Sean C. Morgan
The City Council may begin the process of passing the proposed exclusion zone ordinance at its next regular meeting on Nov. 12.
Council members continued an ongoing discussion about the proposal during their regular meeting on Oct. 22 and then reached consensus on details of the proposal during a special session on Oct. 30, where they heard additional public input supporting the concept.
The exclusion zone ordinance would allow police officers to issue notices of exclusion to individuals who are repeatedly cited or arrested within the downtown area. Under the ordinance, they could be cited for trespassing if they are in the exclusion area.
During the Oct. 22 meeting, Police Chief Jeff Lynn said the proposed ordinance trigger for the exclusion notice has been modified from three offenses in five years to three offenses in a single year.
The ordinance allows exceptions for a wide range of purposes, ranging from attending church to meeting with an attorney or to accessing social services. Under the ordinance, the police chief or municipal judge must allow access to the “enhanced law enforcement area” for the listed exceptions, but the subject must apply for it.
Staff members have also discussed options such as creating zones throughout the city, perhaps eight to 10, from which repeat offenders may be excluded.
City Manager Ray Towry said those would address the various types of crime and violations associated with different types of zones, noting that the crimes that afflict the downtown area are different from those affecting residential neighborhoods.
Staff members also have discussed including a sunset clause, which would allow the council to review the effect of the ordinance and decide whether to continue it after a one- to three-year period.
Towry said the exclusion is not automatic and that police officers would have the discretion to decide whether an exclusion would be effective with different individuals.
Councilor Diane Gerson said she prefers the addition of a sunset clause, and she noted that the ordinance should be used to change behavior.
Agreeing with Councilor Courtney Nash, she said, she is concerned that it would push offenders out into the residential areas.
She said with the ideas proposed during the meting, she would probably agree with the ordinance.
Councilor Dave Trask agreed, noting that an ordinance would provide an additional tool to police officers. He suggested evaluating it after a year.
During the council’s special session, the councilors reached a consensus to leave the map outlining the proposed downtown exclusion zone unchanged, incorporating the commercial zones in the downtown area, including Main Street between 4th and 18th avenues and portions of Nandina and Long streets.
Councilors agreed with Lynn’s recommendation to apply the ordinance to persons cited three times within a rolling 12-month period. Lynn said that everyone has a clean slate when the ordinance is passed. The police will begin counting violations only after the council passes the ordinance and it takes effect.
Councilors agreed to remove noise violations, curfew violations and illegal gambling from the list of offenses included in the ordinance. Councilor Lisa Gourley had objected to noise and curfew violations being included, saying that the exclusion wasn’t proportionate to the violations.
Councilors agreed that it should not have a sunset clause, noting that they can repeal the ordinance if they choose, but they did want to review how it is working in a year. Towry said he would begin preparing the council’s agenda, adding a review of the ordinance, if it passes, for the first meeting in December 2020.
Councilors asked staff to track crime rates in the downtown area and residential areas around town following the passage of the ordinance, and staff planned to track the activity of individuals affected by the ordinance.
Councilors also agreed to leave the list of exemptions to the exclusion as it is presented in the proposed ordinance.
During the council’s regular session, Sweet Home resident John Cannon expressed concerns about the size of the area and the ability of people to access the mental health clinic or get prescriptions.
Towry explained that the police chief or judge must grant variances to allow access in situations like that, but they will need to call the Police Department or court for permission.
Cannon asked what they would do in case of an emergency, in which an excluded person would need to access urgent care or the fire department.
City Attorney Robert Snyder said that some cities allow access without permission for the various exceptions. Sweet Home could pattern its ordinance on that, the proposed ordinance or a hybrid, allowing access without prior permission for specific reasons.
During the council’s special session, Mayor Greg Mahler said, “We need something. We can’t just turn around and not do something.”
Once an ordinance is approved, police officers are not just going to start handing out exclusion notices, he said. As a business owner, he agrees with the ordinance.
In addition to her objection about the noise and curfew violations, Gourley said the city has other options it has yet to exhaust, including making absentee property owners responsible for managing their area and enhancing the number of surveillance cameras downtown.
In general, Gourley said she thinks the ordinance is like using a hammer on something where it hasn’t exhausted all of its options.
“It’s a small piece of a much larger puzzle,” Towry said. “Environmental design is a much larger one.”
That means more lights and more cameras, for example, in the old City Hall parking lot, he said. He anticipates a request for an ordinance prohibiting sleeping in bus stops as well.
Mahler said city officials have been discussing sit-stand-lie laws, which prohibit sitting, standing and lying in public areas during certain hours.
Gourley said that if someone is blocking an entrance to a business, laws already exist to address it.
“I’m very much in favor of it,” said Tre Kennedy, an attorney with Morley Thomas Law Firm and city attorney in Lebanon. “It’s worked well in Lebanon and other cities. It is one of the tools police can use to help the downtown areas. Police don’t use it willy nilly.”
While some say it targets the homeless, Kennedy said, “there’s no laws about homelessness. If the homeless are not breaking the law, they wouldn’t be subject to exclusion.”
He pointed out that no sunset clause, which was under consideration by the council, is necessary because the council can repeal an ordinance whenever it wishes.
Rachel Maynard, a real estate agent, wondered where the offenders would go, possibly to the parks and schools, if they were excluded from the downtown.
Lynn said he is confident the School District would not allow it at the schools.
“We’ve all had that concern where we may push an individual to.”
Towry explained that the crimes downtown, where shoplifting, for example, is more common, are different from those in residential areas. The offenders won’t be moving to Ashbrook park or a school to shoplift.
Julie Dedmon, a volunteer with Sweet Home Emergency Ministries, said she was concerned that people would have the ability to go to SHEM for their food boxes.
Joe Medley, pastor at Fir Lawn Lutheran and United Methodist churches, said the warming shelter is at the Nazarene Church and he wanted to make sure people would be able to access that.
Lynn explained that the waiver process would allow it.
Gourley said that many affected by the ordinance may have mental issues and problems remembering to carry their variance, written on a piece of paper, when they must enter the downtown area for a legitimate purpose. She wondered how they will be able to look for work.
Mahler said the council needs to have some faith in the police officers and judge, noting that there are many resources out there to help people.
The council will consider the ordinance at its next regular meeting, 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 12 in City Hall, 3225 Main St. If the council chooses it may hold the first reading of the ordinance that night. It will hold a second and third reading at the following two meetings. It can modify the proposal during the reading process. Following the third reading, the council may vote to approve or deny the proposed ordinance.
Present at the regular council meeting were councilors Nash, Mahler, Gerson and Trask. Susan Coleman, Gourley and James Goble were absent.
Present at the special session were Coleman, Gourley, Mahler, Gerson, Goble and Trask. Nash was absent. Citing family obligations, Goble left the meeting during the discussion about the ordinance.