CC Minutes - 11/10/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor asked if it was numbers of people rather than alcohol consumption causing the problem, suggesting that limiting numbers in attendance might be part of the solution. She suggested that the Fire Department could respond first in the case of a large crowd. Ms. Taylor asked if the police presence exacerbated the situation on occasion. Mr. Torrey indicated staff would provide written responses if needed to the council's questions. Mr. Pap~ asked where the money collected as a result of the ordinance would be directed. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that it would go to the General Fund. Mr. Pap~ expressed a preference that the money collected go to support police activities in the neighborhood an incident occurred, although he acknowledged it was unlikely the City could get that specific. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Alex Lehman of the City Attorney's Office reported that Berkeley had an ordinance directed at loud and unruly parties and cited all parties: the owner, the tenant, the person in charge, the party host, etc. Corvallis' ordinance was specific to the violator. Mr. Pap~ indicated he shared Mr. Fart's concerns about the liability of the landlord. Mr. Meisner was interested in both enforcement and prevention. He wanted to recover the costs of police response. He was unsure, however, that it was appropriate to send the landlord a notice after the second event. He wanted accountability on the part of those offending. If the landlord did nothing after being notified of the situation, then it was appropriate to hold that individual liable. Noting his interest in neighborhood viability, Mr. Meisner suggested that the ordinance be broadened to include drug houses as he was interested in a cost recovery ordinance that covered situations other than loud parties. Mr. Torrey asked how the City could address a commercial operation that required multiple responses. Ms. Nathanson believed there was a need for abatement for the situations described by the police and noted her previous request for ordinance changes or changes to State legislation that would allow the City to take action. She believed that the ordinance could be broadened to cover even more than envisioned currently. Ms. Nathanson asked if the focus of the ordinance was on cost recovery, deterrence, or punishment. She said that the ordinance did not seem to address the issue of deterrence, and if the focus was on punishment, it appeared to punish the wrong person. She said the ordinance did appear to address cost recovery. Ms. Nathanson said that she would like to see her concerns about the ordinance's inadequacies regarding deterrence and punishment addressed. She believed that the ordinance made it difficult for a landlord to comply with both State and local law given the State laws regarding the timing of eviction. Ms. Nathanson said that the ordinance could result in the eviction of people not responsible for the violations, such as roommates who were not responsible, because of what the landlord believed was required of him/her to address local ordinances. She wanted the City to do something, but she did not think the ordinance was the right approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 10, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m.