CC Minutes - 07/21/08 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

the problem and send out an RFP to transform the space or allow the private sector to do something. The community needed to reclaim its downtown. Lloyd Lewis , a downtown business owner, said his business suffered from the same problems as other businesses. The graffiti was down but urination was up. He had seen both men and women squat and defecate between buildings. A certain level of tolerance had built up and everyone assumed these actions were okay. He had put up signs that had not prevented people from urinating on the back door of his business. Feedback he heard indicated it was an ongoing problem; some designers had called to request access through the rear of his business to avoid having to go through the panhandlers and alcoholics in front. He wanted to be downtown but did not want to put up with the situation much longer. He did not know if the ordinance was the answer, but anything the council could do that called on those breaking the law to be punished could not have a negative impact. He also advocated for downtown housing as a way to make people feel safer. He said that his employees did not confront downtown youth because they were afraid of window breakage, and commended the DEI guides for the work they did in getting youth to move on. Claudia Arenda supported the ordinance. She said she was a single mother and she feared for her daughter’s safety and her own safety downtown. She frequently cleaned graffiti off walls and witnessed people urinating close up. She wanted a safer environment for everyone downtown. She loved her work and did not want to leave it. Dan Neal , public defender for the Eugene Municipal Court, was sympathetic to the stories he heard and had difficulty understanding why people were not being prosecuted for their activities on the mall. He asked how well calculated the ordinance was to solve the problem; he did not think it would. He thought the City needed to prosecute people arrested for crimes on the mall. He had defended people for misdemeanor charges that paled in comparison to what he was hearing tonight. He suggested an exclusion order would not help and if a person was arrested for violating an exclusion order that person would likely be released from jail. He suggested that an effective step to reduce crime downtown would be more development. He was optimistic in that regard. In the meantime, he feared passage of the ordinance would create a new class of offenders who would not spend time in jail. He pointed out that every judge had the power to exclude people from the mall. He said the ordinance was another tool but it was less effective as it created more problems and added to the cost of public safety. rd Cathy Sigmund , 2545 West 23 Avenue, owned a business at 764 Lincoln Street. She said the downtown area had deteriorated rapidly and was now owned by street gangs and those with no purpose. They harassed her customers and her employees had to be walked to their cars. She acknowledged the ordinance was not perfect but thanked councilors Ortiz and Clark for sponsoring it. She thought it carried a message of hope to downtown business owners. She recalled a vibrant downtown and said she continued to hold out because she hoped it would be vibrant again. She said that successful proposals were inevitably delayed and fell by the wayside. She did not think that the council would get people to live downtown unless they felt safe and protected. She urged the council to act on the ordinance. Ms. Sigmund said she trusted the discretion of the young police officers she saw near her business and admired them and was amazed the City could still get young people who wanted to be officers. Claire Syrett , representing the American Civil Liberties Union, opposed the proposed ordinance. She said the ACLU opposed exclusion zones imposed through an administrative or civil procedure aimed at criminal conduct. She said the ACLU’s opposition was based on policy concerns rather than a belief such ordinances were inherently unconstitutional. She said the ACLU believed restrictions on one’s movements should be imposed only by a judge in the context of a criminal proceeding, which has requirements for legal representation. The ACLU believed the ordinance would merely shift the problems being experienced downtown to another area of town and give too much discretion to police officers to issue show cause orders. She called for an ordinance that authorized a judge to impose an exclusion order on a person as a condition of release or probation, ensuring that they would have legal representa- tion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 4 Public Hearing