05/05/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. groups or grass-roots groups to be able to talk with the people. She noted that California has denoted malls as public places. The public has paid for these places with road development, water and sewer lines, and with social costs. She stated that she does not see this as being a private property issue. She sees it as a public place. She agreed with Mr. Hanson that some Valley River customers might not want to hear what people have to say, that they would be more interested in shopping for material things. If people speaking are confined to a small space, the risk is run that people may not find the area or that they may not be heard. They should be free to move around since it is a moving area. She further stated that this is a public area. She noted that in the Eulene Refister-GUard it was stated that this should not be passed or phi osophicaT reasons. Mr. Wayne Shields, developer of Valley River Center, stated on August 4, 1969, "0ur main objective is not to make it a sales center, but a civic center." Mr. Hanson stated that the purpose of the mall is to attract customers. The developers have said one thing and the owners say another. It is her belief that they will say whatever' works. e Jess Scott, 2660 Cheryl, stated that he does not believe in free speech at the expense of the rights of others. Business owners should not have to provide a space for everyone who comes along. Vernon Gleaves, 975 Oak Street, attorney for Valley River Center, stated he had distributed comments to the councilors. He stated that he is in favor of free speech but not free speech in a vacuum. What is being discussed is free speech at the expense of property owners. The proposed amendment would affect private property rights in violation of the United States and Oregon constitutions as presently interpreted by the US Supreme Court and the Oregon Supreme Court. The State of Oregon has definitive case law that spells out the right of persons to use private property. Justice Denacke concurred with the Lloyd case, stating that private property rights are protected by the Oregon law of property, particularly the property law that provides that a property owner has the right to be free from trespassers. He indicated that the invitation by property owners to the public to shop on premises did not sufficiently alter the character of the property so as to deprive property owners of rights under State property law to oust persons they do not want on the premises, although such persons came on the property endeavoring to exercise First Amendment rights. The memo distributed by City staff does not contain any citation of authority. He does not believe that any such authority exists. The California case of Robins vs. Prune- yard Shopping Center held by a 4-3 vote that the State Constitution , - 5/5/80--7