CC Minutes - 10/25/10 Work Session

Home Browse Search

what happened to that zone. Chief Kerns said Portland had drug -free and prostitution -free zones that were designed differently than Eugene's zones in that the police could impose exclusions without the involvement of a judge. Portland also had an exclusion zone in the downtown zone and subsequently ended it but he did not know why. City Attorney Jerome Lidz added that Portland's drug -free and prostitution -free zones covered substantial parts of the City. One of the zones was challenged and upheld by the courts but Portland let both ordinances expire. Mr. Brown observed that levels for what was described by the police as two minor offenses, alcohol and trespass, declined, but overall crime volume did not go down, suggesting increases in other categories. He suggested the identified declines in alcohol violations could be attributed to Sgt. Fitzpatrick's work to persuade convenience store owners not to sell malt liquor downtown. He noted that alcohol and trespass levels went steeply outside the zone in nearby areas. Mr. Brown questioned if the City could actually state that the ordinance was working. Chief Kerns pointed out that 9.8 percent of all such crimes occurred in the 20 -block area of downtown, unlike those other areas, and when crime went up in those areas it did not have the consequences it did in the downtown core. He also noted that the statistics about behavior crimes in downtown were generated by police officers who witnessed crimes rather than by calls for service. Mr. Poling highlighted the fact that Chief Kerns had reported that about ten percent of all offenses that occurred in Eugene took place in an area that constituted about .0205 of the city. He suggested that "told the tale" about what was happening downtown. Mr. Poling determined from Chief Kerns that a police officer could not issue an exclusion order without support from the prosecutor's office and the Municipal Court. Mr. Poling recalled that at one time, police officers could issue temporary staking orders that took immediate effect until a hearing could occur. He suggested that was even more restrictive than what the council was discussing. He did not think the ordinance violated anyone's rights. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged that he was conflicted about the ordinance because he was concerned both about public safety and individual rights. He thought the combined impact of downtown development and an increased police presence would help improve conditions downtown over time, but also saw the immediate need for more tools to address downtown issues now. He said that crime levels downtown were down but he questioned the role the exclusion zone had in that, and agreed with Mr. Brown that activity had shifted to other areas. He emphasized the need for more jail beds and treatment options. Mr. Zelenka asked Chief Kerns his thoughts on the impact of the exclusion zone. Chief Kerns believed that a series of initiatives would be needed to reduce crime in downtown. Speaking to the suggestion that while crime was down in the zone it had been shifted to other areas, Chief Kerns did not think that demonstrated the zone was not successful. The exclusion zone was taking dangerous and frightening people out of downtown where they wanted to be. Judge Allen expressed disappointment in the number of people who failed to obey their exclusions. He said of the 135 exclusions issued, 33 people have violated their exclusion, and some repeatedly. He said that some of those individuals had mental health issues, but it still represented a significant number. Judge Allen emphasized the importance of the Springfield jail beds to successful sanctions and hoped it would make a difference. Mr. Pryor believed there were two questions to consider, whether the zone worked and whether it was being abused by officers. Speaking to the first question, he said he learned from his conversations with MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 25, 2010 Page 6 Work Session