I'll check the latest newspaper box installed at 23rd & Hawthorne, but I know when it was installed some time ago --and I called to complain it interferred with the sight lines for drivers pulling out-- the answer was something along the lines of "constitutional right" for the newspaper folks to put the damn thing wherever they wanted.

As a neighborhood transportation chair, I used to gripe to the City and TriMet about this.

The answer we got was that they can't require permits because of the 1st amendment issues. If the boxes actually obstruct use of the sidewalk (or access to a bus stop) the agencies will physically move them out of the way, but that's all they believe they have the ability to do.

Someone is badly mis-reading the Constitution if they believe that the freedom of the press clause requires government to provide free space on public property for the distribution of newspapers. It's possible that our idiot judges have made this determination, but if that is not the case, I'd like to see Portland ordinance these things out of existence - which would end up in court. An argument and outcome there would be instructive.

I'd be more willing to go along with the freedom of speech arguement if the newspaper was free (I'm looking at you, Oregonian). Also, a lot of those boxes are distributing apartment/housing ads or auto ads. Can't we at least get rid of those?

" our idiot judges
Nice. I suppose you want them tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail too?

I don't remember a case in constitutional law in which metal boxes with springs were found to have first amendment rights.

I have doubts about any first amendment arguments requiring public space allotments for newspaper distribution boxes.

Now if the city tried to bar people from distributing or selling papers on sidewalks (like the Streetroots guys here or the kids who sell papers near subway entrances in larger cities) I would think they might have some problems.

I'd love to see the boxes go away altogether. Stores and retaurants can permit news box distribution for their patrons on their own premises.

More sidewalk space, less litter.

Twophrases, each containing two words words: Bolt cutters. Self help.

There is this to consider: take away the boxes altogether, and you'll seriously curtail the circulation of the Portland Tribune and Willamette Week, which will cost them ad revenue and might make their business model break. I think that would be unfortunate. This isn't the whole issue, but it is a not-so-small part of it.

I appreciate your attention to the sidewalks, BoJack. Good luck in your efforts—hey, if you need any advice on how to bring publicity for your efforts, feel free to give us a call at the Mercury. We're considering setting up a consultancy.

Other fields of expertise will include "the first amendment" and what it says about interfering with freedom of the press.

Since when is disrupting someone's "business model" a major concern for the City when pursuing "good public policy"?

I don't know why the local papers should be offered any more "business model" considerations than the City has provided to auto dealers, Walmart, convenience stores, payday lenders, etc...

The only First Amendment case pertaining to newsracks that I know about is Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410 (1993). In that case, Cincinnati had attempted to ban commercial newsracks containing advertising publications and located on public property, but leave other newsracks containing newspapers in place. This would have eliminated only 62 of the city’s more than 1500 newsracks located on public property. The city claimed the ban was intended to protect safety and aesthetics of the community. The Court overturned the ban, saying that the paltry reduction in the overall number of newsracks that would occur with the ban could not justify the regulation.

Furthermore, the Court wrote, “In our view, the city’s argument attaches more importance to the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech than our cases warrant and seriously underestimates the value of commercial speech.” The Court continued, “Not only does Cincinnati's categorical ban on commercial newsracks place too much importance on the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech, but in this case, the distinction bears no relationship whatsoever to the particular interests that the city has asserted. It is therefore an impermissible means of responding to the city's admittedly legitimate interests.”

Finally, the Court determined that the ban could not be considered a valid content-neutral regulation of “time, place, and manner” because the very basis for the regulation was the difference in content between commercial and noncommercial news racks.

The Cincinnati newsrack ban provides a classic example of the way cities often go astray when it comes to the First Amendment. In other land use, cities can regulate based on common sense or what seems to be rational to them. But when the land use involves speech, the Court's standards are much higher and the cities have to actually prove that the regulation will do what they say it will, that no other less speech-restrictive means exists by which to do that necessary public good, and that the regulation goes no further than necessary. In an attempt to deal with a legitimate problem (i.e. public safety and aesthetics), cities frequently pass regulations (i.e. banning commercial newsracks from public property) based on rational-sounding reasons (i.e. commercial publications tend to proliferate, are not well-maintained, and pose a hazard in the right-of-way), without scientific analysis that would prove whether the regulation will address the problem (i.e. a study showing that the regulation will only rid the city of 62 of its 1500+ newsracks).

If enforcement is applied equally to all newsracks, regardless of content, and if a legitimate public purpose is being served, such as protecting the public safety by ensuring drivers have a clear view of the street, then the regulation should be allowable. I think the permitting issue is probably one of prior restraint of speech.

I'm all for leaving the newsracks on the street, but enforcing the rules regarding preventing their placement at corners where they could endanger the public's safety.

Other fields of expertise will include "the first amendment" and what it says about interfering with freedom of the press.

Son, I know all about the constitution, since long before you came to this country.

legitimate public purpose is being served, such as protecting the public safety by ensuring drivers have a clear view of the street, then the regulation should be allowable

It's pedestrians and cyclists as well as drivers.

'Since when is disrupting someone's "business model" a major concern for the City when pursuing "good public policy"?'

I don't know. Did somebody say it was?

I'm the circulation director at the Portland Mercury. The perceived "nefarious" activities such as chaining boxes to poles or other fixtures is hardly my (or my counterparts at the other papers) motivation. We comply with the "law of the land" with regard to respecting handicap access and refraining from blocking fire hydrants and other safety features and the Mercury's boxes are not tall enough to impede line-of-sight. We are even (mostly) respectful of Trimet's "hot lava" bricked areas that the Oregonian is mysteriously immune to.

My objective is to simply make available our free newspaper to everyone in Portland. Especially people who don't have the benefit of internet access or lots of money to spend in boutiques or bistros--people who want to read the actual paper. We try to be egalitarian that way and the street boxes are an important part of that.

As far as lashing out against the Mercury or other publications by vandalizing or stealing the boxes--that's my bread and butter. A lot of what I do is making the boxes safe and presentable to the average reader. Removing them in either a clandestine or civic-routed manner would ultimately reduce the variety in our town and hurt working-class people like myself and the other circulation directors in Portland. If exacting a human toll for your knee jerk hobby is your cup of tea, then by all means--drink it.

Interesting that the shoe is on the other foot for the Mercury with regard to private use of our public sidewalks. Of course this is where Jack was going with this all along; it's just nice to see someone from the Merc finally take the bait!

Sure... they follow the "law of the land" as it's been defined by, uh, what? Decades of tradition? Heh heh heh. This should be good.

Interesting that the shoe is on the other foot for the Mercury with regard to private use of our public sidewalks.

-What!? Shoes hurt my feet.

Of course this is where Jack was going with this all along; it's just nice to see someone from the Merc finally take the bait!

-Mmmmmmmm, bait.

Sure... they follow the "law of the land" as it's been defined by, uh, what? Decades of tradition?

-um, city codes as they are currently enforced.

Heh heh heh. This should be good.

-indeed.

"My objective is to simply make available our free newspaper to everyone in Portland. Especially people who don't have ... lots of money to spend in boutiques or bistros. ... We try to be egalitarian that way."

Oh. How giving of you. And here I thought your objective was to make sure that the Mercury's circulation was high enough to justify your ad rates. Those boxes on the sidewalk aren't making the city uglier, or blocking off a part of the public right-of-way, they're a way of giving back to the community!

Lance, there's nothing you've said that explains why your paper has to put its box on the sidewalk. Your paper could get by distributing solely within businesses, perhaps? And pointing out that the city has done nothing about your newspaper boxes doesn't mean the "law of the land" gives you that right.

Applying the "parade tape test" to these boxes, isn't it just as okay for someone to remove these boxes from the sidewalk as it is for you to leave them there? Which, of course, was Jack's point all along.

Feel free to reply with mumbly, point-by-point sarcasm.

As far as lashing out against the Mercury or other publications by vandalizing or stealing the boxes--that's my bread and butter.

No one here has suggested anything of the kind. The only people who do that sort of thing are the clowns who work with you.

city codes as they are currently enforced.

Meaning, not at all, I suppose.

If any of your boxes are attached to a city telecommunications, street lighting, or traffic signal pole, you're in violation of the city code, as you may soon be finding out.

as you may soon be finding out.

Mmmmm...parking meters for newspaper boxes.

city codes as they are currently enforced.

Just like the tapers, Lance, just like the tapers.

There are twenty --TWENTY-- newspaper boxes at ONE corner of SW First and Columbia, near my office building. I never actually counted them before.

17 in a row on the southwest side of the corner, and 3 on the northest (and I'm not talking about across the street, where there are more. I'm talking ONE corner. I think I can claim this as a record? And, yes, this IS where I get my Mercury, Trib and Willamette Week...but remember the old days when there used to be newspaper STANDS, with people actually selling newspapers. (I know, I know, how old fashioned...but I've seen a few remaining still..at least in NY and Paris.)

20 battle weary, nasty, butt-ugly newspaper boxes. Why not forty? Maybe a hundred? Is there a line we cross at some point where we start to wonder...is this a problem?

Wait... I find it odd that the usual conservatives here are nodding their head at Jack's post. Likely the same folks who scream "Social engineering!" at every liberal-ish initiative in Portland. So now you're all for government enforcing beautification/codes and telling business what to do?

Hillarious.

Also... the last time I checked, Portland is a city. Not a metropolis, obviously, but it's a city. Cities have newspaper stands. It's part of the streetscape. A city's streetscape does not look like Main St, USA's streetscape (although newspaper boxes are there too).

There can be some unwritten rules that we can all agree on, right? Why bring up newspaper boxes to make a point about the relatively new phenomenon of parade tape?

Because it's all supposedly about the "freedom" of our sidewalks, which I find quite hypocritical. I agree that we must have newsstands of some kind. But they shouldn't be the ugly, wild west mess we have now, and they shouldn't be a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists, which they are in many cases now.

the last time I checked,

You might want to take a look at our comments policy and the line between conversation and argumentativeness.

I had no idea that would be crossing the line. My apologies.

Not a problem. Actually, it was no snarkier than I get on a routine basis, so I probably shouldn't have snapped at you.

I wish the meth addicts and graffiti vandals would attract the similar levels of municipal enforcement and ordinance writing that Fireman Randy is devoting to biofuels, signage, and Bushwhacking.