Laserfiche WebLink
Sue Sierralupe <br />, Ward 1, reported on a medical clinic being operated by Occupy Eugene. She said the <br />clinic was organizing a street outreach team. She anticipated the clinic would soon outgrow its existing <br />space and would move to the Parks Blocks inside the DPSZ, meaning the clinic could no longer serve the <br />patients that were excluded. She did not think that Eugene needed an exclusion zone and maintained that <br />it was being used to treat the homeless as a visual hazard that must be shielded from the eyes of the <br />middle class. <br /> <br />Charlie Swanson <br />, Ward 3, supported the proposed council resolution calling for a Constitutional <br />amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United and asked the council to include <br />the revisions proposed by We the People of Eugene. He recommended that copies of the resolution be <br />sent to the local State delegation and that it be referred to the voters for an advisory vote. <br /> <br />Scott Russell <br />, Ward 8, shared his objections to the City’s decision to award a motorcycle contract to an <br />out-of-state firm and said that because of the decision, he employed one less person. He did not think the <br />City’s decision was fair. <br /> <br />Charlie Warren <br />, Lane County, Midtown Business Associates (MBA), expressed support for the DPSZ. <br />However, the zone and increased bicycle patrols downtown had caused downtown trouble makers to shift <br />to midtown and the association’s private security was overwhelmed. Mr. Warren believed the zone <br />should be applied communitywide because otherwise it did not eliminate the problem but merely shifted <br />it. He said that the MBA’s problem was not with the homeless or the unemployed but rather with the <br />alcoholics, drug dealers, vagrants, and so-called travelers who come to Eugene because of its reputation <br />of tolerance. He believed that midtown would continue to be overwhelmed with problems until it got <br />help from the City. <br /> <br />David Bomar <br />, Coburg, a midtown property owner in Eugene, concurred with Mr. Warren about the <br />impacts of the zone on midtown. He asked that any street crime or vagrancy ordinances be enforced on a <br />citywide basis to avoid the problem of shifting crime. He also asked that a bicycle patrol be assigned to <br />midtown and more attention be given to patrolling midtown. While downtown officers tried to patrol <br />midtown, their numbers were limited and their top priority was downtown. He asked councilors Brown <br />and Zelenka to take a lead in securing more police protection for the area. <br /> <br />Hugh Prichard <br />, Ward 3, owned property both in midtown and downtown. He had owned property <br />downtown for 34 years and had seen conditions worsen. Mr. Prichard asked the council to deploy police <br />resources equitably and where they were needed without consideration of boundaries. He believed that <br />other areas of the community were adversely affected by ordinances specific to a single area. He <br />suggested that downtown was really just one neighborhood. <br /> <br />Art Bowmurr <br />, Ward 2, perceived that there were few consequences for officers who misbehaved and <br />recommended the council consider that when it considered extending the DPSZ. <br /> <br />Joel Narva <br />, Santa Clara, opposed Lane County’s proposal to revise the boundaries of the Eugene- <br />Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan. He believed that the change would result in “fast track” <br />approval for gravel extraction and other uses he did not believe were appropriate for urban areas. He did <br />not believe that one family’s experience should result in such a significant change. He maintained that <br />the Board of County Commissioners had ignored the “hundreds of us” who had lived in the area for <br />decades and relied on what he believe d was the protection provided by the participation of Eugene and <br />Springfield in boundary decisions. He further averred that the proposal placed the burden of appeal on <br />“ordinary citizens.” <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 13, 2012 Page 4 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />