Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilor Obie asked Mr. Long whether, if the ordinance is passed, <br />it means that the City is not saying that there is a legal right to <br />demonstrate in a shopping center, but rather that the City will not <br />enforce the trespass ordinance in a shopping center. Mr. Long said <br />that Mr. Obie's statement was correct; the State law regarding tres- <br />pass may be required to be enforced with City police, but the City <br />Prosecutor's office and Municipal Court would not be involved. Mr. <br />Obie then asked why the City is not requiring free speech areas <br />inside shopping centers rather than the approach of this ordinance. <br />Mr. Long responded this could involve some substantial problems with <br />drafting of such an ordinance and the City's authority in that area. <br />This amendment would create a circumstance where choice is involved. <br />If the owner wants the City's police protection, he would create a <br />free speech area. If the owner chooses not to create a free speech <br />area, he need not seek enforcement from the City of Eugene, but rather <br />from the State code. This ordinance does not require a free speech <br />area. It does not force anyone to support free speech or to permit <br />it. Mr. Obie asked why a proposal would not be given to the council <br />that would require such an area if that is the direction in which they <br />wish to go. Mr. Long stated he doubted the City could accomplish <br />that. Mr. Obie then asked if it would be Constitutionally invalid. <br />Mr. Long responded that that would be one problem that could arise. <br />What this does is modify Eugene's ordinance and withdraw protection for <br />trespass violations under certain circumstances under the City Code. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay stated that the council has gone on record to promote <br />First Amendment rights and this proposal is a non-regulatory mecha- <br />nism, i.e., an incentive, as opposed to a regulation. Mr. Long <br />responded that this amendment would leave the choice up to the <br />owner. The regulations and rules of the free speech area would <br />also be up to the owner/manager. <br /> <br />Councilor Haws moved to limit testimony for each side to <br />15 minutes. The motion died for lack of second. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws left the meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay stated that the council has adopted the posture to enhance <br />First Amendment rights and it would be helpful to him for those <br />testifying to state whether they are opposed to First Amendment <br />rights in general or only to the mechanism in the amendment. <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />'f <br /> <br />-- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Speaking in favor of the amendment: <br /> <br />George Sheridan, 526 East 15th, stated this amendment is a <br />step in the right direction to preserve First Amendment <br />rights in shopping malls. Historically, market places <br />have been places where ideas and products could be exchanged. <br />He feels that this exchange of ideas should not be subverted <br />by the idea of private property, and property not owned solely ~ <br />by one person should not be included as being private property. ~ <br /> <br />5/5/80--2 <br />