Item 4: Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mueller said if the commission was to recommend the continuation of the DPSZ to the council, he supported the addition of sex offenses and the elimination of public urination as reasons for exclusion. He called for more bathrooms in downtown. Mr. Mueller said that the mentally ill do not know what was going on and a mentally ill person should not receive an exclusion order. He noted that two people were excluded for marijuana possession and he thought that ridiculous, and called for the deletion of possession as a reason for exclusion. Ms. Zimmer reviewed the options developed in coloration by herself and Ms. Phelps. She anticipated the commission would assemble a list of outstanding issues to forward to the council. Ms. Nelson, seconded by Ms. Miller, moved Option B, to recommend to the council continued enforcement of the Downtown Public Safety Zone Ordinance 20419, and the council work with City departments to resolve outstanding issues in the ordinance. Mr. Valle offered as a friendly amendment, accepted by Ms. Nelson and Ms. Miller, that the motion be revised to read “. . .City departments and community members and stakeholders that may or may not include Police Commission and Human Rights Commission members to resolve outstanding issues in the ordinance” so that the motion then read: Ms. Nelson, seconded by Ms. Miller, moved Option B, to recommend to the council continued enforcement of the Downtown Public Safety Zone Ordinance 20419, and the council work with City departments and community members and stakeholders that may or may not include Police Commission and Human Rights Commission members to resolve outstanding issues in the ordinance. Ms. Miller solicited comment on the motion. Mr. Valle endorsed a multi-pronged approach that included partnerships with non-profit organizations and businesses that could bring additional resources to downtown. He wanted to ensure the council saw all the commission’s suggestions for revisions to the ordinance and for complementary efforts to help improve conditions downtown. He suggested the department find new ways to redirect the efforts of existing police substations toward assisting downtown. Mr. Mueller likened those who were being excluded from downtown to his children, and said when they had done something wrong or needed help, he had helped them and they learned from the experience. He suggested the City should take a similar approach and rather than focus on enforcement funding, do more to help people recover so they could do the right thing. Mr. Clark believed the City was trying to help people downtown. He said when it comes to helping people, Eugene spent more money per capita doing so than many other cities of comparable size. He thought that was commendable and the City should do more, but he still supported the exclusion zone as a tool. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark about use of the phrase “resolving outstanding issues,” Ms. Zimmer suggested that the commission could identify and forward ordinance revisions to the council. Mr. Garner indicated support for the motion. Mr. Ahlen maintained that Eugene and Springfield attempted to push criminals into each other’s communities and into surrounding communities. He said no one discussed that explicitly. He did not want to push the boundaries for people’s rights due to the City’s budget condition. He suggested the commission would prefer a funded jail to the zone, and he thought that was what the commission should communicate to the council. He did not support the motion because he preferred to see changes to the ordinance before further enforcement occurred.