10/24/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ordinance for Second Readin~ · Manager noted C.B. 15 8 regarding prostitution lacked unanimous consent III-B-S on October 10 and was brought back for second reading and final passa~e. . Mr. Bradley wondered if Chief Brooks was of the same opinion concern- ing the motivation for this amendment, noting the department had handled the prostitution problem to satisfaction and he wondered if the amendment might be overreaction. Chief Brooks repl i ed "no, he was more in favor of passage of the ordinance in view of the recent trouble with locating witnesses". Ms. Smith urged support by Council and expressed her trust in the Police Department and its actions under the ordinance. -. Mr. Bradley wondered, in view of the recommendations made by the Youth Commission and the desire to work out compromise language, whether it would not be more ,prudent for Council to postpone action. Manager felt it important to act now, noting the difficulty in prosecuting pimps under the present ordinance. He noted Council would have the opportunity to amend the ordinance in the future; and noted that November 28 Council meeting date was a heavy schedule. Mr. Delay requested a point of order in that the motion was not on the table. The following council bill, read the first time October 10, 1977, and 1 ack i ng unanimous consent, was brought back for second readi ng'. C.B. 1548--Concerning prostitution; amending Section 4.745 of Code, e 1971 was read by council bill number an4title only, there being no Council member present requesting it be read in fu 11 . Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved and given final passage. M~. Delay said he still had the same objections which had been reinforced in testimony from ACLU and the Youth Commission. He had seen no evidence there was a clear and present danger to necessitate immediate passage. He felt this ordinance would not do a much better job in terms of pimps and j oh ns. He felt, in addition, the language was too vague and felt Council coul d ena,ct a more effective ordi nance and thi s was the time to do it. Mr. Bradley said he understood from Chief Brooks. comments that the Police Department actions are directed toward the pimps and that concern was handled in the amendment. He wondered if Section 2 could be deleted from the ordinance and still maintain adequate control of the pimps. He felt this would give staff and Council a chance to rework the language in Section 2. e 10/24/77--10 80~