Sean C. Morgan
Following a second reading of the proposed ordinance, the Sweet Home City Council voted last week to move forward to a third reading of the law that would allow police officers to exclude alleged repeat offenders from the downtown area.
During the public comment period of the council’s regular meeting, held Nov. 26, Sweet Home resident William Whipple objected to the proposed ordinance. Typically, by the time an ordinance gets to the second reading, there is little public comment, but Whipple’s protests were the most recent of a string of responses in support and against the proposal in recent months.
Councilor Cortney Nash also asked whether the council can include additional exclusion zones around the city.
The exclusion area in the proposed ordinance stretches along Main Street from 4th Avenue to 22nd Avenue, Nandina Street from 9th Avenue to 22nd Avenue and Long Street from Highway 228 to 22nd Avenue. It also includes a section of Highway 228 from the back driveway of Thriftway to Main Street.
If the council approves the ordinance, police officers will be able to issue an exclusion notice to individuals receiving their third citation or arrest for certain crimes and violations within the span of a year.
Those excluded for the first time will be prohibited from entering the downtown area for 30 days. Subsequent exclusion periods for additional offenses would last 90 days.
Persons may be excluded for any one of 25 offenses, including murder, theft, prostitution, sex crimes, controlled substance offenses, vandalism, trespassing, public indecency, unlawful use of a weapon, assaults, alcohol-related violations, disorderly conduct, harassment, intimidation, menacing, recklessly endangering another person, discharging firearms, arson, littering, urinating and defecating in public places and consumption of alcohol in public places.
Exclusion notices may be written in response to an offense when an alleged offender is cited or arrested. Subjects may appeal the exclusion notice in Municipal Court.
Either the police chief or the Municipal Court must grant variances to excluded individuals who need to enter the exclusion area for such purposes as attending treatment, consulting with an attorney, work, attending church, attending drug or alcohol treatment, attending a public meeting, attending a court hearing, exercising a constitutional right, engaging in court-ordered activity, or accessing medical services. The variance also allows an exception for those who actually live within the area.
The police chief or Municipal Court may deny the variance if the individual cannot establish a need to enter the area.
The ordinance moves to a third reading at the council’s next regular meeting, 6:30 p.m. on Dec. 10 at City Hall, 3225 Main St. Following the third reading, the council can decide whether to adopt the ordinance, which would take effect 30 days after approval.
Whipple told the council the ordinance would exclude people from the warming shelter, which will open later this month at the Nazarene Church.
He also asked the council who would pay when the American Civil Liberties Union “comes in and sues you.”
He said travel is a constitutional right, noting that while those receiving the notices can get a variance, the police chief’s office is inside the exclusion area, which means they cannot obtain a permit.
The ordinance is really about homelessness, he said.
“The whole thing about this is ‘let’s move these people out of the way so people coming through don’t have to see them.’”
He said he and his wife were homeless for four years, Whipple said, living in a park in Salem and under a bridge. They were pushed all over the place, and no one wanted to help them.
Councilor Diane Gerson said she reads the police log weekly, and the people the city is dealing are not the homeless.
Some are, Whipple replied.
Gerson said the council wants to help them, adding that it doesn’t want to “shove” them out.
If the council wanted to help them, it would send them to the help they need, such as mental health services, Whipple replied.
Councilor James Goble said he was still a “hard sell” on the ordinance, despite voting to move the proposal to first and second readings and then, last week, to a third reading.
He is concerned the ordinance could push offenders into the neighborhoods, Goble said. The offenders also will still show up at Safeway.
They could change their clothing and return the next day, and no one would know the difference, he said, but “we have to do something.”
In four or five months, he is going to ask what difference the ordinance has made, Goble stated.
Whipple asked what residents should do if the offenders come into the neighborhoods.
City Manager Ray Towry said they should call the police.
Whipple asked if the city is going to create exclusion zones in the residential areas.
If not, he said, it makes it look like the city is just trying to get the homeless out of the area where they’re season.
If it does, Goble said, then the council will look at the ordinance again.
Towry said the exclusion notices would be issued only after the third offense, and by the time alleged offenders are facing an exclusion, they’ve already been to see the judge at least twice.
In the city’s new community court, which will begin in January, the judge can order offenders to meet with resources, like mental health services, and get help – “to help empower them.”
Towry said the Ninth Circuit Court has made it clear: Homelessness is not illegal.
Homelessness is a symptom of other issues, he said, and that’s one of the things the city is trying to tackle, noting that other cities spend millions of dollars trying to treat the symptoms, which keep getting worse.
While the city is attempting to solve the causes of the problem, it is going to hold people accountable to the law, homeless or not homeless, he said.
Following the second reading of the ordinance, Nash asked whether the council could create additional zones, which would address concerns about offenders moving their activity into the residential areas.
Towry said staff could do some research and bring information back, but “I’m not familiar with anybody else that does that.”
“Then we’d be pioneers,” Nash responded.
Towry said he probably cannot have that ready before the next council meeting, when the council will hold the third reading and consider whether to adopt the ordinance, but he would try to have information ready by the first of the year.
Gerson said she agrees with Goble, and she has been on the fence with the ordinance for awhile.
She thinks it’s a good idea for the council to reach a consensus on the ordinance, and it’s important that the council knows what is happening with the ordinance once it’s implemented.
Police Chief Jeff Lynn said it will be easy to share data because the Police Department has broken the city into zones to help track what happens.
The council voted 6-1 to move the ordinance to a third reading on Dec. 10. Voting yes were Nash, Susan Coleman, Mayor Greg Mahler, Gerson, Goble and Dave Trask. Lisa Gourley voted no.