Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

congregate in the downtown core to access vital services. She urged the council not to extend an ordinance that did not address basic concerns related to due process and created a cumbersome process of variances. The City deserved a better solution. Juan Carlos Valle, Ward 2, said the Police Commission was reviewing the ordinance and would be making a recommendation to the City Council. The commission had scheduled a public forum for September 1. He had not yet decided whether or not he would support the proposal, but wanted something that would be good for the community and would beautify downtown. He asked that the City Council consider the ordinance after the Police Commission public hearing and recommendation. Katy Crosslin, 690 West Fourth Avenue, Ward 7, had observed that many people who claimed to uphold the principles of the Constitution were willing to sacrifice civil liberties in exchange for a false promise of protection by authorities. Downtown Eugene was a public space and not a country club for members only. The ordinance was being used to profile the homeless, mentally ill and diverse youth of Eugene, and was intended to ensure that elite business owners felt secure in an area with high property values. She demanded that the council leave the sunset date for the exclusion ordinance for August 11. Oliver Thornton, 1363 West Tenth Alley, had a career in law enforcement. He said focusing on punishment was unproductive. Many of the young people who milled around and were considered bothersome had lived in chaos. He encouraged greater use of Looking Glass. He did not support extension of the ordinance and encouraged the council to find alternatives. Walter Hunt, 2745 Spring Boulevard, found the exclusion zone confusing. He understood the exclusion zone was intended to deal with problem people. He asked that the Eugene Police Department (EPD) provide data to show that the ordinance was not being abused, was not used against youth, and was not used to remove homeless people. It should be used to remove dangerous people with criminal records from downtown. He encouraged the council to review and extend the exclusion zone. He asked that the EPD provide a response to convince the public that this ordinance was working as intended. Claire Syrett, 363 Adams Street, represented the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon, which opposed the exclusion zone in its current form and asked that it be allowed to expire. By excluding people through this ordinance their rights to travel and associate freely in our society were limited. The City needed to ensure that certain due process protections were in place to ensure innocent people were not punished. The downtown exclusion zone ordinance lacked many basic protections. She urged the council to not grant the extension, and suspend enforcement of the zone until City staff had fulfilled the public input process. The City failed to set up a system to track data related to how the ordinance was enforced. The City was choosing to ban people from its public places through the exclusion process. Majeska Seese-Green, P.O. Box 1214, Ward 7, asked the council to pass the first section of the ordinance related to requiring a report and providing for a public process for the Police Commission; to delete the second section related to extending the sunset date; and to revise the third section. She asserted that the ordinance led to social cleansing. Ms. Piercy closed the public hearing and thanked everyone for their testimony. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 26, 2010 Page 6