Item A: Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT B - Public Comments Received You can never do a right thing in a wrong way. You can't rob a Dutch Brother's Coffee and give it to your neighbor whose kid needs surgery and say that it works out in the end. It appears to me this is a wrong thing in a wrong way. The intention is good, to protect, but it is wrong to treat people as criminals when not convicted and to make a law that directly ignores a higher authority, our bedrock U. S. Constitution, is certainly the wrong way. Therefore, this can't be right in any way shape or form. There has to be a better way. I don't know the details of this law very well. I know that we can hold people on bail pending a trial based on evidence. I understand there is nuance to this. Can someone explain to me how this does not run afoul of our U.S. Constitution? Remember, we'd rather let criminals go free than to put one innocent in jail. And, any right we abridge for the worst is a right abridged for the best Mistakes will happen. Government will not always get it right. Putting in government hands at a lower level the authority to block any individuals access to their Constitutional rights should give us as much pause as possible. Why? This is a baby Guantanamo. How so? Just trust the government to be doing what is right even though the law is clearly being abridged. I need more information but from the beginning until now, it concerns me. I don't see any redress that could immediately stay such a thing before trial to grant equal rights to the accused. It just doesn't seem right. Our leaders have to answer first to how this meets our U. S. Constitutional Protections for Due Process under law. They then have to show how this is the least restrictive means the constitution allows for dealing with this. I would like a letter explaining this, or be directed to a web page where you have posted all of this for the purpose of informing the public to whom you are accountable to explain such things. What if you were wrongly excluded and for 30 or 60 days couldn't get to someplace downtown you NEEDED to be and you had no recourse, no process of law? The government can speed up what it wants but not the people equally? From today's paper, it sounds like the problem is the government isn't be quick in getting to trial, and that the government is not keeping people in jail for petty crimes (which would resolve most of this). Sounds like the government is taking away the people's rights as an administrative way of getting around tough budgets and other things. Sounds like it has nothing to do with whether it is constitutional or ethical. It's always well meaning to want to help the poor, but not if it means a hold-up to get the cash. To me, this seems a hold-up where out constitution is robbed, and we the people are being asked to look the other way because, hey, it's not us (for now). I need answers to why these actions are being taken that appear to strip people of due process of law. I felt it wrong back then and I feel it is wrong right now. If it is not wrong, you need to make the case why. For now, from what I've read, it doesn't at all pass muster of what meets the constitutional requirements for a law 2 Attachment B - Page 13