CC Minutes - 10/13/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked why new laws regulating newspaper boxes were needed when the City had existing laws regarding obstruction of the public right-of-way. Lt. Tilby said that the level of obstruction became the problem. A sidewalk must be totally blocked to trigger enforcement of the existing law. Ms. Taylor said she wanted the entire city to be safe and passable, and pointed out that frequently, garbage cans obstructed city sidewalks, which also impeded wheelchair users. She thought the idea of opening the mall was to return it to normal street use and she questioned why it should be treated differently from other parts of the city. Ms. Taylor favored repealing some of the rules that existed now, such as prohibitions on people over six sleeping in downtown. She strongly objected to closing the plaza and calling it a park so that staff could apply the park rules. In addition, Ms. Taylor said that people living downtown should not have to detour around the plaza to reach their houses late at night. Ms. Taylor was concerned about passing an ordinance that had the effect of moving people and the problem around. Those frequenting the mall had to be somewhere. They would not disappear. She suggested that if there were a lot of people in downtown, that would dilute the problem that currently existed. Mr. Kelly expressed agreement with the objectives of the ordinance. However, he had concerns about the list of prohibited activities, and asked if they were to be prohibited in the core, why were they allowed elsewhere? He asked why it was okay to lie down in front of the Hilton Hotel outside the core but not okay to lie down in front of the Bagel Sphere inside the core. He suggested that the approach could be challenged in court. Mr. Kelly said the prohibitions also appeared to apply to the Park Blocks. He did not want to be told that he was breaking the law if he sat on the concrete next to someone sitting on the grass, particularly during the Saturday Market. He had the same concern about the prohibition of sleeping and the prohibition on sitting on structures intended for pedestrian purposes. He said he would be in violation of the law if he sat on the sidewalk to listen to a street musician in the core, and that was not right. Mr. Meisner also agreed with the goals and objectives of the proposed revisions. He asked about the definition of ~downtown," pointing out that the proposed definition excluded the entire Fifth Street area. He said that the regulations being proposed seemed appropriate for that area as well. He questioned the limited definition of ~downtown" for these purposes, and further pointed out that the council might want to extend the regulations to the new federal courthouse district as well. He requested an analysis of why those areas, particularly the area north of 6th Avenue, would be excluded. Mr. Meisner said that he understood from the City's Public Service Officer that there were problems with the City's ordinances regulating right-of-way obstructions. He said that unless the sidewalk was completely blocked, the City did not have true enforcement authority. He requested analysis of that. Mr. Meisner recalled that when the council had been considering changes to the park closure hours, he had proposed an amendment, which the council accepted, that made transit through a park for a number of purposes a legal activity. He asked how that impacted the ordinance before the council, because he was assuming the City had no right to prohibit travel through a park. Mr. Pap~ questioned the origin of the prohibition on sleep. Sgt. Tilby said that it was carried over from the old mall regulations. Mr. Pap~ believed that some of the proposed rules seemed arcane for a redeveloping MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 2003 Page 5 Work Session