10/12/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

parades must be regulated by ordinance, the suggested ordinance seems to fall e within the parameters of acceptability. He has outlined some suggestions in a letter which was delivered this afternoon. He thanked the City Attorney's office and the City Council for all the work they have put into this measure and the consideration they have taken, as well as their responsiveness. However, there are still suggestions he would like to have considered. Every provision in the ordinance is directed toward some reasonable and legitimate objective, but there are concerns toward four provisions as to the way they are drafted, since they may be susceptible to overly broad or dangerous enforcement. The proposed changes are: 1) The last sentence of 5.05 (3) be changed to "...reli- able information shows that the parade organizers intend to cause or condone violence during the course of the parade." The reason for this proposed change is that some participants might not have knowledge or consent from the organizers to act in certain ways and it would be unfair and perhaps unconstitutional to deny a parade permit to organizers because a group of individuals may be hostile to their interests. This would allow parade organizers to be held to a higher level of accountability; not only would they not be allowed to cause violence, they would not be allowed to condone violence. Other participants who are not organizers would be covered by the section in the ordinance which deals with protecting public safety; 2) the second change relates to route or time change on the matter of traffic congestion. They would suggest that 5.505 (4) be changed to "whether the parade is likely to interfere substantially with the flow of traffic by causing excessive traffic congestion for a long period of time and this congestion cannot be alleviated by reasonable efforts to redirect traffic"; 3) the third change deals with permit revocation. They would suggest that Section 5.520 (b) be replaced by two sections: "and violence has been caused or condoned by parade organizers" and "actual violence that endangers e public safety has been caused by parade participants and public safety cannot be protected without revocation of the permit"; 4) the final suggestion deals with Administrative Rule 6. They would suggest that exclusion of use of principal arterial streets be limited to Monday through Friday, since those are the days of heavy traffic congestion. Larry Ross, 1236 Kincaid, stated that he is representing the American Civil Liberties Union. He would like for the council to postpone final consideration of this ordinance. The notice mailed October 1, 1981, to Drew Smith at ACLU was not received until this morning because he was out of town. This draft does not respond to several issues which concerned the council at the last meeting. Council had requested alternatives. Councilor Obie wanted to know why there are parade permits for political parades. There are no responses to either of these requests. The ordinance has not been changed. The only- significant revisions which he has been able to discover relate to changes in the administrative rules regarding insurance. The issue seems to be one of promoting freedom of expres- sion of speech. The City should be willing 'and has an obligation to support freedom of expression and they should be willing to undertake costs, whether people can afford the costs or not. This should be subsidized just as much as civic buildings and other items of public benefit. To impose burdens of cost seems to discriminate against those who have money, and that is not permissible by the First Amendment. The grounds for permit denial because of a possibility of violence being caused to parade participants are still a problem. The main e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 12, 1981 Page 2 I