A small sign advertising the “enhanced” enforcement area was still there, on Elm Street near 10th, on March 23, 2023.
Five years after it was adopted, Albany’s law on excluding “persistent” criminals from the central part of town has proved either useless or unnecessary. Either way, it is not being applied.
The ordinance came up briefly at the city council meeting on March 23 when one of the new members, Jackie Montague, asked about it. The city attorney and city manager told her reports the council had asked for years ago were not made because the law was not being enforced. No one was being cited under it, and any reports about it would show “zero.”
The next question would have been “Why?” But the council didn’t ask.
On a vote of 5-1, the council adopted the “enhanced law enforcement area” ordinance on March 28, 2018. The police department asked for the law, saying the area comprised only 5 percent of the city’s territory but was the site of 19 percent of reported crime. Councilman Dick Olsen voted no. He didn’t think the measure would do any good.
The law describes the enforcement area as extending from the Willamette River to Pacific Boulevard and Albany Station, and from Elm Street to Pine. Anyone convicted of three offenses within that nine-tenths of a square mile within six months may be cited for “the crime of persistent violation” and may be banished from the area for three months to a year, except to reach necessary services.
Only one person has ever been cited for this, in 2018. He was banished for three months.
In April 2021, two members of the First Christian Church, Daniel Dietz and the late Sharon Gisler, asked that the ordinance be repealed, but the council did not do so.
After the ordinance was enacted the city put up small signs proclaiming the enhanced enforcement area. One is on Elm Street near 10th, and another is on Front Avenue near Pine. The signs don’t explain what they mean but cite a section of the municipal code.
If there’s no enforcement or need, though, one wonders why the signs are still there or the ordinance is still on the books. (hh)
The story has been changed to fix the error pointed out by one of the commenters below.
On Monday, March 27, Albany Police Chief Marcia Harnden gave her view of why the banishment of persistent offenders has not been applied: “I can’t speak for Sean [City Attorney Sean Kidd] but we haven’t had the need because offenders seem to adhere to the sanctions handed down on each individual instance where a violation occurs and we haven’t had serious repeat offenders.”
Someone wrote to your blog recently that this law, when enacted by Konopa and Krew, was one sliver of a hair from being illegal when it was enacted.
Hasso,
I checked the minutes for June, July, and August 2021. Not a peep in the “Business from the public” about this ordinance. Are you certain of the July 2021 date?
Did the council vote on the request from First Christian Church? If yes, which councilors voted to decline the request?
Thanks for the question. My date was wrong. It was on April 27, 2021,that the request to repeal the law was made. This prompted the council to ask for a report, which was provided on June 7. That was the end of it. No vote to keep or repeal the law was held.
Just to remind everyone, in March 2018 ordinance 5904 was enacted into law.
Councilor Coburn moved to approve; Councilor Ray K seconded it.
As Hasso stated, the council voted 5-1 to approve. Only Councilor Olsen voted no. His vote proved to be prescient.
Only Ray K is still on the council. All the other ‘yes’ votes are gone.
Political power intoxicates the best hearts. So..Ray K, are you still intoxicated by this ban?
Ahh, the infamous double question.
The example from high school 60ish years ago was “Are you still beating your wife?”
Yes or No, yhe result is damning.
Not likely to gey a response.
This is an area of great interest to me. I don’t think there’s any extra enforcement. My office is at 10th and Elm and we have had to put up signs to keep people off the property in the middle of the night. There is a lot of activity on video in the middle of the night – for example, people trying to get into the building. We’ve had people try the doors, sleeping on the property, and occupying areas throughout the night.
This is an area of great interest to me. I don’t think there’s any extra enforcement. My office is at 10th and Elm and we have had to put up signs to keep people off the property in the middle of the night. There is a lot of activity on video in the middle of the night – for example, people trying to get into the building. We’ve had people try the doors, sleeping on the property, and occupying areas throughout the night.
The folks who passed this abomination soon learned that their attempt to control a certain class of people was very close to being unconstitutional. All that would be needed was a complaining victim of the law to pursue legal avenues. Soon thereafter, the cops learned the same thing. This attempt at prior restraint at freedom of movement is against the founding daddie’s wishes…and we all know that “original intent” Trumps even the Albany City Mommas and Poppas. Hence no one wants to draw any attention to this illegality.
This was enacted because the folks that I refer to as the abusive homeless were accosting people, pooping in their yards, stealing stuff etc. If you contact the Police chief and ask “what was the level of assault, theft etc before the ordinance and after the ordinance, if it is lower now, the question is, “is the ordinance why the statistics are lower” if so???? the Ordinance is doing its job.. so leave it alone.