Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Astoria council rejects first reading of enhanced-enforcement ordinance after heated debate
Summary
After more than two hours of debate about homelessness, enforcement and housing options, the Astoria City Council declined to approve first reading of an ordinance that would create enhanced enforcement zones targeting specified public-safety and nuisance behaviors.
The Astoria City Council voted down a motion to hold the first reading of an ordinance to establish enhanced enforcement zones, following an extended June 23 debate about whether the measure would punish people experiencing homelessness or help curb dangerous behaviors.
Councilor Vance Adams moved to hold the first reading; Mayor Fitzpatrick joined him in voting yes, while Councilors Davis, Mozzarella and Lum voted no, causing the motion to fail. The ordinance, described by supporters as a tool to limit access to a handful of repeat offenders, would have created areas where people convicted of listed offenses could be excluded.
Councilor Lum, a vocal opponent, read a prepared statement calling homelessness “unacceptable” as a social condition while arguing the ordinance would effectively target people without housing rather than address root causes. “If we had enough homes for everyone in Astoria we wouldn't be having this conversation about troublesome people sleeping on downtown sidewalks,” Lum said, urging alternatives such as city-supported camping sites or tiny-home villages.
Mayor Fitzpatrick defended the revised ordinance as a targeted response to a small group whose behavior harms other residents and visitors. He listed recent and planned housing projects and said the city has invested in services: “We have opened the Columbia Inn with beds for 60 people…The cost for the projects in process under construction or recently completed just in Astoria to provide housing and health care for low income individuals exceeds a $100,000,000,” he said, arguing the ordinance would give law enforcement another tool.
Opponents pressed enforcement and efficacy concerns: several councilors asked how the city would ensure prosecutions or long-term compliance when the judicial system frequently releases people without lengthy sanctions. Councilor Davis and others favored pursuing designated camping sites and bolstering court/municipal resources before adopting new exclusion powers.
The council paused the discussion briefly for a recess and then resumed long enough to take the vote. With no majority in favor, the ordinance will not proceed tonight; council members who opposed it asked staff to pursue work sessions on related changes to the camping ordinance and on identifying enforcement bottlenecks with the police and municipal court.
