CC Minutes - 04/23/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

extend the zone to Lincoln Street. There was also a tendency for people to gather on 10th Avenue on the south side of the road. Councilor Bettman asked if expansion of the boundary could be included in the ordinance before the council. Mr. Klein indicated he would prefer to return with another draft ordinance. Councilor Taylor asked why the people who were excluded would obey the exclusion if they were people who did not obey the law. Officer Smith responded that police staff tracked such individuals when they returned to the area to address any issues that might arise immediately. She said that offenders get tired of the process and in most cases people are only excluded once. Those offenders who violate the exclusion order can be cited for trespass and taken to j ail. Councilor Taylor asked why they could not just be taken to j ail for the infraction they committed. Officer Smith said that was what police initially did; now there was a problem with offenders being matrixed from the jail. She confirmed, in response to a follow-up question from Councilor Taylor, that those j ailed for violating exclusion ordinances could be matrixed too. Responding to a question from Councilor Taylor about the citations given for criminal trespass, Lt. Roberts said such citations were usually issued because people were on property they had no right to be on or because they violated the exclusion order. The "Other" category of crime included such offenses as shoplifting and criminal mischief. He could recall no exclusion orders issued for violations of the mall rules. Generally, the exclusion orders were issued for drug offenses, drug abuse, alcohol violations, urinating in public, assault, and robbery. Councilor Taylor asked if people excluded stopped committing crimes or committed them somewhere else. Lt. Roberts said they probably do both. Most of the people in downtown who have been cited have repeat offender histories. The exclusion order gets them out of downtown and the network of people they socialize with. Councilor Nathanson commented that 2001 reports were only for a partial year, and she thought it misleading to plot that information on a chart in the manner it was presented. Even though the year was incomplete, it looked as though fewer exclusion ordinances were issued. She asked the reason why. Lt. Roberts said that through addressing the issues on the mall proactively, the police had broken up significant-sized crowds that hid criminal activity in the past. It was harder for people to commit crimes so they tended to leave the mall to do so. He thought the drop in activity was a positive sign as well as a sign the ordinance was working. Councilor Nathanson thought the charts indicated good news in terms of increased safety on the mall and hoped there was a commensurate drop in other types of criminal activities. Lt. Roberts said the crime rate is dropping in downtown compared to previous years, indicating a slight downward trend. He added that the mall exclusion ordinance was just one piece of the puzzle the police were using to address the issues; a combination of policing tools had the most effect. Mayor Torrey asked about the number of appeals of mall exclusion orders. Lt. Roberts said since adoption of the ordinance, there were four appeals; two were upheld, and two were dismissed. Mayor Torrey asked if Lt. Roberts thought the appeals indicated the police used bad judgment. Lt. Roberts said no; he thought that an appeal rate of less than one percent indicated officers were using good judgment in how they used the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 7 Regular Meeting