|
|
Council extends prostitution-free zone to 122nd Avenue
LEE PERLMAN
THE MID-COUNTY MEMO
Last month the Portland City Council approved new versions of the drug-free and prostitution-free zones and adjusted the boundaries of the existing zones. As part of the latter process, an existing prostitution-free zone on Northeast Sandy Boulevard was extended eastward to 122nd Avenue.
Under existing law, police officers can exclude people they find committing drug- and prostitution-related crimes from designated geographic areas for up to 90 days, or for a year if they are convicted of the crimes. If people venture into an area from which they have been excluded, they can be cited or arrested for criminal trespass.
Critics of the law, especially the American Civil Liberties Union, say it allows the police to deny people to travel freely, and even subjects them to arrest before it has been proven that they have ever committed a crime. Due to such concerns, Mayor Tom Potter ordered a five-month examination of the law that included three public forums. At the first two of these, critics of the law far outnumbered proponents.
Conversely, neighborhood residents such as Mary Walker of Parkrose say drug and prostitution activities near their homes drastically reduce their livability. They also say that prostitutes and drug dealers tend to congregate just outside the zones boundaries, and that these need to be adjusted to account for changing circumstances. These voices dominated the third forum, held at Vestal School.
Potter proposed to change the law so that police officers would have to formally cite or arrest people before they could order them excluded. These exclusions would be reviewed by a city hearings officer, and would take effect only if and when approved. (Previously, an excluded person could appeal exclusion to a hearings officer, but relatively few did). Potters proposal, a three-year review of the law previously in place, would be evaluated annually Finally, there will be an oversight committee composed of government agency and interest group representatives who will review the operation of the law and hear complaints about it.
Critics praised the changes but said they didnt go far enough. State Representative Chip Shields and Commissioner Randy Leonard jointly drafted a proposed amendment that would limit use of the law to people who had been convicted of a drug- or prostitution-related crime in the last five years. The amendment failed, in part because of the details of the draft.
As originally proposed by Leonard, the law could only be applied to people who had committed crimes in the particular zone from which they would be excluded. Potter, who had initially shown some interest in the amendment, commented, Thats a very narrow field. We all know that drug dealers and prostitutes move from place to place.
Leonard then proposed to broaden the application to crimes committed anywhere in the state. To this Deputy City Attorney David Woboril said, If you dont tie this to a zone, its hard to relate it to neighborhood livability. This, in turn, would make it vulnerable to a legal challenge, he said.
Deputy District Attorney Jim Hayden added, The more we make this like a criminal proceeding, the more were at risk.
Hayden added, Weve already been told by Judge (Michael) Marcus (who heard several legal challenges to the law), that were dancing closer to being a criminal proceeding. Instead of dealing with a community problem, were targeting individuals. Wed have to provide each excluded person with a lawyer and a jury trial, and my guess is we dont have the resources.
Potter eventually told Leonard, I wont support this, commissioner. Noting that Leonards proposal had been presented for the first time at the hearing, he said, We havent had much input on this. Weve had some, but its been pretty one-sided. This would undermine the purpose of the law. With an oversight committee well have the ability to track what the problem, and the scope of the problem, is and make changes based upon the data.
Commissioner Erik Sten, long an outspoken critic of the zones and a supporter of Leonards proposals, voiced frustration. This is not remotely a new topic, Sten said. I have had concerns about the zones over the years. I have been told that drug dealers have been making life miserable for people in some parts of town, and that the criminal justice system is unable to address it. I dont doubt that. I have never liked the idea that you could be excluded for something you didnt do, and then go to jail for it. Concerning Woboril and Haydens concerns he said, Im told that the law has been held to be constitutional, but if you make (the standards) tougher, you run the risk of making it unconstitutional. It doesnt make sense to me. The mayors proposal is dramatically better than whats on the books now, and Ill support it on the pledge that this will come back next year.
Several east Portland residents testified at the March hearings. All of them spoke in favor of the zone, and several in favor of its expansion to new territory.
Mary Walker, a Parkrose resident who lives near Northeast Sandy Boulevard, told the council, I see drug and prostitution activity from my home on a regular basis. I saw a man dragging a woman and throwing her down on the ground. My children witness this. I find needles and condoms in my driveway. You are the fathers of this city. Sometimes fathers have to impose restrictions on their children for their own good. She urged them to extend the boundary to Northeast 122nd Avenue at least.
>>continued |
|
|