Laserfiche WebLink
prostitutes, who might not have any choice in the way they made money or perceived they had <br />no choice. She believed their lives were already bad enough. She preferred to penalize the <br />"johns," and to begin with the floating cruising zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that he had traveled through the neighborhood with staff and had gone door to door <br />asking if there was a prostitution problem. He had been answered in the affirmative. Mr. Lee <br />said that he had also spoken to youth at bus stops, who said it was a major problem. He had <br />heard unbelievable stories about "johns" who appeared to be mentally disturbed. He did not <br />normally support exclusion zones as he generally shared Ms. Taylor's belief, but in this situation <br />the neighborhood was so beleaguered that he supported the approach. He pointed out that the <br />commission recommended a multi-pronged strategy to address the problem, and the zone was <br />just one element of that strategy. <br /> <br />Regarding funding, Mr. Lee agreed with Mr. Kelly that a gap analysis of the funding issue was <br />needed. He said that without treatment, the cycle of prostitution and drug use would not end. <br />Grants were good, but such funding was not sustainable over the long-term. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked how the City could determine whether the size of an exclusion zone was <br />unconstitutional. Mr. Prozanski said that was the job of the courts. Mr. Klein added that at this <br />point, the City had next to no guidance on how big a zone was too big. He said that the City <br />Attorney's Office believed the ordinance was constitutional. The Appeals Court had ruled that <br />Portland's ordinance was constitutional. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Lee, Lt. Kerns said that the residents of the areas in question <br />did not want the exclusion zone publicized to any great extent because of fears it would attract <br />"johns" to the area. Residents did not want the areas signed. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the task force and commission had both done good work, and he <br />supported all the recommendations. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that women were victims of <br />prostitution, and said the approach would allow the City to provide them with help. He liked the <br />proposed evaluation after 18 months. <br /> <br />Addressing remarks by councilors, Mr. Prozanski stressed the importance of stable, long-term <br />funding for the drug court to help break the cycle of dependence for those arrested for <br />prostitution. Regarding the exclusion zone, he said that exclusion citations for both the <br />prostitutes and their customers would be handled through Municipal Court. Regarding the <br />moving cruising zone, Mr. Prozanski said that staff had visited Portland to see how similar <br />ordinances were working. Portland staff indicated that the problem had not moved from one area <br />to another, but had gone inside. He said that the commission had recommended an evaluation <br />point to ensure that the ordinance could be adjusted to address problems that might arise. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said there were two key components of the ordinance for him: 1) public recognition of <br />the "johns," and 2) the fact that prostitutes would be helped with drug treatment. Regarding Ms. <br />Taylor's statements, he agreed that the prostitutes were victims and suggested the <br />recommendations would help them break that cycle of victimization if adequate funding existed. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr supported holding a public hearing on the proposed ordinances to let residents know <br />they had been heard, and to publicize the issue to those living in other parts of the community. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 26, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />