Laserfiche WebLink
those who spent time downtown that they were seeing less illegal activity. Speaking to the second <br />question, Mr. Pryor suggested there was a trail of accountability that went from officers to the judge. He <br />recalled asking Judge Allen if he had seen such abuse, and Judge Allen had indicated he was not. Judge <br />Allen had indicated he was not seeing people because of their appearance or status as a homeless person. <br />Instead, he was seeing cases based on actual offenses. <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Judge Allen said he believed that the questions mentioned by <br />Mr. Pryor were the questions of concern. Speaking to the question of whether it was being abused, he <br />said he was not seeing that. It was more difficult to say if the ordinance was working. <br />Ms. Ortiz asked when the new downtown police officers would be the job. Chief Kerns said that three <br />officers had been hired to date and by December 2011 would have five- person full -time team. <br />Ms. Ortiz did not object to adding sex offenses to the list of offenses for which one could be excluded. <br />She wished the City could ban malt liquor citywide, not just in downtown, as its abuse affected the entire <br />community. <br />Speaking to the question of whether the ordinance was working, Chief Kerns said it was statistically <br />difficult to demonstrate in comparison to more major additions, such as more jail beds, for example. He <br />suggested the department was "tweaking the dials" to determine what approaches were effective, and he <br />thought it was a combination of those approaches that would work in the end. Chief Kerns was also <br />discouraged by the number of people violating the exclusion order. However, that did not mean the zone <br />was not successful. The removal of a single harmful person could do a great deal of good. <br />Mayor Piercy said she had heard people critical of the ordinance say that a disproportionate number of <br />those excluded were self - identified as homeless. She said the homeless were as varied as other people, <br />and were both good and bad. Some committed crimes and some did not. Being homeless did not make a <br />person a criminal. She said it would be a problem if the ordinance targeted the homeless. Mayor Piercy <br />pointed out that when the police removed offenders from the non - criminal population, they were removing <br />predators that preyed on the young people downtown. That had the potential to improve lives that were <br />not being counted statistically. She agreed with Mr. Zelenka about the need for more services that could <br />make a change in offenders' lives. <br />Mayor Piercy suggested the ordinance sent a message that the council cared about downtown. She was <br />not comfortable with exclusion zones and continued to consider the issues involved. <br />Mayor Piercy observed that there were many people who failed to appear in the courts, and the lack of jail <br />space exacerbated that problem in all areas. <br />Mayor Piercy suggested a third question not asked by Mr. Pryor was whether the ordinance interfered <br />with people's rights. <br />Mayor Piercy asked the council to consider the people affected by the ordinance, who included the <br />offenders, their victims, and the people who lived in downtown. <br />Mr. Clark said he was downtown every day and could state that things had been better downtown during <br />the past summer with the zone in place. The ordinance was a tool the police could use to address the <br />problems that occurred regularly downtown, including violent confrontation, harassment, and predatory <br />behavior. He believed Lane County was criminally under - serving the community because of the lack of <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 25, 2010 Page 7 <br />Work Session <br />