Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Ruiz said the council was scheduled to take action on the <br />ordinance on August 11, 2008. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman expressed appreciation for the testimony. She agreed that the problem was serious and believed <br />the behaviors needed to be addressed, but felt the ordinance was too sweeping. Councilor Bettman asked if there were <br />public restrooms available when the library was closed and, if not, what that would cost to provide. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman wanted a calculation of the increase in costs associated with the ordinance, if adopted, and then <br />the council could discuss how to spend those resources to target the issues. She was very concerned about the public <br />urination problem and thought that should be a fairly serious criminal offense. She wanted to know how the police <br />responded to this because children could be exposed to the sight. She said that many issues were bundled into the <br />issue of downtown viability. She was willing to look at an exclusion ordinance which would be only for criminal <br />convictions. She said currently, children or teenagers downtown could be excluded simply because they were minors <br />and were downtown. She wanted a narrowed list of violations. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman had the same issue in regard to enforceability, particularly if the jail was full. She asked why <br />community service and being assigned to the road crew were not considered viable options. <br /> <br />Councilor Ortiz said that Councilor Clark was a business person downtown and he had approached her about the <br />potential of an exclusion zone. She said her support would depend on whether it addressed criminal issues. She was <br />challenged by the comments made about individuals as the focus was on behavior. She wanted to know why the <br />people downtown were there. While Councilor Ortiz did not live or work downtown, she believed it was a challeng- <br />ing situation for those who did. She did not want to hear people say they were moving away from downtown because <br />of the problems they experienced. She wanted downtown to be vibrant for everyone. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor thanked all those who spoke. She had been moved by the comments of Mr. English. She was also <br />appalled at the things that happened to Ms. Snowden but she thought there were other ways to address them. She <br />thought an exclusion ordinance would move the problem to another place. If the bad element was not downtown, it <br />would be some other place. She said that much of what was discussed was already illegal, such as breaking <br />windows. She recommended that those in support of the ordinance talk to Mr. Neal about other approaches. She <br />supported exclusion as part of probation but said that people have to go somewhere. Councilor Taylor supported a <br />youth center downtown because sometimes people did not have another place to be. She determined from City <br />Attorney Emily Jerome that it is already illegal to break windows and vomit in people’s doorways. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor asked how many people showed up in court after being cited. He asked if an individual could be <br />convicted in absentia to trigger the exclusion. Ms. Jerome said the ordinance provided an automatic 90-day exclusion <br />if one failed to appear for a show-cause hearing within five to 14 days. <br /> <br />Councilor Pryor said the ordinance raised the classic conflict between liberty and community. It appeared that <br />community safety and individual rights were in conflict, so the council was trying to find the fairest balance to avoid <br />impinging on liberty while doing general community good. He said that raised the question of what constituted an <br />offensive behavior, and he called for more discussion of that topic. Councilor Pryor then spoke to the issue of <br />enforceability and said he was concerned about creating a law the City could not enforce. He was interested in <br />knowing more about the City’s options. Mr. Pryor suggested that in terms of outcomes, it would not be progress to <br />just move the problems downtown to some other location. <br /> <br />Councilor Zelenka sympathized with the victims of the behaviors mentioned. He wanted to address the problem with <br />something that worked. He was also concerned about enforceability and agreed with Councilor Bettman that the <br />ordinance was too sweeping. He supported exclusions as part of the criminal justice system. He suggested that <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />