On June 5, the Springfield City Council voted to adopt a new municipal camping ordinance, specifying sections of the city where camping will be prohibited.
The new ordinance will overhaul the existing municipal code prohibiting camping on sidewalks, streets, under bridges, any other locations generally accessible to the public and on public property. This was found to be incompatible with state law after the passing of House Bill 3115 in 2021 because it was found to be objectively unreasonable.
HB 3115 requires local laws to be “objectively reasonable” as to the time, place and manner that unhoused people can camp or rest in public spaces. The bill provides avenues for people experiencing homelessness to sue if they find local camping ordinances unreasonable.
The new ordinance maintains that violators of municipal camping laws could be fined, and the decision on how much the fine will be (which can be up to $720) is to be handled on a case-by-case basis by the municipal court judge.
The high amount of the fee raised some concerns from residents, who felt it was too severe of a financial burden to even have the possibility of being placed on people who can’t afford to pay.
The most significant change in the new ordinance is that camping will be prohibited in the “Downtown Exception Area.” The exception area is a portion of Springfield stretching from the Willamette River to 8th Street, and from the Union Pacific rail tracks to the alley between C and B streets. This section of Springfield contains various residential, public and commercial buildings.
Springfield City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said during the June 5 meeting that once the ordinance was passed, the city would have to focus on communication, enforcement and providing a place where unhoused people can go –– not just making laws on where they cannot.
Councilwoman Kori Rodley is the only member who voted against the new ordinance, citing the size of the fee, which she referred to as a “poverty tax.”
“When we first started having this conversation, I remember saying that this was an opportunity for us to make things better or make things worse,” Rodley said. “I’m not entirely convinced we’re making things better yet.’’
Councilman Joe Pishioneri disagreed, saying the possibility of a higher fine gives the court more options when dealing with “repeat offenders that aren’t getting the message.”
Mayor Sean VanGordon agreed with Pishioneri, saying a first-time offender will not and should not be getting the $720 fine. VanGordon continued, saying the $720 cap will allow the judge to look at all factors and deliver a reasonable fine accordingly.
Smith said she anticipated further adjustments would be made to the ordinance in the coming months.
