05/05/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rights prevailed; a shopping center could not deny access ~ to persons circulating petitions against the government of a ~ foreign nation because the freedom of petition against griev- ances was guaranteed by the California Constitution. The case is on appeal. The Supreme Court has agreed to review it. Mr. Gleaves feels the council should await the outcome of that decision to determine whether they may purport to enforce greater rights to its citizens than are granted by the United States Constitution. The City cannot, by amendment to its ordinance, convert private property to pub 1 i c property. An ord i nance must apply equal protection for everyone. The City could repeal its trespass ordinance, but if it is going to have one, it needs to be uniform. He suggested that this is a "buy," exchanging square footage for police protection. Mr. Gleaves stated a municipality cannot enact legislation making lawful conduct which the State has denounced as a crime. Trespass is a second-degree crime under State law and the council cannot remove that. Mr. Gleaves stated he would like to know how the footage limits were arrived at. He stated the only limitation is that mechanical amplification cannot be used; this would allow people to yell or scream. Obscenities could be used, disturbances could be created, or people could chant. He submitted there is no rational thinking behind this ordinance. If there is a right of free speech within that mall; it is a Constitutional right, not one that the City Council can regulate. Freedom of speech exists for property owners as well as non-property owners. There is no legal precedent for the proposed ~ amendment. This is not a policy or political decision to be ~ made at the whim of the council because the council does not have that power. The City of Eugene has many public places where people can exercise their right of free speech. The coun- cil, by this proposed amendment, cannot withdraw police protec- tion for Valley River Center or avoid involvement of Eugene police personnel. Eugene police must enforce State law within the City of Eugene. If the amendment should pass, Valley River Center would expect Eugene police to respond when any person violates the State's trespass laws. Should police officers refuse to make an arrest of any person violating State law, any citizen has the right to make acitizen's arrest, and the Eugene police must take the person into custody if the offense requires it. This amendment would involve Eugene police and contribute to confusion and disorder. He further stated he feels the proposed amendment is morally wrong and that there is no public need for the ordinance and especially not for any emergency clause. He stated that in an election year, he felt it might be politically expedient for some to try to provide a platform for candidates seeking public office, but the use of private property cannot be limited to that particular purpose even if the power :. 5/5/80--8