Exclusion Ordinance

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by William Kennedy on July 28, 2008 at 5:12pm

http://www.solutionsforamerica.org/thrivingneigh/crime-prevention.html

some interesting ideas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Henderson on August 1, 2008 at 1:43pm

Thanks William. I've been reading through thread thinking, what have other communities done regarding this issue? Certainly we are not the only one's facing crime (and more pressing, the perception of danger) downtown. One Google search later and I found that Portland has had an exclusion zone since 1992 and "they are going to let a long-standing 'exclusion zone' law lapse and concentrate on drug treatment for those arrested in the areas." AMAZING! Taking action to solve the problem rather than just relocating the problem. An exclusion zone in Eugene would only temporarily address the perception issue and little else.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/10068071.html

My response to the police issue is similar to my response on the parking issue, try living in a large city. In Oakland, California, where I came to Eugene from, police abuse is real and rampant, and the citizens are in a constant battle. "The so-called Rider's police scandal in Oakland uncovered more than a hundred cases of police abuse, including police beatings, planting evidence, and harassing innocent members of the community." That's not intended to down play the issues in Eugene, just to add some perspective.

We need police, and we need them to have power and we fear them because they have power. This is especially true when things become contentious between citizens and police. Right now in Eugene, the police can do nothing right. I agree with Greg that we need to recognize that police are people, some good, some bad, and I agree with Tom that the civil rights card is overplayed. We need to engage the police, as well as service providers, business owners, landlords, residents, and visitors (yep, the street kids too) as part of the solution to our challenges in downtown. Repeated trashing of the police, while it makes for entertaining articles in the EW, doesn't help.

As the DNA I think we should support the police auditor and civilian review board AND support the police by developing positive partnerships (start by inviting them to a DNA meeting), and advocating for funding and training. Lastly, the police and the community efforts to stop crime are being frustrated by the county's budget issues and failing jail. We need to solve that problem so that the ridiculous cycle of arresting and releasing criminals stops. Operating a business across the street from the jail I watch it happen daily.

Fighting Police Abuse: A Community Action Manual

-Angela

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Kennedy on August 1, 2008 at 6:08pm

Again, I ask us all to consider what works in other relatively bustling parts of downtown (east Broadway and Pearl, 5th Street, parts of Willamette). In my view? Business. Business creates a flow of people, coming and going. Transients may be around, but they move along more quickly, or fade a bit more into the crowd. Business owners take care of their storefronts - creating an atmosphere of respect for the area. There is a perception by the larger community that these areas are worth "protecting". The answers to west Broadway's problems are both simple and very difficult - but any answer (exclusion ordinance) that doesn't first focus on economic stimulus is putting the hot dog cart WAY before the drunk college kid. If you get my drift. So, you might ask "William, how do we stimulate the economy of West Broadway?" Well, one of the reasons I supported the WG proposal for the pit was the possibility of Pac U expanding, creating jobs and a steady reliable flow of people. It's going to happen slowly with a combo of brave local entrepeneurs (Tom, Greg) and admirable national/regional businesses or institutions (Enterprise, Pac U) staking claim. Creating flow. Giving people reasons to come to the area day and night. Furthermore, and I know many strongly disagree, we NEED a flagship store downtown to spark retail revival. Sears will never be downtown again, but many retailers have made niches in downtown areas. Local business I believe is worthy of all our support (I've only ever worked for local businesses) but most people need a "name" to come downtown for. Then they might have a cup of coffee, buy lunch, or whatever, from a local business. Most importantly they'll come downtown - not get mugged, see that there really are all kinds of people downtown not just wandering hordes of zombie like street kids - and they just might tell a friend. We have to think of the economic health of the area first - and then other chips will fall (more easily) into place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Bryant on August 4, 2008 at 4:28pm

A flagship store is a relative thing. Downtown Florence, Italy does fine without a Sear's, a Macy's, or anything even vaguely resembling those. The closest thing, is the year-round farmer's market, and street upon street of vendors. Branding is not as important as function.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Bryant on August 4, 2008 at 4:25pm

FYI:

This came to the CPA list via someone at the City:

We have learned that there is a rally being organized by the NAACP on Monday
and an anti-hate leafleting campaign on Tuesday associated with recent
incidents around Betty Snowden's Glamour Girl business.



The rally is Monday and being organized by the NAACP. We have been informed
the purpose of this rally is to support adoption of the proposed downtown
safety ordinance, presently scheduled for August 11th. We have no further
information at this time but will make it available as we learn more. The
anti-leafleting campaign is on Tuesday. Organizers will meet at the Human
Rights Center on Willamette at 10:00am and the event is scheduled for 90
minutes. Teams will hand-out flyers to area businesses, asking them to post
the "Hate Free Zone" signs in their store windows.



These are expected to be positive community events and will likely generate
positive news stories that will be helpful in bringing attention to the
safety issues downtown. The City of Eugene is organizing a special task
team to brainstorm ideas to enhance downtown safety which will be
coordinated with a reorganization of the public-private downtown safety
group that has previously done work and made recommendations in this area.
We are actively seeking and pursuing ideas and strategies that can be used
in the short term to address immediate issues and form a good foundation for
longer-term solutions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Bryant on August 4, 2008 at 4:47pm

It's a little ironic, for a rights organization to advocate punishment via exclusion. Maybe they are confusing vengeance for vigilance?

No one should be subjected to Betty's problems, but the resolution is just a matter of increasing funding, for existing enforcement and social programs. Balkanizing our city is not sensible.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Bryant on August 4, 2008 at 4:58pm

Here is the paper recently sent to the Mayor and CC by Citizens for Public Accountability:
August 1, 2000


Dear Mayor Kitty Piercy and Eugene City Councilors:

As the CPA Steering Committee reads it, the proposed Exclusion Ordinance would allow individuals to be excluded from the downtown area for periods ranging from 90 days to one year. The criteria include accusation of, or conviction for, any item from a long list of crimes, including many misdemeanors and minor infractions. The list ranges from such subjective charges as disorderly conduct and harassment, to drug possession. According to the proposal, a judge could exclude people from the area based on a "preponderance of evidence" regarding the accusation.

The potential for abuse of such an ordinance, is obvious to any student of civil and human rights. One could be accused if one's lifestyle, politics, ethnic group, religion, age or appearance were bothersome to folks more favored by the police. Historically, this kind of ordinance is often applied to those who express their political preferences through public demonstrations.

Amending such a proposal will not render it acceptable. For instance the proposal might be amended to include only those convicted. But many low income people, and the working poor, accept conviction on lesser crimes, when accused of more serious crimes, because they only have access to public defenders, whose services are increasingly limited for lack of funding.

Of course the homeless, and youth, will be typical targets of this ordinance. Its application will push these folks back into the residential neighborhoods, where there is even less security for local residents. The "Westown on 8th Avenue" apartment complex is now open. Most of its residents are low income people. If any of them were accused, would they be excluded from their home, or from using the transit station? Would people be prohibited from seeing their representative or attorney or doctor in a downtown office? And what if they work downtown themselves? What if they are seeking a job that happens to be downtown?

The exclusion could itself cause typical balkanization patterns in our city, with groups of people, excluded from the mix of a generalized downtown scene, forming a more territorial type of association in the neighborhoods.

Another troublesome aspect of this proposal is the tremendous burden it will place on the already overburdened taxpayer. Imagine a new layer of our municipal judicial system, emerging to deal with processing expulsions and their enforcement. Think of the millions of dollars that will be spent on defending against the inevitable lawsuits resulting from such a system. This will drain money from currently strapped agencies, who, with better funding, are quite capable of dealing with criminal problems.

We are opposed to the municipal government forming a shadow legal system, in which people can be punished, with exclusion, on the basis accusations outside established criminal standards. Even if the proposal is limited to those convicted, it would still create punishments beyond those already assigned in our existing laws.

Anyone who cherishes our basic liberties should oppose it. One of the chief proponents, Betty Snowden, commented in supporting the proposal, that her rights were being violated every day. Any time anyone's rights are violated, action needs to be taken. However the protection of the rights of one individual, or group, does not lie in suppressing the rights of someone else. It lies in properly funding our judicial system, and in preventative efforts designed to reduce the need for people to be referred to the judicial system. High priorities in this effort should be filling two needs that have been obvious but completely ignored by the City for decades: an adequate youth center and an adequate non-denominational homeless shelter in the central part of the City.

Incremental funding of known solutions, from community enforcement to

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greg Bryant on August 5, 2008 at 12:18pm

continued ...

Incremental funding of known solutions, from community enforcement to social services, will be far more effective than a new pile of ordinances. It's very imprudent to consider a new punitive system, when the US already has the largest prison population in world history.

Sincerely,
Bob O'Brien, CPA President
CPA Board Members:
Jan Wostmann, Chair
Lora Byxbe, Treasurer
Paul Harrison
Bob O'Brien
Greg Bryant
Mary O'Brien
Rob Handy
Jon Pincus

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on August 5, 2008 at 5:35pm

Wow, thanks for the info, Greg.

I don't think the DNA should touch this, since any position seems to be the wrong position. I think the City Council made a mistake just by proposing this ordinance as a solution. The only positive (?) thing which is likely to come from it is giving downtown businesses a civic forum to air the problems they've had downtown.

• ▶ Reply

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