After almost a year of research, discussion and public debate, the Eugene City Council has taken a stand against the prostitution issue identified in the West Jefferson neighborhood. At Monday evening’s meeting, the City Council voted to pass three ordinances on its agenda addressing the prostitution problem.
The meeting provided the conclusion to extensive time spent by the council and police force, and echoed the concerns expressed at a July 10 public forum.
The first measure voted on addressed prostitution free-zones. The ordinance — which will prohibit convicted prostitutes and Johns from entering designated zones for as long as a year — was met with minor opposition.
“Whatever enforcement happens should happen wherever [the crime] occurs,” Councilwoman Betty Taylor said. “I’m against exclusionary zones; it just moves the problem.”
A cruising ordinance was the second to pass and will enable police to pull over individuals who “cruise” through a neighborhood repeatedly. The ordinance will apply to the whole city but will be applied first to the West Jefferson neighborhood. Citizens will be notified of where the cruising zones exist based on police postings.
The third ordinance to pass will give judges the opportunity to step up the penalty for prostitutes and johns. The state will have the option of increasing penalties of up to $1,000 and/or 100 days in jail for the first offense and up to $5,000 and/or a year in jail for additional charges.
“Where would these people get $1,000 or $5,000?” Taylor asked during a discussion preceding the final vote. “It almost forces them to go back on the streets.”
A second part of the final ordinance will allow the city to prosecute prostitution-related cases in the state courts to allow the option of going through drug court, a program that lasts a year, and requires mandatory judge visits and drug treatment.
Before voting on the measure, Councilman Bobby Lee proposed adding $50,000 to funds designated for drug treatment programs for prostitutes.
“Part of our goal here is not just to change public behavior but to help these people get off drugs,” Lee said.
Lee suggested the money might come from a federal grant, but if not, that the city should pull the funds from somewhere else to address the problem. His suggestion generated more discussion than the combined three ordinances.
“This is treatment, it is not prevention,” Councilman Scott Meisner said. “Here we are willing to sacrifice the solutions for those that are causing the problem.”
Lee continued to stress that the city needs a system that works, and that the current one is broken. He said that by passing an ordinance that offered the option of a drug treatment program, the city has to have the capacity to offer that program, or the problem is being perpetuated.
“I believe that when you change public behavior, you have to take multiple approaches,” Lee said. “What we’re doing here is passing punitive measures. What we need to do is help these people get out of trouble.”
The vote for Lee’s proposal came down to a tie, and was rejected by Mayor Jim Torrey’s deciding vote, although he reiterated that he would actively pursue grants for the drug treatment program.
“My major concern is all folks in the community talk about prevention,” Torrey said. “By the time these women are arrested, it’s not about prevention.”
Despite the quick voting, feelings of the community and council were mixed after the meeting.
Sue, a former prostitute who attended the meeting, said that the council doesn’t even know what’s occurring on the streets, yet they’re making decisions.
“They need to go out and help the women get off the streets and not send them to jail,” she said.
Jean Daugherty, director of women’s services for Sponsors Inc. — a non-profit transitional living program for men and women getting out of jail — said that the ordinances won’t affect the problem’s root.
Despite opposition to his proposal, Lee felt good about the progress.
“I think overall I agree with the steps the council is taking, though I’m disappointed with the lack of intervention funds and that we weren’t able to address it today,” Lee said.
Taylor, who had questioned several facets of the cruising and exclusionary ordinances and was the lone opposition in those two votes, expressed frustration over the results.
“I’m very disappointed with the way things were resolved,” Taylor said, specifically addressing the exclusionary ordinance. “Now we’re going to exclude people from this neighborhood. I think people have a right to be everywhere, and obviously they’re not going to disappear.
“The problem is that we pass a stupid law and it will never get repealed.”