Issuu

FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 GRANTSPASSTRIBUNE.COM | $0.00

Dispute Over City-Run Homeless Camp Raises Questions of Nuisance Property Law in Grants Pass John Oliver In Grants Pass, a simmering dispute between resident Michael Servant and city officials has brought into sharp focus one of the most difficult challenges facing local governments across the country: how to manage homeless encampments in a way that protects both vulnerable populations and surrounding neighborhoods. At the center of the conflict is the sanctioned homeless camp located along 5th and 6th streets. Servant argues that the city itself is violating its own nuisance property laws, while the city maintains that public property is subject to a different legal standard. The disagreement, now stretching over months, has been documented in lengthy email exchanges among Servant, the Grants Pass Police Department, and City Attorney Stephanie Nuttall. The correspondence reveals both the frustration of nearby property owners and the city’s cautious legal stance in a policy landscape shaped by state law, federal court rulings, and limited municipal resources. For Servant and his neighbors, daily life alongside the camp has meant constant disruption. Reports of trespassing, theft, public disorder, intimidation, and vandalism have become routine. He notes that he has often called the police to report incidents, only to be told

that without multiple simultaneous complaints, a citation for disorderly conduct cannot be issued. The reality, he says, is that this is the typical result of the dozens upon dozens of calls neighbors have made. Nearly all of the offenses are transitory—violent outbursts, unleashed dogs, shouting profanity, and disturbances that vanish before officers arrive 10 to 15 minutes later. The calls themselves can involve 5 to 10 minutes of navigating questions from dispatch, and contrary to Chief Warren Hensman’s assurances, Servant says reporting has only become more cumbersome, now requiring callers to

provide their date of birth. “What does that have to do with anything?” he asked. One key point of contention is the city’s use of surveillance cameras trained on the site. Police officials have stated that the cameras are not monitored in real time, but rather used to gather evidence after a crime has already occurred. To Servant, this approach misses the point. He points out that when the department did dedicate staff to actively monitor the feeds for one day, they made numerous arrests and stopped violations in progress. That, he says, proves how effective the cameras could be if

used proactively. City Attorney Stephanie Nuttall has pushed back on the assertion that the site qualifies as a chronic nuisance property under Grants Pass Municipal Code 5.12.121. The code allows the police department to issue warnings after two nuisance reports and requires action after three. But, as Nuttall explained in her June 9, 2025, letter, the decision to issue the initial warning is discretionary. Without that first step, the process leading to a nuisance determination is never triggered. Nuttall further emphasized that the city cannot regulate public property in the same way it can private land. She cited House Bill 3115, passed by the Oregon Legislature, and federal injunctions that limit the city’s ability to criminalize or displace homeless residents without providing alternatives. But Servant argues that this is a mischaracterization. There is nothing in HB 3115, he says, that prevents municipalities from enforcing their own nuisance property codes or from managing the very sites they choose to establish. The city’s position, he contends, is based purely on financial concerns. According to Servant, City Manager Aaron Cubic acknowledged as much during a recent council meeting, saying that if the city increased its

•

see HOMELESS, page 7

Israel’s Strike in Qatar Escalates Conflict, Threatens Peace Efforts By Ellen Ward Israel’s military carried out an unprecedented attack in Qatar on Tuesday, striking targets linked to senior Hamas leaders in the capital city of Doha. The strike marks the first time Israel has launched a direct operation on Qatari soil, a move that risks destabilizing fragile diplomatic channels and jeopardizing ongoing ceasefire talks. The operation took place in the Katara district of Doha, an area known for its embassies, residential buildings, and schools. According to Israeli officials, the strike was aimed at Hamas figures who have been involved in directing operations since the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel and who were currently engaged in reviewing a ceasefire proposal brokered by the United States. The Israeli government described the attack as a retaliation for both the original massacre and a deadly shooting in Jerusalem the day prior. Reports from the region indicate that the attack killed several individuals close to Hamas’s political leadership. Conflicting accounts quickly emerged regarding the fate of Khalil al-Hayya, a prominent figure within Hamas’s Political Bureau. Some sources in Israel claim he was killed, while Hamas has insisted that he survived, though his son Himam al-Hayya and office director Jihad Labad were confirmed dead. A Qatari security officer also lost his life in the strike, intensifying Doha’s condemnation of the incident. The strike comes at a sensitive moment in efforts to end the Gaza war. Qatar has been a central mediator in negotiations between Is-

ALJAZEERA.COM/MAHMOUD ISSA/REUTERS

rael, Hamas, and international partners, hosting talks that have at times led to temporary truces and prisoner exchanges. At the time of the attack, Hamas leaders in Doha were reportedly considering a ceasefire proposal that involved U.S. and regional guarantees. By carrying out an assault in the very heart of these diplomatic efforts, Israel has introduced a new level of volatility into the already fragile process. International reaction to the strike was swift. The United Nations Secretary-General denounced the operation as a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty and a serious threat to peace efforts. The Arab League, Gulf Cooperation Council states, and major Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan issued sharp condemnations. Western governments also responded critically, with France, Spain, and the United Kingdom expressing concern that the strike undermines the diplomatic track. Spain went so far as to restrict entry for certain Israeli ministers as a

political measure. The United States acknowledged it had prior knowledge of the operation, with officials confirming that Israel had informed Washington before carrying it out. While U.S. leaders have maintained support for Israel’s security operations, the decision to strike within Qatar places Washington in a difficult position, balancing its long-standing alliance with Israel against its strategic partnership with Qatar, which hosts a major American air base and plays a pivotal role in Gulf diplomacy. For Israel, the strike was portrayed as part of a broader strategy to dismantle Hamas leadership wherever it may be found. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized that the action was a continuation of Israel’s response to the October 2023 attacks, framed as necessary to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens and to pursue justice. Israeli military officials have referred to the operation by its codename, Atzeret HaDin, or “Day of Judgment.”

The humanitarian backdrop to this escalation is stark. Since October 2023, the war in Gaza has resulted in catastrophic loss of life, with estimates of Palestinian deaths surpassing 64,000. Entire neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, and international agencies continue to warn of famine and disease spreading in the enclave. By extending the conflict into Qatar, there are fears that the war could broaden into a wider regional confrontation. The long-term consequences of Israel’s decision to strike in Doha remain uncertain. What is clear is that Qatar’s role as a trusted mediator has been damaged, if not entirely undermined, by the attack. Without Qatar’s involvement, it is unclear who could step in to facilitate dialogue between Israel and Hamas, both of whom remain locked in a cycle of violence with little trust between them. For now, the strike represents a historic shift in the conflict’s trajectory. By targeting Hamas leaders in a foreign capital known for its mediation role, Israel has taken a step that may alter the course of the war and the prospects for peace in the Middle East for years to come.