On September 6, 1997, I left my camper illegally parked on Third Avenue in Eugene and ran my daily errands on foot as I usually do.  As I walked past the library I noted with satisfaction the table--"Campaign for Legal Places to Sleep"--stationed in front, with someone faithfully collecting signatures for the petition. This was part of the Eugene/Springfield Homeless Action Coalition's project to put pressure on the city government to provide some hassle-free place for the homeless to camp, and/or overturn the camping ban which makes it illegal for peaceful vehicle-dwellers like myself to park our homes on the street.

    But shortly after returning to my home, I got a rude reminder that this camping ban is still in place, and the city is not about to give it up that easily. I was used to cops coming to my door, so I was not much concerned by the sight of yet another one. I just thought with a weary sigh, "Here we go again." My experience had been that I only need to flash my ID and the cop would run it and find that I have no record or warrants, then give me a 24-hour warning to move--as they are now required by Oregon state law to do. But today was different. This cop returned to my camper with a citation for "Prohibited Camping." The pink slip of paper indicated a mandatory court appearance on September 22 and a $90 bail.

    I went to the  Municipal Court and pleaded "Not Guilty", and a new trial date was set. On the matter of the bail, I argued with the clerk that I can't sign an "agreement" to pay anything if I don't have the money. This court is very slow to comprehend such logic, but in any case I have paid no bail and signed no agreement. The next step was to hunt down a lawyer who would take such a case pro bono because s/he believes the camping ban in unconstitutional.

    This is happening in the wake of Danielle Smith's case, in which she challenged seven different camping citations in Eugene over a period of two years and was unsuccessful in her appeal at the District Court level. Now that I am undertaking to follow in her footsteps, with the disadvantage of her recent defeat as a precedent, I am being compelled to take a  closer look at the consitutional implications of the anti-camping ordinance as they apply to my situation.

    If people are "camping" on the street as a consequence of poverty, then the criminalization of this "conduct" effectively makes their poverty a crime. The old vagrancy laws have been struck down as unconstitutional and debtor's prisons were abolished long ago as well. Yet, through a clever set of loopholes and sleight-of-hand manipulations, cities are crafting new versions of these types of laws and practices, with their effects of punishing the poor as in the olden days.

    A person found "camping" in public is made financially liable for this "crime" which they are committing involuntarily only because they can't afford a legal home. They are ordered to appear in cout and pay a bail/fine which is obviously in excess of their resources. This is a flagrant violation of the Eighth Amendment which states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
 

    Of course, the word "excessive" is subject to a judge's interpretation, as are the words "cruel" and "unusual". (It's obvious to us that police brutality is cruel, but it's certainly not unusual because it happens every day!) What is an "excessive" bail or fine? Presumably one that exceeds a person's ability to pay. Therefore, any law that makes a crime of a person's inability to pay for anything, effectively charges them money for not having money, and must be in violation of the Eighth Amendment  and therefore, must be unconstitutional.

    So far, all constitutional challenges to camping bans have failed in the Oregon courts. In the Smith case, Danielle was brutally deprived of sleep on numerous occasions by cops banging on her trailer door in the middle of the night. The judge failed to find that this treatment constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Her reasoning was that this provision in the Eighth Amendment only applies to people who have been convicted of crimes and are therefore in prison. This effectively gives all cops the green light to brutalize anyone they please and not be found in violation of the constitution, simply because the person was not (yet) incarcerated. And this is but one example of the type of logic used by this judge in systematically shooting down every constitutional argument that was raised.

    In Danielle's opinion, it is no mere coincidence that I received my camping ticket so soon after the closing of her case. For a time the cops had seemed uncertain of how to deal with me and were therefore handling me with kid gloves. Now the gloves have come off--just in time to dovetail with the next phase of the Campaign for Legal Places to Sleep, in which the civil disobedience actions are to begin. Legally, it should make for an interesting winter.
 

    The next piece, a sort of supplement to the previous one, appeared in the January 29 issue of Spare Change:

    In the last few decades, certain sociological studies of the poor, minorities and ghetto dwellers have noted a vast difference between the "facts" and the truth of these people's condition. I have found that the same phenomenon exists in the homeless condition of the present day. I am especially conscious of this as I'm awaiting trial for my camping citation, knowing what sort of "facts" will be trotted out before the judge. And opinion also gets into the mix. To illustrate:

    It is a fact that I am living in violation of certain laws: an anti-camping ordinance (which was passed long before I ever moved to Eugene and therefore could not have had any hand in making) and parking regulations which require people to move their vehicles every 24 hours (whether they are living in them or not.) It is also a fact that my truck is two years behind in its registration, that I still don't hold the legal title to it, that I have no insurance, and that I'm not even licensed to drive the thing.

    It is also a fact that there are no pipes underneath the drain in the sink of my camper, so that when I wash dishes, the dirty water runs conspicuously out into the gutter.

    It's a matter of opinion that people who live by "camping" as I do "create unsafe and unsanitary living conditions which pose a threat to the peace, health and safety of themselves and the community," as is stated in Eugene's anti-camping ordinance.

    It is also the opinion of many that I could be doing things to change my situation if only I were so motivated. You know, the standard pat answers given by the victim-blaming NIMBY types who won't bother to inquire into our situation and find out what is really going on: that we could "get a job", "go to a detox", "go to the Mission", or whatever they think the homeless are supposed to do to "correct" their condition.

    The truth of the matter is quite different: that I am a peaceful citizen who is practicing live-and-let-live, and not willfully violating any laws or harming any living being. It is also true that we are all fellow citizens of Planet Earth because we were all equally born here, and remain here because we are still stuck to the ground by gravity. And that we are free at all times to choose whether to find co-operative ways of living on this planet together, or to make life harder for each other.

    Every day I am made painfully conscious of this discrepancy between the facts and the truth of my situation, and that the opinions of many lazy-minded people only serve to cloud the issues.