Item A: Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT B - Public Comments Received David Mandelblatt- Chair of Downtown Neighborhood Association (DNA). He received input from members of the DNA steering committee, and is confident that he speaks on behalf of the DNA. He stated the tool should only be used when it is truly needed. No one on the steering committee spoke in opposition to the DPSZ. He asked if it is applied fairly and consistently, or are whether some people singled out for special enforcement. He asked why one person would be cited and another is not. He also expressed concern about a bench that was removed on Broadway without public input. He stated they want the neighborhood to be safe and inviting. Creating that environment is excellent. Creating an environment of arbitrary enforcement is not. Melissa Ruhl - Volunteers at New Roads Drop-in Center, a part of Looking Glass, and also is a board member of the ACLU. She supports the goal of safety downtown, but questions what is being sacrificed. Exclusion is a strong word and can cause people, especially juveniles, to feel targeted and not welcome. With so many excluded under 24, this is troubling. An alternative would be to consider alternatives, such as the effectiveness of mural programs. Youth want to have pride in their community. Lisa Lindquist - Owns business in Exclusion Zone. She talked about several specific individuals who come into her shop, and make her, her customers and employees uncomfortable. She expressed her support for the ban. Lt. Mozan offered additional data. Since January 1, 2011 there have been 56 civil exclusions, and 42 notices to show cause issued by officers. Neil Van Steenbergen - He did not want to talk about the DPSZ but rather about the advocacy program. He is one of two advocates contracted by the City. As he sees the program, the program is not an advocacy program. They are only supposed to give people directions. He stated an advocate is someone who supports a person and tries to meet their needs. By contract, the advocates associated with the DPSZ are not allowed to walk the client to court because it might appear that they are providing legal assistance or advice. He has a great deal of history with the City. Carol Berg-Caldwell - In response to peoples’ comments that there have been no complaints to the auditor, she said that the people receiving these notices are on the margins, and that faith in the system is pretty low. They wouldn't know to go to the Auditor, or necessarily even trust the system to go to the Auditor. She encouraged everyone to take time to observe municipal court to see the people who are targeted by this program. Mr. Van Steenbergen concurred with Ms. Berg-Caldwell that everyone should try to go to court to see these people, and better understand the people and the issues. In response to a question from Ms. Berg-Caldwell, Sgt. Fitzpatrick responded that everyone who is given a notice to show cause gets a brochure. She followed up and asked why Sgt. Fitzpatrick believes no one has pursued the advocacy program. He believes the brochure is clear about the person's rights, and perhaps they don’t feel they need to see an advocate. Ms. Conover suggested that for the Commission meeting, it would be helpful to have a report from the Auditor about any questions they have received, and also to get information from the Attachment B - Page 6