Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Hinkley remarked that the real solution was to increase business in the downtown area so that <br />problematic people were lost in a ~mass" of people coming and going. He felt too many people thought the <br />downtown was ~dead" and did not want to place their businesses there. He called it a ~vicious circle" and <br />reiterated that the ordinance was no solution and only sought to move the problem people out of the <br />downtown area. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey, seeing no one else who wished to speak, closed the public hearing and called for questions <br />and comments from the City Council. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor agreed with Mr. Hinkley. She commented that behaviors that should not be exhibited <br />downtown should not be in other neighborhoods either. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor expressed concern regarding the rule requiring a permit for a gathering of 25 or more. <br />She felt the downtown should welcome an increase in people visiting the downtown area. <br /> <br />Regarding the rule on the closure of the Broadway Plaza, Councilor Taylor objected to making it illegal to <br />stop and talk at Willamette Street and Broadway Street after a certain hour. She supported increasing the <br />foot traffic of the downtown area at all hours of the day. She noted the success of the Farmers' Market and <br />the Saturday Market, largely due to the crowds of people who come there, calling them business assets to <br />the downtown area. <br /> <br />Councilor Meisner provided his general support for the ordinance as revised. He requested written analysis <br />as to why the downtown area did not include the area around 5th Avenue. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly agreed that the downtown area needed specific rules and protections, but was uncertain as <br />to how reasonable they were. He was concerned about the rule regarding a gathering of 25 people. He <br />questioned whether such a limit was needed when there were already policies governing the impediment of <br />foot traffic. He felt the rule ran counter to a constitutional right to gather in support of a prominent person <br />or to gather in protest of a government action. <br /> <br />Councilor Kelly raised concern, regarding 4.872 (1)(c), which banned commercial pursuits without a <br />permit. He questioned the wisdom of banning street entertainers from an area the City wished to make <br />lively. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman shared the concern with the requirement of a permit for a gathering of 25 people. She <br />asked what objective was being sought by the implementation of this limit. <br /> <br />Lt. Tilby responded that the object was not to ';get at" a protest activity, but rather was directed toward <br />facilitation of pedestrian movement and the prevention of obstruction to it. He added that foreknowledge of <br />competing interests would allow for a more effective handling of public safety concerns. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman shared Mr. Hinkley's concern regarding displacement of the problem, but asserted that <br />the downtown area was a ';special place" where commerce took place and people resided as well. She <br />stressed that the City needed to be vigilant in other neighborhoods, but felt it appropriate to have a higher <br />threshold of behavior where there was such an intense amount of activity. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 2003 Page 7 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />