Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

for more than 20 years. Before the zone took effect, her family was bullied and taunted with racial epithets for 15 years by offenders who knew there were no consequences for their actions. She asked where the ACLU had been during that time. The DPSZ had improved conditions for her family and customers. The zone was targeted at repeat offenders. She believed the zone was about inclusion of everyone. Cynthia Kokis , Ward 1, maintained the zone was based on fear and unfamiliarity with those who were different. She believed the zone was unfair, discriminatory, and used against people because of the way they looked. She suggested there were solutions based more on compassion than rebuke and isolation. She offered to pay more taxes to support more compassionate solutions. John Monroe , Ward 1, did not think the EPD’s research supported the continuation of the DPSZ and called for more rigorous analysis of the statistics. He acknowledged the problem of downtown public safety and regretted the problems suffered by downtown merchants. However, he pointed out that there were now more police downtown as well as private security. Mr. Monroe said that those who were excluded from downtown were likely to go to neighborhoods more difficult to monitor and were there were fewer police. He suggested the council and those in support of the ordinance to view a show cause hearing at Municipal Court and then decide if the zone was being applied justly. Henry Jones , Ward 6, opposed the DPSZ because he believed it was being used against people for the way they looked and as an “economic tool for class warfare.” He suggested concentrated police enforcement downtown diminished the public response to other parts of the community. He advocated for a downtown drop-in center where the homeless were made to feel welcome. He refused to shop downtown until the DPSZ was gone. Carla Newbre , Ward 1, opposed the DPSZ because there was no data to show it was working. In addition, the zone seemed to be quite polarizing and criminalized those who should not be criminalized. She also was concerned about a lack of due process. She said that homeless people were disadvantaged when dealing with the court system and trying to have their civil rights addressed. They were unaware of the resources that existed to assist them, some of which were in the exclusion zone, and lacked means to access those resources. They often just gave up. Mark Johnson , Ward 4, representing Lane Transit District, supported the continuation of the DPSZ. He believed the zone had improved public safety and was targeted at criminals rather than at people because of their status. Heather Marek , Ward 1, opposed the extension of the DPSZ. She challenged both the data and data analysis provided by the EPD. The data did not include information on how exclusions were used and enforced or the race, gender, economic status, housing status, and mental health background of those excluded, making it impossible to know the impact of the zone on marginalized communities. No information was included about the crimes leading to exclusion, making it difficult to assess the safety threat of those excluded. She found other factors lacking in the data that made the zone difficult to evaluate. Cassandra Snowden , Ward 1, supported the extension of the DPSZ because it was proven to be effective. The zone did not discriminate against people because of their appearance or economic status. The violence and harassment her family had experienced had stopped and the entire downtown atmosphere had improved. Ms. Snowden believed eliminating the zone sent the wrong message to criminals. She reiterated Betty Snowden’s remark that the ACLU never contacted her family to offer assistance when they were being harassed and called racial epithets. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 21, 2012 Page 7 Regular Meeting