Laserfiche WebLink
probation and sentencing could have tougher consequences. He encouraged those who had experienced problems to <br />contact the District Attorney. <br /> <br />Councilor Solomon could not imagine the council would do less than what was proposed. The council discussed how <br />to improve downtown continually and could not hope that private development alone would accomplish that. Public <br />safety was the City’s job, and the City needed to address the situation and improve safety downtown to facilitate <br />development. She suggested that Mr. Davis could have concluded his remarks by saying “or why are you here?” in <br />regard to the council. She hoped it accepted the challenge. <br /> <br />Councilor Clark said he worked downtown and he was downtown everyday. He witnessed the behaviors mentioned <br />everyday. The problem was so real that if there was only one staff person at the Human Rights Center or Police <br />Auditor’s Office, their policy was to lock the door. He thought that spoke volumes about the problem. He wanted <br />those who victimized other people to be removed from the opportunity to do it again. He pointed out that people <br />received restraining orders all the time, and he wanted to do something similar to protect the victim from those who <br />demonstrated a desire to victimize others. He was willing to make changes, but considered the ordinance to be a first <br />step. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman wanted to see text that instituted the exclusion after the commission of the crime, and a tiered <br />approach to the list provided with more description so the council could draw a threshold. She was looking for a <br />more focused and targeted ordinance which she hoped would cost less money and be more effective. <br /> <br />Councilor Bettman was astounded to hear the extent to which criminal activity was not being addressed downtown. <br />She said people were hearing about a lack of resources, and every year since she had joined the council the City had <br />increased its funding for public safety and in past years had targeted the downtown area, and surrounding areas, with <br />extra police resources. She asked where that money had gone and why the crimes were not being prosecuted. She <br />asked the City Manager to address why the City kept putting resources into the Police Department but continued to <br />hear the mantra of “insufficient resources.” <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the comments of those who spoke and for their concern for the rights of <br />people working and visiting downtown. She said the City had been working on the issue for many years and needed <br />to do something different and better. The situation was being exacerbated by the County’s funding issues. She <br />appreciated the testimony about separating crime from poverty. She said the council had asked for increased police <br />oversight downtown with special controls. She had problems about treating people as guilty before they were found <br />guilty. She wanted miscreants to know the City was serious. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy said that the council was being asked to step up to the problem and take leadership. She asked the City <br />Manager and staff to work with the council on the issue so it could do things better and differently. She noted there <br />was a youth center downtown, but she suggested it was too small and could serve as a seed for the future. <br /> <br />D. PUBLIC HEARING: <br />th <br />An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Villard Alley Right-of-Way between East 13 Avenue and East <br />th <br />15 Avenue; and <br />th <br />An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of East 13 Avenue Right-of-Way East of its Intersection with <br />Franklin Boulevard <br /> <br />City Attorney Emily Jerome provided the staff presentation, noting the request from the University of Oregon (UO) <br />th <br />that the City vacate a segment of Villard Alley and a segment of East 13 Avenue. She said the council would <br />consider separate ordinances for the two vacations in the future, but would hold a combined hearing at this time. She <br />noted the single criterion, which was whether the proposed vacations were in the public interest. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 7 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />