Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka believed the extension of the ordinance had majority support and he preferred to change the <br />ordinance for the better rather than be a symbolic `no' vote. He acknowledged he preferred not to have <br />such a zone. Mr. Zelenka supported the advocacy services contract arrangement outlined by Chief Kerns. <br />Ms. Taylor noted her initial opposition to the ordinance and said she continued to oppose it. She preferred <br />the DPSZ be morally defensible as well as legally defensible, and she did not find it morally defensible. <br />Ms. Taylor asked Chief Kerns if he had an example of a case involving a person who was excluded from <br />downtown but would not be punished in any other way. In other words, exclusion was the only punish- <br />ment available. Chief Kerns said a person could not be excluded unless there was reason to believe they <br />committed a crime and criminal action against them was moving forward. Such individuals could be <br />excluded from downtown for 90 days pending a trail. The one -year exclusion could only be imposed upon <br />someone upon conviction. <br />Ms. Taylor believed that the effect of the ordinance was to shift criminals around the community, in many <br />cases before they were convicted of crimes. She asked Chief Kerns questions clarifying the nature of <br />some of the crimes mentioned in the ordinance. Ms. Taylor pointed out that all the crimes on the list for <br />which one could be excluded from downtown were already crimes. Chief Kerns acknowledged that they <br />were crimes, but pointed out the City lacked jail capacity to keep such people who committed such crimes <br />confined in jail until their trial date. When the City put people in jail for minor offenses such as theft and <br />disorderly conduct they were released immediately and went back where they came from to commit more <br />crimes. When people were arrested for violating the exclusion order, they did not come back downtown. <br />Ms. Taylor was concerned about the `rightness' of excluding people from an area and about dissipating <br />criminal behavior to other parts of the community. She believed the best approach to dealing with <br />undesirable people was to dilute their presence and have everybody together. <br />Mayor Piercy observed that whenever the City interrupted such behavior it did tend to move elsewhere but <br />it also seemed to lose intensity. One did not solve the problem, but it improved the situation. Chief Kerns <br />concurred. He said that was particularly true with street and behavior crimes, and he believed the <br />council's action to fund a new downtown police team would allow the department to place those officers <br />where the crime was happening, and over time behavior crimes would be reduced. <br />Mayor Piercy said she knew that police officers were deeply concerned about young women downtown <br />and the predatory situations they frequently found themselves in, and suggested that was the reason sex <br />crimes had been added to the ordinance. Chief Kerns concurred. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the Downtown Public Safety Zone <br />for 18 months to April 2012, adding the sexual violations and crimes portion, adding the <br />revised statutes portion, adding a new section 4.875 on the issuance of notice to show <br />cause, and deleting Section 4.876 with regard to the temporary exclusion by adopting <br />Council Bill 5042, the Option B ordinance concerning the Downtown Public Safety Zone. <br />The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Solomon, and Mr. Brown voting no. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to create an advo- <br />cacy program to be available without cost to persons who have received a notice to show <br />cause under Section 4.875 of the Eugene Code, 1971. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solo- <br />mon voting no. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council December 8, 2010 Page 5 <br />Work Session <br />