Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling felt the ordinance was intended to be focused on the chronic violator. He favored Option A and expansion of the western boundary. He was willing to listen to public input. He was concerned with the ability to hold people accountable for their behavior. He was not in favor of a sunset provision as revitalization of downtown would take years to achieve. Mr. Clark agreed that downtown should be a place where everyone was welcome, but that welcome ended at a point when someone intimidated, threatened or harassed others with their behavior. The point of the ordinance was to indicate that such behavior would not be tolerated in downtown and addressing public safety issues was an integral part of revitalizing the downtown. He said the ordinance gave officers a tool as just an increased presence was not sufficient. He understood concerns about imposing sanctions on first time offenders and would consider scaling back the list of qualifying offenses, but he wanted an immediate response to the hardcore individuals who caused a majority of the problems and for that reason supported Option A. Ms. Solomon agreed with Mr. Clark about the importance of public safety to downtown revitalization efforts. She asked what was considered a preponderance of evidence required to determine someone had committed a crime within the zone in order to impose exclusion. Mr. Lidz said a preponderance of evidence meant it was more probably than not, but was not beyond a reasonable doubt. He said the judge had to be persuaded that the offense occurred; the decision was not made by the officer. Ms. Ortiz said it was also important to include other offenders, such as sexual predators, in the ordinance to assure they could be excluded from the zone. Mr. Pryor commented that the debate, which was also occurring in other communities, was about the conflict between individual liberties versus the community’s public safety needs. He said added to that was the problem of resources to assure meaningful enforcement. He hoped the public hearing would provide some guidance on how to create a system that was enforceable. Ms. Taylor said the worst offense on the list was pointing a fire arm at someone. She asked what the consequences were if that occurred anywhere in the community. Sgt. Kerns said that person would be arrested for menacing. He said the individual would be lodged in the jail, but likely released quickly. Ms. Taylor said if someone was excluded from downtown for that offense they could go somewhere else in the community and do that. She said that was a major concern for her as it would just move problems around. Ms. Piercy observed that enforcement in neighborhood parks had shifted the problems somewhere else, but that allowed people in the neighborhood to resume using their park. She said the City faced that issue all the time and while problems were not solved, enforcement did bring some relief to an area. Mr. Zelenka expressed concerned with infringing on people’s rights and taking away freedoms without due process. He questioned the constitutionality of excluding someone without a conviction. Mr. Lidz said the ordinance was modeled on the City’s prostitution-free zone ordinance, with some modifications, which was modeled on a Portland ordinance. He said the Portland ordinance had been upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court as a civil remedy. He said as a constitutional matter a criminal conviction was not required, but due process was and that was the purpose of bringing the individual before a judge for a decision. He said the city attorney regarded the ordinance as constitutional; it was the council’s policy decision to balance free movement in the City with enhancing livability in downtown. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 4 Work Session