Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> "':'" <br /> -. <br /> 3. Loitering, Section 4.690, and Loitering Near Schools, <br /> Section 4.695. These two ordinances need to be repealed because '. <br /> they are vague and subject to overbreadth challenges. State v. <br /> Debnam, 23 Or App 433 (1975) . In short, they lack necessary <br /> constitutional standard~ for their application. They have not <br /> been enforced in the City of Eugene for over two years. <br /> 4. Offenses Involvinq Vehicles, Section 4.955. This sec- <br /> tion needs to be repealed because it purports to adopt four sec- <br /> tions of the Oregon Revised Statutes and make the violation of <br /> those statutes city offenses. Three of the four listed state <br /> statutes have been repealed by the state legislature. <br />- ( <br /> Consequently, without the corresonding state statute in <br />9"' ex i's tence , the city's reliance on those statutes is now <br /> misplacedn The conduct prohibited by the one state statute which -- <br /> "'-" <br /> is still in effect, Depositing Burning Materials on Public <br /> Property, can be retained through a later adoption of that state <br /> statute, or a new ordinance setting forth the prohibition. <br /> Please do not hesitate to inquire if you have any questions <br /> or if we can be of any assistance. <br /> HARRANG, SWANSON, LONG & WATKINSON, P.C. <br /> CITY ATTORNEYS <br /> ,/") I <br /> ;/! ..;;) 1 ~ ~ <br /> By: \LL~~ fr . ~i <br /> Daniel J. B~kovic <br /> DJB:jab <br /> .~- <br /> -2- <br />