MEMO BLOG Memo Calendar Memo Pad Business Memos Loaves & Fishes Letters Home
FEATURE ARTICLES
Never too late to get in bikini shape
Looking for Easter eggs on the farm
Infill comes to spacious Argay – almost
Council extends prostitution-free zone to 122nd Avenue
Glenhaven Park new home for skateboarders
Future runway a headache for homeowners
102nd Avenue improvement begins at Halsey Street
Veteran homeless advocate DeMaster, Human Solutions serve Mid-county
Monthly quote

About the MEMO
MEMO Archives
MEMO Advertising
MEMO Country (Map)
MEMO Web Neighbors
MEMO Staff
MEMO BLOG

© 2005 Mid-county MEMO
Terms & Conditions
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 zone’s 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). “Potter’s 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 didn’t 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, “That’s 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 don’t tie this to a zone, it’s 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 we’re at risk.”

Hayden added, “We’ve already been told by Judge (Michael) Marcus (who heard several legal challenges to the law), that we’re dancing closer to being a criminal proceeding. Instead of dealing with a community problem, we’re targeting individuals. We’d have to provide each excluded person with a lawyer and a jury trial, and my guess is we don’t have the resources.”

Potter eventually told Leonard, “I won’t support this, commissioner.” Noting that Leonard’s proposal had been presented for the first time at the hearing, he said, “We haven’t had much input on this. We’ve had some, but it’s been pretty one-sided. This would undermine the purpose of the law. With an oversight committee we’ll 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 Leonard’s 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 don’t doubt that. I have never liked the idea that you could be excluded for something you didn’t do, and then go to jail for it.” Concerning Woboril and Hayden’s concerns he said, “I’m 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 doesn’t make sense to me.” The mayor’s proposal is “dramatically better than what’s on the books now, and I’ll 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
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | About the MEMO
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home