10/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; I . Vince Farina, 1407 East 21st, noted Eugene was growing, and as the city grows, prostitution would increase, citing how rapidly the problem had grown over the past year or so. He felt the present ordinance . would present a first step toward solving the problem of prostitution. He felt those opposing the ordinance should at least give it a chance, noting Council could make changes in the future if the ordinance did not work out. He urged City Council to consider favor- able passage of the ordinance. Ray McIver, 1710 Elanco, Mall Manager, noted the Eugene Downtown Association had been supporters of such an ordinance since before the writing of this present Eugene ordinance, saying they were aware of such an ordinance in Seattle and Portland. The EDA felt the ordinance had gone through a constitutional test and addressed the prostitution problem. ' He said, to date, he had no negative input from EDA, after mailing to the entire membership the substance of the ordinance. Thus the EDA is a strong supporter and asked Council to adopt. Dr. Mary Crumbaker, Eugene Business College, 383 East 11th Avenue, spoke in the capacity of an educator, member of the Eugene Business & Professional Women's Association, Women's Christian Temperance Union, and as a private citizen. She said many students to her college came from outside the Eugene area and had to use the bus terminal at 10th and Overpark. There had been several unfortunate incidents before the recent action in August to clean up prostitutes on the mall. She noted also several older adults wanted to attend college but were afraid to go through that area on the bus terminals. She also expressed e concern for the young people involved in this activity and felt if there were some restraints, then perhaps those young people would find better ways of living. Terese Engelmann, 1910 Fairmount Boulevard, Vice President of the Women's Commission, said the Commission supported Section 3 of the present ordinance but was very opposed to Section 2. The main reason for opposition was the fear that it gave too much discretion to the police and the Police Department for selective enforcement., She noted the problem of hitchhikers, students passing out literature or attempt- ing to talk to friends, and women laughing or looking at men as possible areas for indiscriminate use of the loitering section of the prostitution ordinance. She pointed out being accused of prostitution is a very damaging thing in our society. One real fear was people who might be picked up will be people who do not have the appearance or behavior to conform to the downtown merchant's standards. She noted it was just a cosmetic cleaner, driving the women off the streets, but those women would still be forced to combine with pimps to work even harder. She felt the ordinance would not get to the heart of the problem, but would simply clear the streets and not necessarily clear up prostitution. She also questioned whether it was possible to stop prostitution, noting perhaps it can be curbed but cannot be stopped. e 10/10/77--2 1(;,0