Opinion ID: 1135610
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: contentions of the parties and issues to be decided

Text: Defendants contend that: The Court erred in confining petitioners to specified areas, in requiring 24 hour prior personal written notice of an intent to petition, in limiting the number of petitioners at any given time, and in banning petitioning during the Christmas and Rose Festival seasons. To the contrary, plaintiff Lloyd Corporation contends that: 1. On the present record, the court cannot avoid a constitutional analysis. 2. Forcing the Lloyd Center to Allow Petitioning Activity on its Private Property Violates the United States and Oregon Constitutions. A. Compelling the Lloyd Center to provide a forum on its private property constitutes a taking under Article I, Section 18, and under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. B. Compelling the Lloyd Center to provide a forum on its private property for positions with which it disagrees or on which it wishes to remain neutral violates its rights and those of its tenants under Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 3. Petitioners do not have a Constitutional Right to Gather Signatures on Private Property. A. Article I, Sections 8 and 26 do not grant petitioners the right to solicit signatures at the Lloyd Center. B. Article IV, Section 1 does not grant petitioners the right to solicit signatures at the Lloyd Center. 4. Lloyd Center's Rules are a Reasonable Means of Minimizing Safety Risks and Reducing Distractions which Interfere with Commercial Activity. Several amicus curiae briefs also have been submitted in support of the positions of both parties. During oral argument, a question was raised by a member of the court whether the fact that the City of Portland had vacated eight acres of public streets that now lie inside the Lloyd Center, which occupies about 80 acres, may provide a basis on which defendants may have a right to enter the Lloyd Center to seek signatures on initiative petitions. The parties were then requested to submit supplemental briefs on that question. Plaintiff Lloyd Corporation, in its supplemental brief, contends, among other things, that vacating a city street extinguishes all of the public's interest in the property. Defendants did not submit a supplemental brief on this issue, but in a letter to the court stated that they would rely on the arguments submitted on our behalf by amicus curiae. The brief submitted by Oregon AFL-CIO, as amicus curiae, states that: [T]he street vacation is not what gives rise to the public's right to gather signatures, rather the public's right arises from the fact that Lloyd Center's common areas are a public forum. Because neither of the parties contend that the vacation of the streets provides a proper basis for the decision of this case, we find no need to discuss that question. We next consider the contentions by plaintiff Lloyd Corporation and agree with its first contention that on the present record, the court cannot avoid a constitutional analysis.