Item A: Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT B - Public Comments Received Chief Kerns – While a speaker may support the ordinance so it can used to exclude people who make her uncomfortable, that's not what the ordinance would allow the Police Department to do. It only applies to people that commit crimes and our officers know the people are who are committing dangerous crimes. If you look at those who have been excluded, you’d see a pattern of people who are not able to behave in a safe way in the downtown area. Regarding the advocates, they work in a very specific way, worked out with attorneys to assure that the advocates are not inappropriately practicing law or giving legal advice. It's probably worthwhile that we look at the advocacy program to assure it’s achieving what we’d hoped. Bob Walker - I found it telling that none of the speakers at the public forum asked for the Commission to discontinue the Downtown Public Safety Zone. One woman who works with Looking Glass and the ACLU said she is concerned about the word "exclusion" because some juveniles feel excluded from many things already. Another person from the Downtown Neighborhood Association spoke in support of the ordinance, but felt that the police shouldn't be doing other things like locking bikes around downtown. He agreed that the Downtown Public Safety Zone was a good idea. Regarding the shop owner, I heard something different than Mr. Mueller. I heard that sometimes people came in with menacing behavior. They weren't interested in buying anything and it affected the customers. She thought that the Downtown Public Safety Zone would help business owners. We need to continue with this program. Kitty Piercy – Portland did have a Drug and Prostitution Exclusion Zone. It lasted for 15 years and ended in 2007. It was a very different kind of exclusion zone than we have. It ended because officials found the exclusion zone was ineffective at deterring crime and data analysis showed discrimination against African Americans in enforcement. I had a lot of misgivings about this proposal originally, but I have been convinced by the reports of the judges and others that have been involved that the Downtown Public Safety Zone has been used very carefully. It is not used to keep people from coming in but to keep repeat offenders from returning downtown to prey on the people who should be in downtown. I think it has been carefully used. I'm saying this as someone who feels strongly about freedoms. I also know that one of the biggest problems downtown is not keeping kids out, but it's keeping kids from being preyed on by people who specifically go there to do that. I think we need to keep our eyes on this ordinance and its application, so it doesn't change into something we don't want. It doesn’t get used very frequently. I would like to call it a "safety zone" rather than an "exclusion zone". I like the positive, rather than the negative. Jim Garner - Out of all the offenses that could resulted in an exclusion, less than 4% do. That’s a very small number. The officers are trying very hard to eliminate the repeat crime offenders. It affects very few people. I think the tool is being used appropriately. Mike Clark - I agree with the Mayor. I brought this up with the Council originally, because we had a serious problem of people being harassed in downtown. There was menacing behavior and people breaking windows. With the few number of jail beds if a person was arrested, they'd be out in 15 minutes. There was no way to hold people accountable for their actions. As a result of their fear, several business owners starting carrying guns. I asked an officer what other tools could be used. The officer responded that within the city-owned park blocks, the City could exclude someone. It’s a little different because that is property that the City owns, but this is largely based on that concept. The Downtown Public Safety Zone has been used judicially. I am going to support this. Attachment B - Page 2