Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police present sidewalk‑sitting ordinance as a noncriminal ‘tool’; councilors warn of enforcement risks for unhoused residents
Summary
Police Chief Wright urged a narrowly tailored ordinance to prohibit sitting on sidewalks in commercial districts and obstructing building entrances after voluntary offers of help are declined. Councilors pressed for data, questioned penalties and bias risks, and voted to move an amended first reading to the full council for further public comment.
Police Chief Wright presented a draft ordinance to the public safety committee that would make sitting on sidewalks in commercial zones (7 a.m. to 11 p.m.) and willful obstruction of building entrances subject to infractions, after outreach and service offers have been made. “This ordinance is a tool, not a strategy,” Chief Wright said, adding that the department’s “strategy remains outreach, service, referral and de‑escalation.”
The proposal includes six categorical exceptions—medical devices, permitted uses and events among them—and a staged penalty structure described as infractions rather than criminal charges. Wright said enforcement would follow a sequence of engagement, service referral and, only if declined repeatedly, issuance of a warning and then an infraction.
Councilors and other speakers pressed the chief and the city attorney for details. Councilor Farris asked for data showing how often outreach is offered and declined and warned the ordinance could funnel people into the justice system if services repeatedly fail. “I do not feel like this is at a place where…we would vote on this,” Farris said, citing concerns about people with mental‑health crises being unable to accept services in the moment.
Other councilors supported giving police a noncriminal tool for repeated obstructive behavior and said the city should require periodic reports so the council can monitor outcomes and equity. President Pro Tem Hart won an amendment to strike references to second and third readings so the measure will be presented as a first reading to the full council, allowing more public comment.
Why it matters: The ordinance would change how the city responds to people sitting in commercial areas and could affect businesses and people experiencing homelessness or mental‑health crises. Supporters emphasized safer public passage and a preference for service referral over arrests; critics warned about enforcement burden, fines and disparate impacts.
What’s next: The ordinance was moved to the regular council agenda with the amendment for a single (first) reading; councilors asked the administration to provide data tracking offers of services, outcomes when service is declined, and examples of enforcement safeguards before further readings.
