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

Home Browse Search

for civil liberties. She needed time to consider the substitute ordinance, adding that ordinance could lapse and the City could reinstitute it if needed. Councilor Taylor agreed with Councilor Kelly about extending the boundaries of the exclusion area. If people were committing crimes, they should be punished for the crime, not for being on the mall. Councilor Taylor attributed the lack of appeals to the fact that such appeals made people feel "hopeless," or they had insufficient money or knowledge of the system to appeal. City Manager Johnson indicated that staff was prepared to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches reflected in the ordinance proposed by staff and the ordinance proposed by Councilor Kelly. He noted that staff had not been able to contact Judge Allen to find out the work load implications of the show cause hearings required by the substitute ordinance. Councilor Nathanson was prepared to support a form of the ordinance. She preferred to vote to make the ordinance permanent. She asked the City Manager to discuss what it meant to adopt Attachment A as opposed to the ordinance drafted by staff. Regarding Councilor Taylor's suggestion that the ordinance be allowed to lapse, she opposed that as she believed that there were people who have learned to manipulate the system. She acknowledged Councilor Kelly's concerns about due process, but did not think the analogy to the prostitution zone appropriate because of the large number of adults who were victimizing youth who were cited under the ordinance. In addition, the crimes on the mall involving drugs and weapons were a different kind of crime than those crimes addressed by the citywide prostitution ordinance. Councilor Farr said that he would like to hear a response from Judge Allen regarding the resource issue related to the show cause process. He did not think he was prepared to vote on the ordinance tonight. Councilor Rayor said the current ordinance appeared to provide sufficient due process. The ordinance was clear about the appeal process. The advantages and disadvantages of one approach over the other was not clear to him. He noted his previous support for extending the sunset and suggested the council consider retaining the current ordinance while the issues were worked out. Councilor Meisner said he understood anecdotally that no one has appeared for a show cause hearing under the prostitution ordinance. The effect was a three-to-five day gap between issuance of the exclusion order and its effective date, but it had not had a big impact on court operations. He was comfortable repealing the sunset as the council could always reinstitute the sunset if it wished. He did not want to have to go through the process of extending the sunset every year. At this point, Councilor Meisner was comfortable with Councilor Kelly's substitute ordinance but was concerned that there would be insufficient votes to pass any ordinance that could be effective immediately. Councilor Bettman shared Councilor Meisner's concerns about the council's ability to pass an ordinance with six votes given the concerns expressed by councilors. She favored passing the staff-prepared ordinance while other issues could be worked out. Mayor Torrey expressed the hope the council would defeat the amendment and pass the motion. He said that the council could discuss the issues raised by councilors Bettman and Kelly at a later time. He noted his support for a boundary expansion. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 23, 2001 Page 9 Regular Meeting