02/22/1988 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e of the entire city; rather it was the criminal activity of frustrated and alienated young people in the absence of positive and meaningful social and recreational alternatives. If those needs continued to go unaddressed in the city, he said delinquent behavior would continue to occur, whether in a cruising area, city parks, the downtown mall, or dispersed throughout the city. That was the reason for the recommendation in favor of developing a comprehensive plan to meet those needs, he said, and the City's commitment of staff and budgetary resources for that should occur before passing any type of anti-cruising ordinance. Mr. Silvermoon said the youth commission had been working for several months through its Positive Recreation Subcommittee, and it had performed community networking with programs like the At-Risk Youth Consortium. He noted that Salem provided four nightclubs for teenagers, while Eugene had none. He said the commission felt that development and implementation of such a plan would reduce crime on liThe Gutll and throughout the city, it would contribute dollars to Eugene's economy as young people sought recreational services, it would further the economic goal of making Eugene a regional service center, it would increase the attractiveness of Eugene as a place to live and locate a business, it would show Eugene as a city that cared about its younger citizens, and it would show that Eugene was working to make itself a safe city for people to live and work in. Mr. Silvermoon said banning crulslng without first creating social recreational alternatives was a simplistic and somewhat brutal tactic. He said he trusted that the City Council could provide the effective, creative, compassionate, and far-seeing leadership to create alternatives and to do something more meaningful than that. Paul Hafner, 2233 West 28th Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Hafner said that although liThe Gutll had been a problem in recent years for people living in the area, he felt that the proposed anti-cruising ordinance was not a good solution. He said its enforcement would help to reduce noise and other pollution in the area, but not everyone who cruised liThe Gutll was there to cause trouble, and it was unfortunate that the only solution proposed so far allowed everyone, whether they were causing trouble or not, to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. He said cruising as defined by the ordinance was so general that it would apply to people who were not cruising. He said examples of unintentional violations were not rare and coula occur otten. Mr. Harner said he felt that the law was too general, and no solution was better than a bad solution. He suggested at least holding further discussion before using such extreme measures. He said he felt he had a right to move about freely, whether cruising or just going to the store, as long as he was not harming anyone. He also said he agreed it was likely that crime would shift to other locations or that more destructive behaviors than cruising would result. J. R. Ellis, 777 Pearl, spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mr. Ellis said he worked for the Eugene Police DeDartment, which was not unanimous in its support for the ordinance. He said he had worked with the traffic team on South Willamette Street. Mr. Ellis said he felt a tactic that had worked well had been for the two officers assigned to the area to MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 22, 1988 Page 9