I’m not sure if that would stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Article [V.]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I suspect that not much of what goes on in Portland would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
That is if, and this is a big if, jurists in Portland and Oregon actually considered the Constitution the law of the land. They don’t.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are impediments to proper government as far as they are concerned.
Private property rights in California, Oregon, and Washington, have just been pretty much put through the wood chipper. It is beginning to look as if even the concept of private property rights is gone.
I'd like to see somebody try to argue this on third amendment grounds.
In the famous Griswold v. Connecticut case of emanations from penumbras in the Constitution, one was found in the third amendment. The ban on quartering soldiers in peacetime in one's home was a privacy issue. It was extended to include "agents of the state," to keep, say, child services from harassing families or home-schoolers.
If Portland is going to act as if their homeless are wards of the state, and in so doing require people to make their own private property accessible to the homeless, that is akin to quartering them in your home and should be unconstitutional.
-PJ