In January 2019 this sign on Elm Street gave notice of the city’s enhanced law enforcement area.
Back in March 2018, the Albany City Council passed an ordinance allowing persistent law breakers to be temporarily banned from the central part of town. Now the council has been asked to strike this law from the books.
Daniel Dietz and Sharon Gisler, Albany residents who belong to First Christian Church, on Monday asked the council to repeal the law. Their congregation had opposed it, as had others, when it was up for council debate three years ago.
Council members responded Monday by asking for a report on whether and how often the law had been applied. When they get the report they’ll be in a better position to decide whether the law should be kept or repealed.
This section of the municipal code established an “enhanced law enforcement area,” extending from Elm Street in the west to Pine Street in the east, and from Pacific Boulevard and Albany Station to the Willamette River.
Anyone convicted of three offenses in that area — not including illegal camping — within six months could be charged with committing a “persistent violation.” If convicted in city court, the judge could bar the offender from the area for three months up to a year. Exceptions would be made for essential trips such as court or medical appointments.
The police department asked for the ordinance. It said the area comprises about 5 percent of Albany’s territory but accounted for 19 percent of crimes.
In 2018 the council passed the law with the understanding that it would get periodic reports on how it was working.
Almost a year later, in January 2019, I reported here that the law had been applied in only one case. This was a man in his 60s, described as a “regular” in city court, who was told to stay out of the area for three months. (hh)
This story has been changed. Originally it said no reports on how the law was working had been provided, because I didn’t remember any. But as you see in the comments below, former Mayor Sharon Konopa says that the council did get an update.
First off: the Council-approved term, “Enhanced Enforcement Area,” smacks mightily of Big Brotherism. Given the cast of ideologues who passed this abominable statute, I guess no one would be surprised. Between the former mayor and a couple of the former Councilors who signed-off on this legislation, one could surmise Council was in favor of freedom of movement as long as one slots into ill-conceived preconceptions.
All others are subject to the jackboot of Enhanced Enforcement. It is no wonder the law has only been applied once from inception through 2019.
Fortunately, the former mayor and at least one Luddite on the Council are gone, vanquished by an electorate tired of the heavy hand. Perhaps now the Council will confine itself to creating laws that pass muster with the US Constitution.
Hasso, we did have an update from staff after the ordinance was adopted. In my opinion, this ordinance has been a valuable tool for staff, the businesses and homes in this area of town. We were criticized by the homeless advocates before we adopted the ordinance that we were “ criminalizing the homeless”. No we were not! Turning our heads away from continual criminal activity is not fair to the people who live in this zone. This ordinance encouraged the individuals to work with our local agencies. Also, the police department stated they would use education, over our services and the ordinance, before arresting an individual. If they arrested more individuals, I guarantee these advocates would be criticizing the police and city. This ordinance should not be repealed. It is not fair to the businesses and homes from having people sleeping in their doorways and bushes.
This is one of the things that Sharon and I basically agree on, perhaps for different reasons, I do not know, but from my perspective, Same old stupidity, different day………… the folks in this Church spoke out against the law before, inferring that if you were for it you were some kind of Ogre who hated poor people. Their silliness was compounded later when they wanted to have a porta-toilet outside their church in violation of city code. When I pointed out to them that they could make an entrance to their inside facilities that would not allow the homeless to use the rest of the church in off hours, I was told “but they would trash the place” People perfectly willing to attract and inflict the homeless on their downtown neighbors, but unwilling to clean up the mess that their passion creates…. Maybe Mr. Hartman should publish his address so the good folks that he wants to help can come to him directly, is that in back of Walmart Mr Hartman, out of the way of the homeless?????
I’m good with the ordinance. Maybe put more around the city. I live between Freddies and the liquor store and I get a lot of late evening drunks walking by messing with stuff. They are sure not needed.