Item 4: Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

Comments In Support of Continuing the DPSZ Ordinance :  The ordinance has the ability to protect people and prevent victimization of vulnerable people, especially youth.  The statistics in the Activity Report show a strong impact on criminal behavior in a short amount of time. Using the tools that we can enforce will create a better environment for our citizens.  Exclusion is often preferable to incarceration, and has been applied very sensibly by the Police Department.  The normal pre-conviction process set out in the exclusion ordinance allows people the opportunity to be heard before a judge, who then reviews the police report. If a hearing is requested, the officer who made the arrest will be there and the defendant will have an opportunity to challenge the temporary or 90-day exclusion. So there is due process, and it is not arbitrarily imposed upon arrest by the police officer, there is judicial review.  The exclusion process is a part of a comprehensive strategy for Downtown. Accomplishing the goals cannot work without the exclusion zone.  Beyond the statistics cited in the report, property owners see this as a lifeline from the City, showing that the city cares about Downtown Eugene.  Some individuals noted a big difference since the exclusion zone began—they stated that hardcore predators are gone for a little while and this gives kids a chance.  The exclusion zone is offered as a deterrent, because jail is an empty threat to people because of a lack of resources. They felt the exclusion zone shouldn’t be dropped, although it might need to be adjusted. The lack of jail beds was noted as a reason why the exclusion zone was needed at this time because consequences are need for people who offend.  Individuals identifying themselves as members of the community, as well as business owners, stated they felt we owe it to our citizens and children to do something about our downtown.  It’s not the ordinance or a specific weapon that is the issue, but the ability for it to be implemented. When a recommendation is made, it should be done while considering victims of these crimes.  It’s a small price to pay for safety. The process is cheap, easy, works for some people, and is a good way to get people out of trouble. We need to make sure it’s not duplicating any existing rules. The speaker concluded she was very pleased with the way it’s been enforced. However, as stated in the recommendation, there are still some outstanding issues in the ordinance for Council to resolve. Sexual offenses were not included in the original ordinance and were considered a significant category of offenses that should be included. . There was great concern from members of the commission and the public about sexual predators, however, no predatory behavior is on the exclusion list. Several people stated offenses like statutory rape and sex abuse that occur in the zone should be added to the ordinance. Some additional municipal codes should also be added to tie to State statutes, especially for sexual assault. A second key issue is the disagreement over due process protections for individuals. Some people believe the ordinance circumvents due process by allowing officers to issue exclusion citations based solely on preponderance of evidence, and without requiring an attorney be provided for those who cannot afford one. This combines two issues, the authority of police officers and providing representation for individuals in a civil matter. These speakers discussed a chain of due process that is severed if an officer can sanction someone before they have their day in court before a judge (exclusion prior to conviction). In contrast, officers and other people stated that attention was focused in the design of this ordinance to provide due process protections and that it is a judge making the decision to exclude someone, not the officer. There appears to be confusion about how the ordinance works and this should be clearer before the Council makes a determination on the future of the ordinance. A discussion of options to possibly mitigate aspects of the due process concerns should be explored with the Police Department and Municipal Court as part of a decision regarding the future of the DPSZ.