Laserfiche WebLink
downtown businesses were more apt to contact the police and report a crime knowing they would receive <br />a prompt response. Mr. Pryor concluded that reporting rather than crime had gone up and anticipated <br />over time the actual number of citations would decrease if the zone was working. Lt. Kamkar agreed. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Lt. Kamkar confirmed that the exclusion zone was not being <br />used to target individuals but rather to target criminal behavior. <br />Mr. Brown did not think the motion was necessary at this time, noting the public process to follow. He <br />questioned the effectiveness of the zone given the data provided by staff and suggested the zone <br />represented an unnecessary layer to the existing policing system. Like Ms. Taylor, Mr. Brown also <br />wanted to know what happened to those who were excluded. He noted that the Mid -Town Merchants <br />Association reported a large spike in incidents in that area, which was immediately adjacent to downtown. <br />Mr. Brown supported the word change recommended by staff. <br />Mr. Zelenka believed it was hard to definitely state that zone worked and he continued to have due <br />process concerns. He questioned why one in five challenged exclusions was denied by a judge. Mr. <br />Barkovic said that in some instances cases were dismissed when the court discovered the crime <br />underlying the exclusion was not eligible for a 90 -day exclusion order, although the crime might be <br />eligible for one -year exclusions in the event of a conviction. Mr. Zelenka asked for more detail about <br />those cases. <br />Ms. Ortiz requested additional information about how Latinos were identified in the demographics. <br />Ms. Ortiz believed downtown crime had leeched into nearby neighborhoods as a result of the zone, <br />decreasing those residents' quality of life. She had considered the zone a stopgap measure pending the <br />assignment of more police officers, which she anticipated would have a greater impact than the zone. She <br />agreed the motion was premature and did not support it. <br />Mayor Piercy believed the intention was that the City would have less need for the zone as other public <br />safety initiatives moved forward. She suggested to Mr. Zelenka that the number of dismissed cases <br />argued that the zone was working. She pointed out the community continued to lack sufficient jail beds <br />and she did not know when that would change. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that focusing on crime in <br />one location frequently shifted it to another location. <br />Mayor Piercy supported retention of the sunset and a future reexamination; however, she questioned if the <br />time was right to end the zone given the City's goals for downtown. <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Mayor Piercy. He believed the zone had been effective in removing the worst <br />offenders from downtown and held them accountable at a time the City lacked jail beds to contain them. <br />He recommended those in disagreement contact downtown business owners like Tom Kamis and Betty <br />Snowden to ask them if they thought the zone made a difference. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Clark and Mayor Piercy. He considered the zone a tool to mitigate the loss of <br />County jail beds. He anticipated that Lane County will make even more reductions to public safety. He <br />thanked Sgt. Terry Fitzpatrick and Lt. Kamkar for their administration of the ordinance. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Chief Kerns said studies suggested that focused patrols would <br />disperse concentrations of crime and when they occurred elsewhere they were in smaller concentrations. <br />As the concentration dispersed, the police followed it. The loss of jail beds undermined the police effort. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 25, 2012 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />