11/16/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

many passing cars as possible. Ms. Wooten asked whether impoundment of the vehicle was not an extreme penalty, particularly for youth, who might be from e outside the area, and given other concerns about towing practices. Mr. Mason said he did not think the penalty was excessive because it would apply only to the second violation on the same date. Ms. Wooten asked whether other cities had experienced criticisms about seizure of property without due process. Mr. Mason said impoundment of a vehicle did not constitute seizure of property because the operator of the vehicle already would have demonstrated an unwillingness to comply with the ordinance. He said he felt the impoundment provision was appropriate for the circumstances. Mr. Gleason said it was typical of many towns for cruisers to come from outside the area. He also said a substantial percentage of cruisers were older, and he thought the ordinance would be effective in eliminating the "critical mass" that resulted in problems. Mr. Miller asked whether it was possible to limit enforcement to disruptive and illegal activities. Mr. Mason said current Oregon laws did not allow impoundment of vehicles for traffic violations. Responding to questions from Mayor Obi e, Mr. Mason said he thought most communities had some cruising activity. He estimated the average population of summer cruisers in Eugene to be about 1,500 to 2,000 people per night. Mayor Obie asked about the savings in enforcement costs if the problem were non-existent. Mr. Mason said he believed the indirect impact would be large, but exact figures were unknown. He said that as supervisor of the Traffic Enforcement unit, he did not believe the city was receiving the quality and e attention to traffic enforcement that it should, which resulted in many accidents that otherwise might not occur. Mr. Mason said documented studies showed that vigorous traffic enforcement aimed at the types of violations that caused accidents would have an impact on accident and injury rates. He added that a maximum of six or seven officers sometimes was assigned to the IIGut." Mr. Gleason said direct cost savings would be about $25,000, plus another $5,000 to $10,000 for related costs such as overtime and court expenses. He also said the opportunity cost of lost redeployment was not possible to calculate but was substantial. Mayor Obie said he thought the council should consider whether cruising was a luxury the community could afford. Ms. Wooten asked about the costs of enforcing the proposed ordinance. Mr. Mason said he thought the same number of officers could be assigned to the area. He agreed with Ms. Wooten's observation that the resource commitment would not decline until the problem began to dissipate. Mr. Mason said other communities had experienced a drop in activity as soon as two weeks after passage of an ordinance. Ms. Schue said she thought a public hearing was needed. She noted that the proposed elimination of the "Gut" differed from past approaches, which had been attempts to contain and control problems. She said she thought elimination of cruising was a wonderful idea, but she had some concerns about the current proposal. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council Dinner/Work Session November 16, 1987 Page 5