Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Brown said the problems that Occupy Eugene was calling attention to had taken years to come to fruition. He considered it unrealistic to think that Occupy Eugene would come up with a solution to all those problems immediately and believed it would be outstanding if Occupy Eugene could come up with even one solution. He endorsed Mr. Pryor’s suggestion for more City dialogue with Occupy Eugene and suggested the City could work with Occupy Eugene on local solutions to problems such as homelessness. He said that Occupy Eugene had been peaceful, orderly, and respectful of persons and property. He supported the motion and indicated support for indefinite future exemptions requested by Occupy Eugene as long as the event remained peaceful and orderly. Mr. Zelenka also supported the motion. He believed the staff response to Occupy Eugene reflected well on the City and the community. He said the Franklin Boulevard site did not appear to have been occupied and he understood that Occupy Eugene had cleaned the site as well as the Alton Baker Park site. He perceived Occupy Eugene to be a very organized group and thought its impacts on Washington-Jefferson would be minimal. He noted that signs were posted forbidding the use of drugs and alcohol, and participants patrolled the site and were working with the Eugene Police Department. Mr. Zelenka also supported Mr. Pryor’s suggestion. He considered Occupy Eugene a unique circumstance that deserved a unique response. He encouraged the representatives of Occupy Eugene present to comply with all laws and hoped Occupy Eugene continued to be orderly and peaceful. Mayor Piercy reported that she had received calls from the cities of Portland, Seattle, and Denver asking how Eugene was managing its situation so well. Mr. Farr felt the City’s reaction to Occupy Eugene had been exemplary and particularly singled out the EPD for praise. He suggested the City’s early work through the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth had prepared Eugene for such a situation and hoped that the mayor’s response to calls from other cities included mention of that. Mr. Farr asked if staff had discussed the potential of lawsuits from environmental organizations concerned about the impact of the encampment on the greenway. City Attorney Klein did not believe council approval of the motion on the floor exposed the City to any liability because the motion merely exempted Occupy Eugene from the City’s camping ban. Mr. Farr asked if the City was liable if it did not respond to violations of the law. City Attorney Klein indicated he would need more specificity about the laws Mr. Farr was referring to. He was unaware of any laws being violated by Occupy Eugene participants that would expose the City to any liability. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Chief Kerns reported that the relationship between the EPD and Occupy Eugene had been open and productive. Lieutenant Sam Kamkar served as the department’s liaison and the Occupy Eugene representatives were compliant with his requests for changes. Mr. Pryor supported the enforcement of sanitation and safety ordinances. He did not support a confrontational attitude toward the encampment and suggested there was more probability of someone getting hurt if that occurred than there was of the City being sued for non-enforcement of the law. He pointed out the additional costs that might be created by a confrontational attitude. He did not predict or hope for a riot but could not rule one out if the City became too confrontational. He suggested the cost of maintaining a peaceful relationship was more reasonable than the cost of a full-out confrontation, which he hoped to avoid. Mr. Clark did not support the motion. He supported the right of Occupy Eugene to protest and be heard and its right to seek redress of its grievances, but no one needed to camp to protest and be heard. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2011 Page 3 Work Session