Laserfiche WebLink
jail beds and the ordinance was one of the only ways to hold those who ignored the system accountable. <br />Mr. Clark said he wanted to extend the ordinance beyond 18 months but recognized that some councilors <br />did not support that. He was willing to amend the ordinance to have the exclusion take effect after the <br />hearing to address other councilors' concerns about due process. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed that downtown faced serious problems, which he believed were complex and not easy <br />to solve. He continued to be concerned that 60 percent of excluded were homeless. He also had concerns <br />about due process. He asked Judge Allen how many defendants were accompanied by legal counsel. <br />Judge Allen conceded that few defendants had counsel for 90 -day exclusions, although almost all had <br />counsel for one -year exclusions. Mr. Zelenka wanted to provide funding for legal counsel for indigent <br />defendants. He also wanted to see the pre- hearing exclusions eliminated. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the constitutionality of the ordinance, City Attorney <br />Lidz indicated his belief the ordinance met due process requirements. Mr. Zelenka questioned if the <br />ordinance would be constitutional if it was expanded to another neighborhood or the entire community. <br />He did not think so. He said the tool was a very serious one to use on minor crimes committed by only a <br />few people. <br />Mr. Brown referred to the mention of further discussions to occur with stakeholders and questioned <br />whether that would actually happen in a meaningful way. He also questioned who the stakeholders were. <br />City Manager Ruiz said the 18 -month period prior to the sunset date was an opportunity for further <br />discussion about efficacy of the ordinance and ways to refine it. Chief Kerns anticipated the stakeholders <br />would include downtown residents and civil rights advocates. <br />Mr. Brown was concerned the exclusion zone would be like urban renewal and would never end and <br />would instead be expanded to other areas. He did not see any value in what he termed a "parallel legal <br />systems" because the community already had a good justice system. He did not think the statistics <br />demonstrated any improvement downtown. <br />Ms. Taylor asked City Attorney Lidz to respond to Mr. Zelenka's question about the applicability of the <br />zone to the entire city. Mr. Lidz was unaware of any city that had tried to apply such a zone more broadly <br />and he had no case law to refer to. He said the way to determinate what process was due under the due <br />process clause was to consider the interests at stake; what was the citizen's interest that was at issue from <br />the government action? What were the government's needs? Would additional procedures make a <br />difference and improve the accuracy of decision making? How burdensome would those procedures be? <br />City Attorney Lidz believed if the council made the entire city an exclusion zone it would have to "beef <br />up" the due process requirements and he would not recommend such an approach. <br />Ms. Taylor believed the stakeholders in the ordinance were all citizens with an interest injustice for <br />everyone. She thought harassment and disorderly conduct were very vague terms and were dependent on <br />one's point of view. <br />Speaking to Mr. Zelenka's earlier comments about providing funding for legal counsel, Mr. Clark said he <br />had researched that issue and learned that it was cost - prohibitive to do so and could also set a dangerous <br />precedent. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to bring back for <br />final action a revision to the Downtown Public Safety Zone Ordinance that would add cer- <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council October 25, 2010 Page 8 <br />Work Session <br />