By State Representative Rob Nosse
The recent US Supreme Court ruling upholding Grants Pass’ ban on outdoor sleeping by homeless individuals has garnered significant attention across our state. Because of the ruling, I am hearing from quite a few people who want the Oregon Legislature to amend HB 3115, a bill I supported back in 2021. At this time, I don’t think a change in the laws that HB 3115 enacted is needed.
The court’s decision allows cities to regulate and even penalize outdoor sleeping, and places the responsibility back on states and local governments for dealing with that kind of regulation city by city, absent some state standard.
This case originated out of Grants Pass in Southern Oregon. In September 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Blake v. City of Grants Pass that it is unconstitutional for cities to enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals who have no alternative shelter. This decision extended the precedent set by the landmark Martin v. City of Boise case, also out of the Ninth Circuit, which held that criminalizing sleeping outdoors when no alternative shelter is available violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Grants Pass appealed and the US Supreme Court upheld their ban on homeless residents sleeping in public space with a six to three ruling.
The ruling has most definitely created a path for stricter regulations.
Meanwhile, HB 3115 ensures that local regulations on public camping must be “objectively reasonable.” I know. I know. It’s a little vague. This basically means any rules we implement must consider the needs and circumstances of those without shelter.
In essence, we can’t penalize individuals for being in public spaces sleeping and/or camping if there is no reasonable alternative for housing and shelter—as long as few guidelines are followed. It’s a necessary safeguard to prevent policies that could further marginalize some of our most vulnerable citizens, while at the same time allowing for regulation of spaces we all use, as well for purposes of sanitation and safety.
Homelessness is a complex issue that cannot be solved through criminalization—a point that in my opinion seems to be missed by this Supreme Court decision. Overly criminalizing homelessness by imposing fines or jail time does not address the root causes and can lead to a destabilizing cascade of other injuries to houseless people—like a criminal record that makes it harder to get a job or rent an apartment. We should not be criminalizing people because they don’t have anywhere to sleep at night, provided they are not engaging in behaviors that bother others.
Not bothering others is the key. I do not support people being allowed to put a tent or RV wherever they want for lots of reasons. I do not support people being allowed to openly do hard drugs or drink to the point of intoxication in public, either.
I also don’t think we are going to have enough housing anytime soon. That is why I’ve been a strong advocate for initiatives that address homelessness through supportive and humane measures like the Safe Rest Villages and the Temporary Alternative Shelter Sites (TASS) here in SE Portland. These sites provide safe and structured environments for unhoused individuals, offering a temporary solution while longer-term housing options are developed.
I also think there’s an opportunity to utilize more of the funds from the Metro Supportive Housing Services Tax to create more sanctioned campsites and shelters. Efforts like this would aim to provide practical alternatives to unsanctioned camping, reducing the reliance on punitive measures and supporting homeless individuals with the resources they need.
At the start of May, Portland City Council unanimously approved a revised public camping ordinance that Mayor Ted Wheeler introduced. The ordinance is reasonable: “If a person has access to reasonable alternative shelter, they cannot camp on public property or the public right-of-way.”
If someone cannot access reasonable alternative shelter the city goes on to set a few restrictions on where and how people can camp. Here are a few examples of restrictions included in the city’s ordinance: people can’t camp in places that would obstruct sidewalks or businesses, maintain fires of any kind or store belongings more than two feet outside of their tent.
The bottom line is the US Supreme Court gave it back to the states and local jurisdictions to deal with the challenges of houselessness. HB 3115 maintains a balance between saying we have to treat homeless people and their situation as humanely as possible while allowing for the regulating of time, place and manner for camping in light of a lack of shelter so that we can have safety and use of our public spaces. If we were to move as a state to amend (or even go as far as to repeal) HB 3115, there will be little to no protections for homeless people who often have no other options.
Let’s work together to make Oregon a place where everyone has the opportunity for safe and stable housing. Changes to HB 3115 may be contemplated in 2025 in the legislature. Stay tuned, as I like to say, but I am not convinced they are needed. We just need to do a better job of deploying the resources/money that we have.
