Exclusion Ordinance

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sherrill Necessary on July 27, 2008 at 12:24pm

Is this the first time this behavior has come up in Eugene? Does the city need this ordinance, or will it be enough to enforce the current laws? What are the ordinances for public nuisance, indecency, public drunkenness, stalking, panhandling, disorderly conduct, etc.?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 27, 2008 at 3:58pm

I honestly don't know what to think of this ordinance. On the one hand, it looks like a clear civil liberties violation (and I do believe that even scumbags have civil liberties), but on the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that the presence or absence of a few repeat offenders makes a huge difference in a neighborhood.

I haven't looked at the hearing
http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_8572_2...
yet Greg, there are explicit protections in

Something

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 27, 2008 at 3:59pm

I've attached a pdf of the ordinance at the bottom of this post, and as J.D. said, there's the video of the hearing, which I haven't gotten around to watching yet (but I will).

http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_8572_2...

II honestly don't know what to think of this ordinance. On the one hand, it looks an awful lot like an easily abused civil liberties violation, but on the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that the presence or absence of a few repeat offenders often makes a huge difference in a neighborhood.

More pragmatically, if this goes through, I'm wondering where the local scumbags are going to relocate to--it's not like they're just going to stop their activities just because it's riskier for them to continue downtown. And I'm also a little concerned that this sort of "police state" action might backfire and make people even more disrespectful and hostile downtown and more likely to try to engage the cops. But I'll have more to say about that on the Security discussion.

Greg, there is a list of exceptions in 4.874(3) (to meet with attorney, to use LTD, etc.). None of them refer to people living or working downtown, but it's possible for someone to live or work downtown and be a drug dealer whom the neighborhood would be better off without.

Attachments:

• downtownexclusion.pdf, 27 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 27, 2008 at 4:26pm

I seem to be having technical problems with posting, sorry.

One more thing I wanted to add: If we're going to be violating civil liberties for the common good, maybe we could instead take the "child molester" approach and make the names and personal info of certain kinds of downtown offenders publicly available on a registry in order to activate citizen self-policing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Kennedy on July 27, 2008 at 5:32pm

Surf the City of Eugene's website. Shows crime in downtown down 9.10% between '06 and '07. Let me know if you can't find those stats. I'll post the link.

Interesting. I have a different perspective - lived in and hung around downtown for 6 years. Never felt threatened on any level. My wife feels the same way, as well as many of our elderly neighbors. I absolutely feel this ordinance would be a violation of civil rights, as well as a very difficult ordinance to enforce. What about innocent until proven guilty? I also don't like solutions like this that tend to just "sweep" problems (people) under the rug with little consideration for where those people are going to end up. Ban them from downtown? Just make them someone else's problem?

Eugene is a nice town but it is no longer a small provincial hamlet. It is becoming a city and there WILL be crime downtown. Period. The best solution is to bring businesses downtown that will take care of their properties. Enterprise says crime is down on their block. Tom has heard similar reports about his corner. Granted, this is hearsay - am I incorrect in this? East Broadway seems to not be faced with these problems. The difference? Solid businesses.

Again, we're getting bad press all over the place - "dangerous" "empty". This is my pet agenda granted, but is this really going to help the issue of improving the business climate downtown?

Where's the PR response to this bad press?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Kennedy on July 27, 2008 at 5:42pm

I don't by any means want to sound like I don't feel something needs to be done about crime downtown, I just don't know that this is the answer.

from the RG:

City Public Defender Dan Neal said the ordinance is unnecessary because judges can always ban people from downtown after they are convicted of a crime.

With the publicity about the problems downtown, he said, the city prosecutor probably will ask judges for the ban. “And I would be surprised if judges don’t agree to those requests,” Neal said.

Last year there were 2,413 reported crimes in the 32-square-block area that composes the heart of downtown, or about 10 percent of all crimes reported in the city.

Neal said the troubles of Snowden and other area merchants make him wonder why the Eugene Police Department isn’t “enforcing laws more aggressively downtown.”

“Increased police presence should go a long way to addressing the well-founded concerns of the business people and the public,” Neal said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on July 27, 2008 at 6:53pm

William,

I agree that it isn't actually dangerous downtown--although I get asked with some frequency whether I want to buy drugs, I've never felt like I was in any physical danger downtown, and I go out at all hours. But it is seriously scuzzy downtown, less so on E Bwy, but scuzzy nonetheless, and I think that's what people are reacting to.

My suspicion is that the reason there isn't more policing downtown is that the police, like the scumbags (and an awful lot of other people), have the idea that that sort of behavior is appropriate downtown, so they tolerate things which would never be allowed in South Eugene.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Kamis on July 28, 2008 at 8:57pm

Heres the crime report by neighborhood.
Follow this link:
Follow this link:
http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_269591..."">

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on July 28, 2008 at 1:10am

A Tale of Two Kitties

I wanted to speak to the Mayor today, but I knew that she'd be busy this Sunday afternoon appearing at the Candidate Forum with the other mayoral candidate, Jim Torrey.

So I waited until Sunday evening. Then I went over to her newly opened campaign office at 1280 Willamette Street. I thought she might stop by there on her way home from the Forum.

When I got there, at first the office seemed deserted. Then I looked again and I saw that I'd guessed right, she was there after all. Kitty smiled at me as I came up to the front door. She was smiling at me and all the passers by. She seemed to be in a buoyant mood, as she leaned against the office window. I guessed that the Forum had gone well for her.

When I approached her, I wondered if she'd remember me. I asked her "Remember me? I spoke at the Public Forum two weeks ago? I was the one who told you and the City Council where I thought you should stick those WG and OPUS proposals! I'm the Library Park guy!"

At first she continued to smile, but then she may have pulled back from the window just a bit. Maybe that was just my imagination, though.

"Wouldn't it be GREAT" I went on, "to have a PARK next to the LIBRARY?" Her head was tilted to one side. I could see she was thinking about it.

"How about..." I went on, eager to close the deal, "calling it Piercy Park! Piercy Park!"

I thought I saw a quick nod of her head, but wasn't sure.

I could see the twinkle in her eye as she considered that possibility. But that happy fantasy quickly disappeared. The twinkle dimmed to a sad look of resignation. Maybe it was just the sun going behind some clouds.

"It's because of the homeless, isn't it? The drug addicts? The crazies?" I looked away and then looked back. I understood how she felt. I'd been hearing about that a lot, too.

She would have liked the park, even without her name being on it. But much as we both might want to have a beautiful park there, it was not to be.

I looked up at her. Once again, she was smiling at me and all the passers by.

I wondered if the Downtown Public Safety Zone ordinance would help things. Would she support it? "Whatever I do, I'll catch hell for it either way." Did she say that? Or had I only imagined that?

It was time for me to go. Looking over my shoulder, I saw her watch me leaving.

Then I remembered that I'd brought my camera. Would she pose for a picture? Like most elected officials, she was eager to oblige.

If you have any concerns, you may also contact Kitty. The one at City Hall or the one propped up against the campaign office window on Willamette Street. The choice is yours.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J.D. Olsen on July 28, 2008 at 3:18am

Right...

Anyway, addressing the actual issue: I, too, am conflicted about this exclusionary measure. Civil rights violations must always be a concern, as must the defense of our right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That being said, one thing Councilman Clark brought up during the public hearing is that there already exists a system for banning a person from contact with a victim if he has proven to be a danger to his victim: the restraining order. In essence, the concept of this exclusionary ordinance is to create a system whereby individuals who victimize an area are ordered to stay away from said area. It is basically a temporary restraining order with "downtown" as the petitioner. The "show cause" hearing serves the role of the court hearing to determine the validity of the petition for restraint, with the arresting officer providing the evidence.

I am not convinced that this plan will work, for myriad reasons, but it may very well create the impression of a valid solution. In absolute terms, downtown is no more dangerous than any other area with a high concentration of illicit activity; the problem we have is one of perception. People believe downtown to be dangerous, and so this stigma becomes attached to it, people are willing to let it degrade since it was "already like that," which serves only to drive more people away, etc. It is closely correlated to the "broken windows" theory that gets referenced often in criminal justice: an area that looks like no one cares about it will encourage people to continue not caring about it. This is why the mere presence of a responsible business (Enterprise, for example, or Davis'), and the associated aesthetic changes it brings, can often have an impact on local crime (and, more importantly, on the perception of crime) completely disproportionate to any tangible contribution.

Finally, it's not that the police don't care about street crime, or that they are more tolerant of it downtown than elsewhere; it's that there are only so many resources that can be thrown at a given problem spot at any given time. There are measures that law enforcement can take to help mitigate the problem, but there are many, many more that residents can take. Random property crime, most of which are spontaneous crimes of opportunity, are among the most difficult to investigate; prevention is far more effective than reaction, which is why this measure is even being considered.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Hollands on July 28, 2008 at 11:24am

On the prevention front, I'm astonished that no one (the RG included) has pointed out the simple fact that Mrs. Snowden does not keep any lights on in her business after hours.
Maintaining interior and exterior lighting after hours is a simple method to help deter break-in and loitering. Mrs. Snowden's storefront is recessed slightly from the sidewalk, forming a nook of sorts, and is illuminated neither by interior nor exterior lighting. To drunk persons the world round, that's a urinal of opportunity. And being located in the "bar-muda triangle", that storefront certainly sees its share of passing intoxicated foot traffic.
Look to the other end of the block, and the sidewalk in front of Enterprise to see the positive effect lighting can have on loitering.
While its up to tenants to work with landlords to make sure there space has adequate minimal deterrence, its also up to landlords them selfs to make sure vacant spaces have illumination as well. It aesthetics is an issue, look to the vacant space at the east end of the Washburn building, where the windows have been obscured up to about 7ft with large-role blue craft paper. The space is well illuminated, light shines through the paper (which actually provides a good backdrop for decorative or informative posters, between the paper and the glass). I walk past there several nights a week, and no one is loitering in that vacant storefront. There is however, loitering across the street, in the vacant space east-adjacent Lazar's.

To this end, I'd actually like to see that we as group begin pressuring the landlords on that two-block stretch of west Broadway to keep (at a minimum) some interior illumination in their storefronts. Any loiterers not driven elsewhere will at least be more visible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Hollands on July 28, 2008 at 1:04pm

Randy,
This is clearly an impassioned issue for you. Have you considered contacting someone from the West Eugene Neighbors to find out which hoops they had to jump through, and what costs they incurred in their (on-going)process of working with the city to expand and redesign what has been a closed park in their neighborhood.
The West University Neighbors

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page