CC Minutes - 06/08/98 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Swanson Gribskov stated that she believed the proposed ordinance had been improved by changes made to it since it was initially presented to the council. She said she would support the ordinance because it was intended to protect youth on the mall from adult predators. Mr. Tollenaar stated that he would also support the ordinance. He emphasized that the ordinance did not target youth, but was aimed at adults who exploited the tendancy of youth to congregate on the mall. Mr. Farr stated that his initial uncertainty about how to vote on the proposed ordinance had been resolved by determining who it was designed to protect and address. He said that those who did not break the law had nothing to be concerned about from approval of the ordinance. Mayor Torrey referred to discussions held during an earlier council study session regarding the Municipal Court and suggested that, if court hearings for the proposed ordinance followed patterns for other offences, approximately 90 percent of those cited would fail to appear. He pointed out that early jail releases were required by the matrix system imposed on the Lane County by a federal judge. He said he supported the proposed ordinance because it provided quick consequences for illegal actions. He said he agreed that the proposed ordinance was not aimed at youth and that he hoped those who would be excluded from the mall would go somewhere else where there were fewer children. Mr. Lee stated that he agreed the proposed ordinance had been improved since it was initially presented to the council, but that he was concerned that removing predators from the mall would allow them to seek out youth in other areas of the city. He said he believed such persons should be incarcerated. He said he believed downtown merchants did not want youth to congregate on the mall, even though they would not admit to such an attitude. He said that if the ordinance was approved by the council, he would distribute leaflets to homeless youth informing them that the downtown mall was the safest place in town. Ms. Taylor stated that she was not convinced that the ordinance would accomplish any positive purpose because predator types would always find a way to carry out their negative activities. She suggested that it might be better to concentrate such people in a single location. In response to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Johnson explained that the proposed ordinance directed that notices of exclusion be issued to persons committing criminal offences. Mr. Laue said he believed the proposed ordinance was an innovative approach, allowing street crime to be dealt with in an effective way, but that he would not vote to approve it because it did not provide appropriate presumption of innocence because notices of exclusion could be issued on the basis of allegations. Ms. Nathanson said that she agreed with councilor comments that there are ample laws and regulations, but that she did not believe the proposed ordinance added to them because it used what was already against the law as the basis for exclusion from the mall. She said she believed the ordinance sought to exclude specific behaviors by specific individuals and could encourage modeling of positive behavior to youth. The motion to approve Council Bill 4653 was adopted, 5:3, with Mr. Laue, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Taylor voting no, and became Ordinance 20121. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1998 Page 6 7:30 p.m.