policy.
The opinion in Johnson v. Grants Pass tossed out earlier appeals court rulings that blocked local and state governments from banning camping if they couldn鈥檛 offer alternatives like shelter. In doing so, the court freed up western states controlled by those earlier rulings to more forcefully regulate camps.
Many have done just that, but little has changed in Oregon.
That鈥檚 because of when she served as House speaker. The bill set a new standard for when and how cities can sweep. Under the law, cities risk being sued if their policies are not 鈥渙bjectively reasonable,鈥� a term that is not defined in statute.
Cities have they would make rolling back the 2021 law a central goal of this year鈥檚 session. They say the policy doesn鈥檛 give them enough certainty on what kinds of policies they鈥檙e allowed to pass, and creates an ever-present risk of a lawsuit.
An attempt in Portland to ban camping between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. spurred a lawsuit from the Oregon Law Center. Before the case could play out, Portland withdrew its policy and introduced a scaled-back proposal.
Grants Pass has over its camping policies under the 2021 law.
Both Republicans and Democrats have spoken in favor of loosening Oregon鈥檚 rules 鈥� and there are plenty of bills in this year鈥檚 session aimed at allowing local governments to sweep camps more quickly. None have garnered a hearing.
The the League of Oregon Cities would require anyone suing a city over camping rules to state specifically why the policy is not 鈥渙bjectively reasonable.鈥�
It would also allow local governments to avoid lawsuits for policies that ban camping on public property between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. And it would give cities explicit authority to ban camping next to places like a city hall, fire station, library, public park or highways; or within 300 feet of a business, 500 feet of a homeless shelter and 1,000 feet of a childcare facility.
Winkels says those provisions are merely meant to be a menu of options.
鈥淎n ordinance isn鈥檛 going to contain that entire laundry list, but the ordinances are going to be tailored towards the local conditions,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o there are plenty of places where camping near a city hall in certain hours is going to be perfectly fine.鈥�
Not every city is on board with the push for more regulation. Notably, Portland Mayor Keith Wilson has said isn鈥檛 looking for a change to state law.
Neither are many Democrats with a say in housing policy. State Rep. Pam Marsh, an Ashland Democrat who chairs the House committee on housing, has said repeatedly she sees no need to roll back current law.
And House Speaker Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, said Monday that, while she鈥檚 not opposed to discussing what 鈥渞easonable鈥� means under state law, existing policies give cities plenty of power.
鈥淐ities can and are making sweeps right now of homeless camps,鈥� Fahey said. 鈥淭hey are allowed to set rules that are reasonable within their environment.鈥�
With possible opposition in the House, cities and their allies are looking to state Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene. Prozanski chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, where one bill to change state laws on camping currently sits. Asked Monday whether he plans to take up the matter, Prozanski was noncommittal.
鈥淚鈥檝e got cities that are for it and cities that are against it,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not scheduled yet.鈥�
