Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka said he was interested in a different approach. He noted that most of the listed offenses were <br />serious crimes and when committed by habitual offenders, the exclusion could be part of probation or <br />parole. He was worried about enforcement capacity and preferred to give additional police presence a <br />chance before taking the step of creating an exclusion zone. He asked for definitions of the offenses listed in <br />the ordinance. Mr. Lidz replied that all of the offenses were defined either in City code or Oregon Revised <br />Statutes (ORS). <br /> <br />Mr. Clark understood Mr. Zelenka’s interest in allowing additional officers to do the job first, but said that <br />the officers lacked sufficient tools and that was the reason for proposing the ordinance. He was not <br />comfortable with no action and wanted the council to respond to community concerns. He was not <br />interested in limiting people’s rights unless they had proved their willingness to violate other people’s rights; <br />at that point sanctions were appropriate as a last resort tool. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked for a report to the council on the exclusion zone’s effectiveness if the ordinance was <br />implemented. She asked if the Portland ordinance was still in effect. Ms. Sommers said the ordinance was <br />still included in Portland’s online code. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz opined that effectiveness of the ordinance would depend on officers’ ability to enforce it. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked for a copy and background information on the Portland ordinance. He reiterated his <br />concern with protecting people’s rights. He said the ordinance provided considerable discretion and that <br />made it susceptible to abuse. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy asked if the meetings to discuss the ordinance included representation from all interested parties, <br />including Municipal Court. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said initial meetings consisted of a wide range of stakeholders, including downtown business <br />owners, police officers and HRC staff. He said a larger conversation including the ACLU would also be <br />held. Chief Lehner added that prosecutors and Municipal Court judges and administrative staff were <br />included and the ordinance had been discussed with the ACLU. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the city manager to schedule a <br />public hearing on an ordinance providing for exclusion of persons who commit cer- <br />tain offenses in the downtown area. <br /> <br />Sgt. Kerns commented that there were complications associated with excluding persons based on probation, <br />rather than an ordinance. He said the impact of limited jail capacity on the ordinance was difficult to <br />determine because the police department practiced a strategy of disruption that did not require a fully <br />staffed, robust criminal justice system, but did require a persistent police presence with tools such as the <br />ordinance to interfere with criminal conduct of chronic offenders. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Lidz, Mr. Pryor said that paring the list of offenses could wait until after <br />feedback from the community at the public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka preferred to clarify and refine the ordinance content prior to submitting it for public comment. <br />He felt that the questions raised during the work session should be answered before a public hearing was <br />scheduled. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 9, 2008 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />