New Search
<br />MATSLER Clara T <br />From:Alley Valkyrie <alley@practicalrabbit.com> <br />Sent:Sunday, November 02, 2014 5:09 PM <br />To:CROMPTON Larry G <br />Cc:Alley Valkyrie; PIERCY Kitty; KLEIN Glenn; MATSLER Clara T; ambrose@efn.org; <br />randi.bjornstad@registerguard.com; CARNAGEY Craig T; Jean Stacey; BROWN George <br />R; KLINKO Eric E; danb@heartofeugene.org; SEESE-GREEN Majeska (SMTP) <br />Subject:Re: Susan Hughes' Park Exclusion <br /> <br />> Susan remained housed throughout the winter and returned this summer to the streets for reasons that I am not <br />totally aware of. Susan said there had been a fire. <br /> <br />The details of this story were recently covered in the Register-Guard. I suggest you look up the article online to fill <br />yourself in. <br /> <br /> <br />> Recently Susan returned to the park with her cart and belongings and set up camp where she remained for several <br />days and nights. Your email suggests that she was restricted as a result of her taking a nap in the park during park hours <br />and using a blanket. I realize this is information you received from others however is inaccurate. <br /> <br /> <br />I did not receive that information from others. I received that information directly from the park exclusion papers, which <br />I have a copy of right here on my computer and I'm staring at as I type this. It says, and I quote, that the reason for <br />exclusion was "erecting a structure (blanket), littering". This is not the first time that EPD has considered being under a <br />blanket as "erecting a structure". The exclusion was given around 7:30 am, during park hours. <br /> <br />If there is anything about that situation that is inaccurate, the inaccuracy came from Officer Bremer himself as he filled <br />out the exclusion papers and signed them. I would have not written the email I did without confirming the information. <br /> <br /> <br />> We are working with Susan's sister and advocate to come up with a housing solution. Our intentions are good and our <br />wishes are not to have to restrict Susan from the park however we also have a responsibility to the rest of the <br />community and cannot allow the all night camping in the park to continue. <br /> <br />With all due respect, the desire of the community to not have to see the poor and mentally ill in their parks is not more <br />important than the fact that Susan has nowhere to be and is camping in the park due to no other options. I don't think I <br />have to remind you that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already determined that criminalizing sleeping on public <br />property when there is no other option is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. <br /> <br />In Portland, the homeless and mentally ill sleep up and down all throughtout Waterfront Park every night, without <br />police harassment, despite the fact that the park is technically closed and camping is technically illegal. The city allows <br />this due to the precedent set by the Ninth Circuit, and because they understand that pushing people out of the parks <br />only pushes them into the surrounding neighborhoods. <br /> <br /> <br />> You wrote that Susan wasn't notified of the hearing. It is my understanding that the hearing date was selected so that <br />Susan's sister could attend as well as an advocate. Both were present for the hearing therefor there must have been <br />some communication. <br />1 <br /> <br />