CC Minutes - 05/13/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

demonstrate the equity of the ordinance, and asked if staff had thought about the issue. Officer McDermed said that was one of the reasons the department wanted to keep the number of officers implementing the ordinance to a small number familiar with conditions and people on the mall. She believed that the department would be able to demonstrate that its enforcement was based on behavior. Mr. Farr asked if the City had made any criminal trespass arrests based on park exclusions. Ms. McDermed said yes, adding that the level of activity was seasonal, and depended to some degree on the work load of the Rapid Deployment Unit. Mr. Farr believed that the exclusion ordinance would be effective given the limited area in question. Mr. Farr said that he needed to be reassured that people would not be cited for criminal trespass for riding skateboards on the mall. Ms. McDermed acknowledged Mr Farr's concern, saying that there were some people for whom a skateboard was their only form of transportation. However, some people had been continually informed that skateboarding was prohibited on the mall but they continued to do so. Ms. Nathanson said that she was inclined to support the exclusion ordinance although she was initially reluctant to do so. She said that the place under discussion, the mall, was a public place, like the library or park, and both a destination place and a place to pass through. Ms. Nathanson said that people need to feel safe in such public places. She said that the people she spoke with believed the ordinance specific to 13th Avenue worked. She hoped the exclusion ordinance worked in a similar manner. Ms. Nathanson said that people she spoke with about downtown indicated that they did not feel ownership of the mall because of the activities the ordinance was directed at. She feared that an attitude of "us versus them" was building in the community at time when more tolerance of diversity was needed. Ms. Nathanson said the City could not "turn its back" on behavioral and criminal problems on the mall or it would aggravate the situation. If such behavior could be stopped, the overall problem should be reduced over time, rather than merely displaced. Ms. Swanson Gribskov did not envision that those violating mall rules would receive notice of exclusion. She believed that the ordinance was targeted at more predatory behavior crimes. She said that the council could eliminate the mall rules and consider adding them later if necessary. Ms. Swanson Gribskov wanted more information about the issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union related to double jeopardy and due process, and more information about Portland's exclusion ordinance. City Attorney Jerry Lidz addressed questions related to due process and double jeopardy by reviewing a memorandum entitled "Mall Exclusion Ordinance." Mr. Torrey supported the proposed ordinances. He said that there were young people being negatively impacted on the mall every day and the community was doing nothing about it. He advocated for adoption of the ordinances on a trial basis, acknowledging the possibility of a court challenge. Regarding the issue of displacement, Mr. Torrey believed that the criminals would leave and the youth will stay. He expressed disappointment in the lack of parental control by those who were apparently unaware their children were spending time on the mall. He pointed MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1998 Page 7 11:30 a.m.