CC MInutes - 02/17/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion to include a sunset date of April 30, 2001, to provide time for staff to gather definitive data regarding the impact of the ordinances on crime and the use of the ordinances, and to mandate a council review of the ordinances at that time. Mr. Lee arrived at the meeting at 11:39 a.m. Mr. Meisner express support for the amendment to the motion as it mandated a review of the ordinances. The motion to amend passed, 7:1; Mr. Lee voting no. Ms. Taylor indicated she would have proposed a one-year sunset had not Mr. Kelly acted first. The main motion as amended passed, 7:1; Mr. Lee voting no. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the existing Ordinance to add willful violations which applies only to repeat violations of the mall rules, not the first violation of any given rule. Mr. Kelly indicated he was strongly in opposition to the inclusion of the mall rules in the ordinance. He said that he also opposed the motion because he respected the integrity of Eugene's body of law. Criminal process and punishment should be proportional to the crime. He believed that to exclude someone for sign holding on the mall twice, for example, was excessive. Also, Mr. Kelly objected to the fact that exclusions was issued upon arrest rather than upon conviction. Mr. Rayor said he would oppose the motion. He said that if the council continued to need assurances that the ordinance would be enforced on the basis of a person's actions rather than appearance he did not think the argument for including the mall rules was very powerful. Mr. Meisner said he was also opposed to the motion. He was not persuaded of the necessity of including the rules. Mr. Farr asked what sanctions currently existed for violations of the mall rules. Officer Fellman said that people received a verbal warning or citation of $50; the second violation could also involve written or verbal warning, citation or arrest, with a bail amount of $150. Mr. Fart indicated he would also oppose the motion because he perceived there could be a potential problem with residents' civil liberties and due process. He believed that the City would be "stepping around" due process with this approach, particularly as there were sanctions in place already for wilful violations of the mall rules. Mr. Lee concurred with those speaking in opposition to the motion. He said that the approach did not solve the problem it was intended to address. He said that the City should instead be connecting with the population of youth hanging on the mall and help them get off the mall. Ms. Nathanson said that what the council previously put in place on the mall had worked with a coordinated department approach. Given the council's serious reservations and notable MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 17, 1999 Page 2 11:30 a.m.