The record · Transcript
Council session — 2026-04-29
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (28,531 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.
Test test caption. Test.
I need some. Need some sticks.
Good afternoon. I am calling to order this. The. The. Wednesday, April 29th afternoon meeting of the Portland city council. Keelan. Please call the roll.
Good afternoon. Kanal. Pirtle-guiney. Ryan. Koyama Lane. Morillo. Here. Novick. Here. Clark. Here. Green here. Zimmerman. Here. Avalos.
Present.
Smith here.
Dunphy here. And can we please have the attorney read the rules of decorum?
Good afternoon. Welcome to the Portland city council. To testify before council in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.Portland.gov/agenda. Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's web page. Individuals may testify for three minutes unless the presiding officer states. Otherwise, your microphone will be muted. When your time is over, the presiding officer preserves order. Disruptive conduct such as shouting. Refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed. If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given. Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting. Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass. Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered when testifying. State your name for the record. Your address is not necessary. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent. Virtual testifier should unmute themselves from the council clerk calls your name. Thank you.
Thank you very much, colleagues. Our first item is agenda approval. Are there any requests to amend the agenda to reorder items or reschedule an item for a future meeting date? No one. Do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda? Lots of nods. It looks like the agenda is approved. Please move to public communications.
First item, public communications. First up, we have rebecca wise barton. Welcome.
Please feel free to introduce yourself. You're welcome to share your pronouns. And you have three minutes.
Hi, my name is rebecca wise barton. So I know we are in budget world right now, but I just wanted to call attention back to something that's going on here. So, esteemed councilors, when was your last civics test? I've got a pop quiz for you. What was the name of the document that was the predecessor to and was used as the framework for our country's current constitution? Oh. Councilor Smith I think that's right. The articles of confederation. All right. Extra credit. How many amendments have been made to the us constitution? Councilor Green. Right again, 27. I'm here today today to talk about this council's goal to amend city code chapter 3.02, or as I like to call it, portland's articles of confederation. Maybe a misnomer considering emergency ordinance number 19 2021 would technically be the equivalent of the original articles, but I wanted to make a joke and councilor Novick says all jokes need context. So here we are. Jokes aside, this new form of government. This is a new form of government. Portlanders voted for this. This council in this format represents the will of the people. There's so much great success to be had. This council's inability to amend chapter 3.02 and the continuation of governance based on an emergency ordinance that is over a year old, is a disappointment, a disappointment, not a failure. Okay, I'm going to speak directly to my district councilors now. So the rest of you don't eavesdrop. Councilor Kanal, pirtle-guiney and Ryan, you have got to work together to get this done. Councilor Kanal, I know you want the language to be as precise as possible. The word I just used just now precise. I looked it up in a thesaurus with the prompt word clear. So I'm going to waste a little bit more of my precious allotted three minutes to drive home a point that has already been made clear. Councilor pirtle-guiney, you're voting no on a lot of proposed amendments. The first time I gave testimony before this council, I told you I was in support of this item. I just wanted to see it go through the democratic process. I'm still in support of this item. Please listen to and collaborate with your peers. No ordinance is perfect. You know that. But with the input from these 11 dedicated, passionate individuals, it could be quite good, better than the original proposal. Even councilor Ryan, teach them be the bridge between experience and passion and precision. You've seen the way it used to work. You have the opportunity to forge a new path towards the way it will work. Councilors, this is just the beginning. We don't know what the future holds. But just like 39 Americans before you who strove to more to form a more perfect union, ordain and establish this constitution of Portland. Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here today.
Next up, we have talia giardini online.
Hi, my name is talia giardini. I'm here to testify on absolutely opposing the tough, as does 76% of those with that did written testimony. This fee goes against the will of the voters. It seems every week there's a new article or a tax or fee. We shouldn't instead cut the overpaid bureaucrats that were supposed to be temporary middle managers. It's insane that you want to charge more money and no sacrifice on your end. Or the nonprofits clean up your house first and reform department spending before asking for more money. If the tough does pass, every single penny should go to maintenance and sidewalks, not vision zero. Traffic fatalities have gone down recently, but it's dishonest to say it was due to vision zero, which was adopted in 2016. While traffic deaths continue to rise despite millions spent, deaths only began trending down in 2023, when traffic and camping enforcement started. Something we should be investing more in. Maybe that 12.5% could go to police, since no amount of road designs will stop drunk drivers or people from walking into the street high on drugs, the last vision zero audit shows there's been zero studies to measure effectiveness on the streets where it was implemented. The signage is confusing and inconsistent, which goes directly against the national research board on traffic safety recommendations, which conclude consistency and enforcement are key to reducing accidents and traffic deaths. Most portlanders would prefer the vision zero team be cut altogether. Instead of charging us more money that we can guarantee will go up yearly. Another issue with vision zero is it impedes emergency vehicles. I'm a nurse and I travel all around town to see my patients. I need safe roads and to know emergency will be there when I call. Pbot argues vision zero doesn't impact emergency vehicles, but they're not the ones driving them or rushing to save lives. They're bureaucrats. Bureaucrats who rely on studies with a clear conflict of interest. Every single minute counts in an emergency. Why are we basing our roads around the netherlands instead of what emergency teams tell us right here in Portland? This very unpopular fee should not go to nice to haves for some and aggravating for others. I don't remodel my kitchen when I'm broke. Neither should you. But instead we get the same old excuses. Instead of addressing disorganization, overspending, and neglect. Lastly, councilor Avalos, I really liked what you said the other week, calling out that this is a tax and acknowledging how much your constituents are suffering. Are you going to vote with them or are you going to vote with the block? I strongly oppose this fee, and I'm even more opposed to any of that money going to vision zero. We already pay enough and deserve basic road maintenance, potholes filled and sidewalks for our kids. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have joe condon.
Sorry. Hi there. My name is joe condon. Thanks for the opportunity to appear today. I'm here about the Portland metro levy system project and its impact on heron lakes golf course. For nearly a year now, a map has been posted in the clubhouse heron lakes, showing that this project will significantly reduce the property footprint and require a redesign of the great blue course, portland's best city golf course. There has been no further communication of the city that I'm aware of, so I and other golfers who call heron lakes home are left to speculate. Is the course downsizing? Will the integrity of the design be preserved, whether it be funding, if a major redesign is necessary? These are questions that I have as a golfer who enjoys heron lakes, and I hope the city will communicate more proactively as plans develop. Emails to the parks department have not received a response. As a resident of Portland, I also have larger questions about this project. The levee along columbia. Slough was originally built to protect the residential community of vanport. After the vanport flood, the golf course was built in its place. The use of this area has changed, changed significantly since the levee was originally designed, and my understanding is that the city is funding 35% of the levee rebuild. Why are we spending millions of dollars rebuilding a section of levee that now protects a golf course and a raceway? Golf courses handle flooding pretty well, as far as I know. Would it not be better to focus our limited public funds on the upstream levees that protect major residential areas in Portland airport? I understand that it would be easy for a non-golfer to look at this project and say, hey, there are two courses at heron lakes. What's the big deal? But these two courses are not equal. Great blue is a difficult, championship level course capable of hosting major events. Greenback is a parkland course designed for beginners comparable to other city courses. The area of public impact shown on the map is the second line of great blue, the stretch that makes that course interesting, challenging and one of the best values for public golf in the state. The only other courses at this level in the area are private country clubs that I can't afford. It would be hard, if not impossible, to maintain that quality in a smaller footprint, and any meaningful loss and quality affects every golfer who relies on public facilities, including youth programs and school teams. I'll close with an alternative vision for heron lakes. The pacific northwest has not hosted a pga level men's tournament in ten years, since the 2015 us open at chambers bay, a course built by the same designer as great blue. Given its location on the I-5 corridor adjacent to the expo center and raceway, and with the length and difficulty required for high level events. So investment could position heron lakes as a viable host for future professional tournaments. A real economic asset for the city. I hope the council will find a way to preserve this community resource and improve public visibility of this project moving forward. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have mike lozito.
Welcome.
My name is mike lozito. I'm a Portland early childhood educator. I'm here today because child care is infrastructure, just like roads, transit and housing. Child care is essential to keeping this city functioning. When child care is unstable, parents miss work, businesses lose employees, families fall behind, and educators leave the field. I spent over a decade working in early childhood education, including preschool for all funded classrooms here in Multnomah county and Portland. I support preschool for all. I believe in the vision of making childcare accessible and affordable for families, but access alone is not enough. A child care system is only as strong as the workforce, holding it together across multiple preschool programs. I have seen a pattern of experienced educators taking on increasing responsibilities without fair wages, without the respect this work deserves, and sometimes without safe and sustainable working conditions. Teachers deserve fair pay. Teachers deserve respect. Teachers deserve safe workplaces, and families deserve consistency and quality care. Public funds are flowing into Portland businesses through child care programs and public investment. The city may not directly oversee these programs, but the city does have a role in protecting working families and supporting a stable childcare workforce. I urge the city to formally advocate for stronger oversight and accountability and publicly funded child care programs operating in Portland, and I urge the city to convene educators, providers and families to examine workforce conditions, wage transparency and solutions to stabilize the child care workforce. Because when teachers are underpaid, overworked and under-supported, they leave. When teachers leave, classrooms become unstable, and when classrooms become unstable, working families and employers across Portland feel the impact. Child care is not just a family issue, it is a workforce issue. It is an economic issue and it is infrastructure. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have gavin gentry.
Welcome. Hello. Thank you for being patient with me while I came down the stairs. Hello. My name is gavin, I am with. Next up, we are here to empower young people to make sure their voices are heard in government and make sure that their interests are represented. I wanted to begin by expressing my gratitude towards all the councilors for passing the resolution to accelerate the inner eastside planning project. Thank you. I'm also here to express some concern for the amendment. Councilor Ryan passed. Anytime we are making impactful changes, we are asked to balance thoroughness with speed. Councilor ryan's amendment widens the scope of the report, choosing to be more thorough at a time where we should be prioritizing urgency. The intention of this resolution was to find a strategy to deliver housing to portlanders as quickly as possible. There is already a beautiful report put together by three bureaus going over some of the metrics they use to determine whether an area would be appropriate for rezoning, determining methodology and metrics the city will use to evaluate affordability, displacement, risk and equity impacts is something that could have been done later in the process. After community engagement. Oh, sorry, I'm a little winded. Or after new zoning codes have been proposed, creating a report that drills down on creating a faster timeline would have been better aligned with the urgency portlanders deserve. Young people are not purchasing homes. The median age of home buyers is now 40. Frequently, we are living in higher density apartment complexes that cannot currently be built in the areas most ready to support them. We want to live in walkable areas where we can walk, where we can shop, talk to our neighbors, work and live. Zoning that supports that vision would bring in young people ready to start businesses and innovate. Councilor as we move forward in evaluating what zoning codes would best serve portlanders current and yet to be, I request we act more on the side of urgency and less on the side of being thorough. Councilor Ryan, I am very glad that you are working on this effort. I am confident that you will deliver appropriate kpis and a well thought out proposal. Just be aware. Future portlanders, the young people who will serve Portland save Portland from this economic crisis with their skills and tax dollars, need places to live sooner rather than later. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
That completes communications.
Thank you very much. Thanks, everybody who came and testified. Colleagues. Next item on our agenda is the council president. Update this week is national youth violence prevention week. Mayor wilson issued a proclamation recognizing this, and the community and public safety service area has asked me if I could read that proclamation from the dais. As a dad and a former youth violence prevention educator in the david douglas school district, I'm honored to do so. So with the thanks to mayor wilson, the national youth violence prevention week proclamation. Whereas, youth violence is a pressing issue that affects individuals, families and communities, posing significant challenges to the health, safety and well-being of our young people. And whereas, national youth violence prevention week observed from April 20th 7th to may 2nd serves as a critical opportunity to raise awareness, foster community engagement and promote proactive solutions to prevent violence among youth. And whereas, the city of Portland is committed to creating safe and supportive environments for young people by addressing the root causes of violence and investing in programs that promote education, mentorship, mental health support, and positive youth development. And whereas preventing youth violence requires a collaborative effort from all sectors of society, including families, educators, law enforcement, community leaders and youth themselves to foster a culture of nonviolence, respect, and mutual support. And whereas, the city of Portland encourages all residents to participate in national youth violence prevention week by supporting local initiatives, engaging with youth, and advocating for policies and resources that promote their safety and well-being. Now, therefore, keith wilson, the mayor of the city of Portland, Oregon, the city of roses does hereby proclaim April 7th through may 2nd, 2026 to be national violence prevention week in Portland and urges all residents, organizations and stakeholders to work together in building a safer, healthier future for our youth and our community. Thank you. Now we're going to turn over to our city administrator, city, raymond lee, to see if there's any updates regarding federal interventions in our city.
Just a reminder for council on update I gave a few weeks ago after appealing the city's decision to the city code hearings officer, the hearings officer dismissed the appeal at the building owner's request. The building owner then asked the hearing officer to reconsider the dismissal, which the hearing officer granted. A hearing on the merits of the appeal is still scheduled for may 5th. While appeals process are ongoing, it is standard practice within the permitting bureau to pause timelines for corrective actions or fees. Also on the detention facility fee update the detention center impact fee working group is steady making progress and will be reviewing internal draft of the permanent rule this week. P, p, and d is on target to have the permanent rule out for public comment by the end of may. Thank you.
Thank you, city manager. Can we please call item number four.
Consent item number four is the consent agenda. No items have been pulled from the consent agenda. I'll call the roll Kanal.
Sorry. Consent agenda.
Yeah, I.
Pirtle-guiney I.
Ryan. I Koyama Lane I Morillo. I Novick. I Clark I Green I Zimmerman I Avalos. I Smith. I Dunphy. I the consent agenda is approved with a vote of 12 eyes.
Thank you. Please call item number five.
Item five, document 2026-113. Establish a new transportation utility fee to help fund basic maintenance and safety of the city's transportation system. Ad code chapter 17.20.
Colleagues. This is the second reading of a nonemergency ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Seeing no one in the queue. Keelan. Please call the roll Kanal.
I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan.
No. Koyama Lane I. Morillo I Novick.
I am so proud of this council for taking an act that has been vitally needed for the past 40 years. I.
Clark.
I Green. I Zimmerman. No.
Avalos I. Smith no. Murphy I.
The ordinance passes with a vote of nine eyes and three noes.
Congratulations everybody. Can we please call item number six?
Item six, document 2026-148. Ratify a collective bargaining agreement with American federation of state, county municipal employees local 189 for represented employees within the auditor's office for 2025 through 2028.
Colleagues. This is the first reading of an emergency ordinance we have with us. Sarah daley from labor relations analyst and our very own elected city, auditor simone rede. Take it away.
I'm introducing. Okay. Well, thank you, president Dunphy. Good afternoon, councilors and fellow portlanders. My name is simone. Ready. And I'm Portland city auditor. As your elected auditor, I am dedicated to ensuring an open and accountable city government. While my office is administratively independent. Our labor agreement involves the commitment of city funds across multiple fiscal years, which only city council has the authority to make and relies in part on the bureau of human resources to implement. So because of these ties, we defined roles and responsibilities for negotiating this contract, as well as the first one through an interagency agreement with the bureau of human resources. I really appreciate council's consideration of our successor agreement today, after nearly a year of bargaining, we have drafted a contract that balances the needs of the auditor's office, the city and auditor's office employees. The contract outlines employment terms and conditions for 30 represented employees in my office, folks who are in positions that deliver high quality public services across archives, audit services, council clerk elections hearings and ombudsman. This contract ensures people are paid fairly and provides them with new protections so that they can stay in those positions for years to come. Retention of employees in my office helps us serve the public more reliably, which increases trust. This successor contract, like our first, reflects my office's and the city's core values of transparency, equity and fiscal responsibility, and continues to respect the independence of the auditor's office. I want to thank afscme local 189 and their bargaining team members, min Dan mason and chief negotiator carly edwards. I appreciate their direct communication about the priorities of their members and their willingness to engage in constructive dialog. I also want to thank bureau of human resources, especially labor relations team members kelly haas and sarah daly for their leadership and professionalism. And finally, I want to thank my executive team in particular, chief deputy reed broderson, who worked closely with human resources and sat on our bargaining team. Counselors, I want to thank you again for your consideration. And with that, I will pass it to sarah to highlight the details of the agreement.
Thank you. Auditor rede.
I do have a slide that I can see, but I'm not sure if you can. Okay, great. So this is a basic outline of what was agreed to with the afscme team, which I would like to echo the thanks to the afscme team, who was a great partner and we were able to reach a negotiated settlement. So the duration of the contract is from July of last year to the end of 2028. And some of the highlights of the agreement are cola based on cpi for each year of the cba, including the 2025 cola, 1% across the board increases for each year of the contract, a one time lump sum payment of $3,000 that will be coming out of the existing auditor's budget and so will not have an impact to other funds. Seniority based bumping rights. Those will be effective in 2027 to allow the auditor's office some time to format what that change will look like for future years. A 2% longevity premium, as well as a 1% archive stacks premium for the two employees that work in the physical archive stacks. Also, a proportion of their professional development fund, which already exists, will be held aside for the purposes of travel to trainings for individuals professional development. And then there's also language about the creation of a veba for the afscme auditors group that were eager to get started on as far as the total cost for a three and a half year agreement, there is 1.1 in budgeted funds for cola. There is $145,000 in additional spending that's coming out of the auditor's budget, and then $537,000 in ongoing costs. And that is the end. So if there are any questions.
Thank you very much, colleagues. Are there any technical or clarifying questions? Anybody signed up to testify?
We have two people signed up.
Okay.
First up, we have Dan vuong.
Good afternoon. Councilors auditor rede staff. My name is. I'm an employee of the auditor's office, and I'm speaking to you today as a member leader with afscme local 189 representing 30 employees, public servants in the auditor's office. Your vote on this item today will cap off cap off 12 months of bargaining, a labor agreement. My members went into this bargaining seeking fair wages, lay off protections and work location guarantees. My members have spoken up about what is important to them and have been extraordinarily patient throughout this process. Bargaining means finding common ground between the union and the employer, and we have scaled back many of our initial demands in the interest of achieving long term security on wages and working conditions. Of course, the employer side also made some movements. So the agreement before you today is the best mutually agreeable deal between the union and the city. We bargained especially hard over economics, of course, recognizing the city's fiscal condition. As you are digesting the mayor's proposed budget, you will see that the budget cuts two positions of afscme represented employees in the auditor's office. My two members have already received the layoff notices, and that has turned the world upside down. If you allow these layoffs to go through, you will be kicking skilled employees to the curb. And if you allow these layoffs to go through, you will have allowed the executive branch to cut the budget of another branch of government that is supposed to hold the executive branch accountable. We are all hearing, I believe you as well. More calls from community members for more accountability from our city of Portland government. You have the power with the budget to decide the fate of my members, and I'm asking you respectfully, to fully fund the labor agreement, restore our two positions, and thereby support accountability and transparency as our community demands. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have assis patel. Ss patel.
Sorry, that's me. I signed up for the wrong.
Okay? I signed up for the wrong one. Do you want to come? Can you come down and like.
Yeah, yeah.
Sign up for the right one.
Next time, okay?
Okay.
All righty.
All right, I got it. Thanks.
Sounds good. Thank you.
That completes testimony.
Okay, colleagues, is there any council discussion of this item? C o councilor Kanal yeah.
Sameer Kanal: I just want to note before we vote on this, that we will be having a, I'm sure, spirited conversation around the item that was mentioned in testimony around the budget of the auditor's office in general. And I don't want the fact that we're not talking about it here to be conveyed to anybody as we're ignoring it. It's just not particularly relevant to this exact item right now. And just wanted to acknowledge that. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal. Okay, colleagues, this is a first reading of an emergency ordinance requires nine votes to pass. Can you please call the roll?
Kanal I.
Pirtle-guiney aye, Morillo Ryan. Aye, Morillo Koyama Lane. Councilor. Koyama Lane. Absent. Morillo. Aye, Morillo. Novick.
Aye, Morillo.
Clerk. Hi Green a Zimmerman I I Smith. I Dunphy I. The ordinance passes with a vote of 11 ayes and one absent.
Thank you very much. Can we please move to item number seven?
Item seven, document 2026-149 ad code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force fed poultry products. Ad code. Chapter 17.110.
Colleagues. This is the first reading of a non emergency ordinance. I'm going to turn it over to the sponsors for some remarks. Councilor Green.
Thank you, mr. Council president, I'll keep my initial sponsor remarks brief, because I note that we have 75 people signed up for testimony, and this has been allotted 80 minutes. I just want to briefly say why I think we should do this at this time. I think that we should adopt this ordinance to ban the sale of force feeding for certain poultry products, because it's the right thing to do. Force feeding animals is cruel. And while I recognize it doesn't end all animal cruelty, it does limit some. And we should always strive to take some. Take measures that are simple and clear to limit harms under our purview. That's. That's what government is for. That's what governments at all levels should be trying to do at this time. So at this moment, I'm going to call for the panel that's going to talk a little bit about how we develop this policy, unless I have three other co-sponsors. And, you know, if you guys want to take a minute to. Okay, great. So at the dais, I see sam with pro-animal futures. Why don't you take us away?
Thanks. Councilor Green. Good afternoon. My name is sam schillinger. I'm a Portland district three resident and the campaign director for pro-animal Oregon pro-animal Oregon is a movement of volunteers, voters and donors organizing politically to move Oregon towards a future beyond factory farming. You have the opportunity to advance legislation that will put Portland on the map as a trailblazer in responsible food. Prohibiting the sale of force fed foie gras. I want to warn you, there are some graphic images in this presentation that may be difficult to look at. So what exactly is foie gras french for fatty liver is the disease liver of a duck who's been force fed until their liver swells up to ten times its normal size. Marketed as a luxury product at french and upscale restaurants, the hefty price tag reflects the extreme costs of keeping a diseased animal alive. Why should Portland prohibit the sale of force fed foie gras? Ducks raised for foie gras are force fed 2 to 3 times a day for nearly two weeks. Force feeding meant to induce liver disease is an extreme form of animal cruelty that doesn't align with portland's values. This narrow and focused policy sets Portland apart as a leader in humane food systems. This bill has broad public support from local business, as 58 Portland restaurants have endorsed it. In addition to local business support, 32 veterinary professionals have formally endorsed this ordinance. Showing this legislation reflects the most current scientific understanding of avian welfare and veterinary standards. While this policy would set a bold precedent, Portland wouldn't be the first to do it. The entire state of california banned the sale and production of foie gras. The sale of foie gras has also been banned in new york city, pittsburgh and brookline, massachusetts. These have consistently been upheld. Several major retailers, including target, costco, whole foods and ikea, have also stopped selling foie gras. Finally, there's an international legal and ethical trend, as at least 27 countries have banned or phased out foie gras sales, production or import. The proposed ordinance prohibits the commercial sale or provision of force fed poultry products. This applies to restaurants, retailers and food services, but does not restrict personal possession, consumption, online sales or non force fed liver. It's a narrow, focused policy meant to keep products made from force feeding out of Portland marketplace, on top of the standard 30 day implementation period. Following adoption, we proposed an additional 60 day transition period to encourage compliance. Violators will get a written notice with clear guidance and time to come into compliance before being fined. Prohibiting foie gras sales would result in no economic harm. This is because less than 1% of Portland businesses actually sell foie gras and an almost exclusively high end fine dining context. We searched local menus to see who this would affect. Currently, only seven restaurants and one retailer are selling it. However, we found 16 restaurants and two retailers that have offered foie gras over the past year because it's a seasonal item that often rotates on and off menus, and some places have stopped serving it. We looked at a full year of data to provide the most honest picture of the local marketplace. This number still represents a fraction of a percent of the 2500 plus food businesses in Portland. Even so, every serving represents an individual bird subjected to multiple force feedings a day for many days of their life. For those businesses who do sell it, it's an insignificant source of revenue, a single niche product that can easily be replaced with a more local, ethical and sustainable alternative as proof of concept of the negligible economic impact, seven Portland businesses have begun phasing out foie gras with no reported loss in revenue, customer traffic or jobs. This shows that a seamless transition away from foie gras is not only feasible for local businesses, but that a local prohibition reinforces an already existing trend. Many chefs routinely adapt menus. A recent study from the colorado state university animal human policy center shows that portlanders overwhelmingly support prohibiting the sale of foie gras. Among the 250 portlanders surveyed, weighted results show that 84% support banning the sale of foie gras, where force feeding was used. This data shows that prohibiting force fed products in Portland is a market driven policy that aligns community values and consumer demand. Force feeding causes liver disease that results in pre-slaughter mortality rates 9 to 19 times higher than non force fed birds. This harm is not incidental. It's the point liver disease is required to create a marketable product. On the right is a healthy liver, and on the left is a diseased liver of a bird who's been force fed. There is no us commercial supply of non force fed foie gras. The photo here was taken from hudson valley foie gras, where they have a permit to confine up to 100,000 ducks at a time. This is consistent with what the EPA defines as a large, concentrated animal feeding operation, otherwise known as a factory farm. What's more, by legal definition, in the us, foie gras must meet a minimum liver weight that's only achievable through force feeding. On February 19th, an independent photojournalist went to hudson valley foie gras where this footage was taken. Hudson valley is the largest foie gras factory farm in the country, and the primary supplier for Portland businesses. This footage was captured during a publicly available tour, meaning these conditions aren't a hidden side of the industry. They represent the best case scenario that the industry is comfortable showing the public. They found ducks confined in pens on metal grates covered in their own waste. Workers were documented using thick foot long metal tubes to force feed the birds, dragging them across the pen to position them for feeding. Foie gras is destructive to the environment because production is incredibly resource intensive and wasteful, extreme overfeeding leads to highly concentrated runoff, which has resulted in over 1100 violations of the clean water act. Foie gras also poses a serious threat to public health due to the risk of spreading animal to human disease, namely, bird flu. Keep in mind we're talking about disease liver. It's often served raw or only partially cooked. Portland is ready to end force feeding. There are no factory farms within city limits, and industrial. Animal agriculture is primarily regulated at the state and federal levels. A foie gras sales ban addresses what the city can regulate the sale of an inherently cruel product. Portland already regulates what can be sold locally based on ethical, environmental and public health concerns. For example, we passed a phase ban on leaf blowers this year to reduce pollution and improve public health. Prohibiting the sale of force fed foie gras is a values based, market driven consumer protection policy. It upholds portland's reputation as a leader in responsible food. There's no reason we can't pass narrow focused policy like this while continuing to address important, larger issues such as housing affordability and mental health. With that, I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Very much. Thank you very much for the presentation.
Thank. Thank you, sam. And I think we're going to hear briefly from hannah troxel at the human league, which is going to talk through some of some of the finer details of the what the what the ordinance does.
Okay.
Hi. Thanks so much for having me. Council president Dunphy and members of the city council. Good afternoon. My name is hannah troxel, and I'm the senior policy counsel at the humane league. My team and I have been supporting pro animal Oregon and councilman Green's office on this proposal. I'm here today to discuss how this proposal would work in practice through effective and through effective and supported enforcement and implementation. This ordinance was intentionally designed to be straightforward and low impact to administer first enforcement is complaint based, meaning the city is not required to proactively inspect businesses, but will respond only to complaints of violations. Second, outreach is already being conducted with affected businesses, with a 90 day transition period after passage, impacted businesses will have ample time to use existing inventory update menus and come into compliance. Third, and importantly, implementation does not require new city funding or additional staff. Current conversations with local agencies under the community and economic development service area are proving that enforcement of this proposal fits within existing enforcement frameworks, including discussions around an intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah county's office of environmental health. And finally, this ordinance emphasizes education first with compliance as the goal. Violators of the ordinance will be first given a written warning and an opportunity to correct any violation before penalties apply, ensuring a fair and predictable implementation process. Pro animal Oregon is prepared to support the city post passage by assisting with outreach, guidance, materials and direct business education. Overall, this policy is practical, easy to implement and aligns with portland's values regarding humane treatment of animals and sustainable food systems. We urge you to support this measure and effective proposal. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much. Okay, colleagues. A couple of process notes for everybody. There are, first of all, keelan how many people are signed up to testify on this?
We have at this time 81.
Okay. So there are 81 people signed up to testify. This item took a bit of a. An odd path to get to council. We. This actually was heard in the former. Arts and economy committee, where it did not receive support, but was put on our schedule by letters of four letters of or for release letters from councilors because. This was also a bit of a. Odd process, I'm also going to be making an extraordinary choice here. I'm going to be limiting testimony to only 80 minutes. We worked on this with the with the sponsors. So folks who are going to testify, if you agree with the previous testimony and your testimony is very, very similar. Ditto is a great way to. However, that might be. Before we dive into that, are there any technical or clarifying questions from colleagues? And then also there are three invited testimony that I'll call before we move to public testimony. So, okay, can we please also hear, as requested by councilor Green, we have amber canavan, a former investigator from peta, Ryan koger, a chef from farrell and anna lavalle. I'm certain I screwed that up. I apologize an organizer with direct action everywhere.
Invited.
This is an invited yes. Okay. Whoever wants to start us, go ahead. Yeah.
Thank you. Council. My name is amber canavan. I'm a resident of district three. I'm also here on behalf of people for the ethical treatment of animals and our over 20,000 members and supporters in the Portland area. I'm also here as a former cruelty investigator who witnessed firsthand the suffering that ducks endure for the foie gras industry, I would like to share what I saw, and also state that a recent investigation released by pro-animal future confirms that the conditions that these ducks are forced to live in and what is done to them during the violent force feeding process, appear to remain unchanged in any meaningful way since I last visited. What I saw and discovered was that birds were and still are being kept in wire bottomed pens, suspended over a river of their own waste. The skin and feathers of many of the ducks were and still are, crusted from feces, from the filthy conditions they're forced to live in. Many of the ducks had and still have difficulty walking and breathing because of their huge engorged livers, which were pressing on their lungs and other organs. There is a reason that foie gras is banned by so many companies and governments in the united states and around the world, including. Just yesterday, brazil voted to ban foie gras. Portland needs to catch up and do its part by passing this foie gras ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, members of committee. My name is anna lavalle. I live in district four and I'm an organizer with Portland chapter direct action everywhere, which is an animal rights organization that fights for the total liberation of all animals. I'm going to keep it simple and ask a question. How can you create change and make a more positive world? For us at the Portland chapter of direct action everywhere, that means every single week we stand outside restaurants that serve foie gras to show our opposition to this abject cruelty. Nearly every person that I have stopped and had a conversation with falls into two categories of conversation. They either say, what is foie gras? Or once I explain what foie gras is, they grimace and look at the restaurant with disdain because it is abject cruelty. Members of our group and other grassroots, grassroots animal rights organizations have worked for years to act upon that truth that many people in Portland know to be true. These years of collective effort have made indelible change. The current series of protests that direct action everywhere Portland has done has been going on for a little bit less than a year. And even so, seven restaurants have dropped foie gras, and multiple others are in dialog with us about doing so right now. Despite this change, foie gras still has a presence in Portland, and as long as it does direct action everywhere, Portland will continue to show up and speak the truth. This committee, on the other hand, has power to make a different change than we make, one that aligns with portland's values of compassion for animals. Protesting a restaurant may remove it from one menu, but all of you here have the choice to remove it from every single menu in Portland. And that is a large change that you can make. While this might affect independent business owners, foie gras is not a sole item that sustains any of their menus, nor will it ever be at any restaurant. And I would argue that it's always worth facing temporary discomfort if it means that you can live in a more kind and compassionate world that aligns with your values. So let Portland stand and lead in the way of showing compassion for animals. Because when historians look back upon the decision made in this room right now, we want to know that the change you made made it more kind and compassionate world. So please vote yes on this ordinance to ban foie gras. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do we have Ryan koger here?
Hi, my name is Ryan koger. I'm the chef owner of farrell in northeast Portland. I support this ban. We're 100% vegan restaurant. We don't serve any animal products. We're able to produce rich, delicious patés steaks, roasts using little more than mushrooms, some ferments, process skill vegetables. Early in my career, I was working in restaurants in cincinnati, ohio that had pretty extensive butchery and charcuterie programs. I was a vegan butcher and as a vegan butcher, my chefs were always trying to. Justify to me their use of animal products. And their kind of bottom line was, at least I would never touch foie gras. They had creative ways of utilizing other animal organ meat, a full and other animal liver, non force fed duck liver to emulate the same flavors and textures. This was 15 years ago. There's no reason for restaurants to still be using this ingredient. It's archaic. It's cruel. Any chef claiming the success of their restaurant depends on any single product is not only being melodramatic and sensational, they're just a bad chef, as far as I'm concerned. If this isn't a new a new thing, banning unethical foods, if it was, then we would still be serving horse meat, shark fins, turtle soup. We're not banning books. This is a group of people trying to do the right thing and stop this incredibly inhumane practice from happening. It's completely inhumane to force feed an animal to death no matter what, morbidly. So for a luxury food item that can be easily substituted, as I stated before. And yeah, my hope today is that as chefs, purveyors, portlanders, council members, politicians that we're leading the way to protect our humanity in a time that seems pretty ethically bankrupt. Yeah, that's all I really have to say. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Okay, so because there are so many folks we are reducing, unfortunately, we have to reduce the number of or the amount of testimony to 90s apiece. Keelan can you please call up our first panel of testifiers? And thank you both for being here?
Thank you. Before I call the first names, when your name is called, you can come to the testimony table. Once seated, state your name for the record and begin your testimony. You'll see the timer displayed on the monitor in front of you. The timer will sound when you have 30s remaining, and again when your time has expired. And then. Yeah, okay, thanks. I'm going to call you up in groups of five. Okay. First up, we have eva hammer, andrew fortgang, brave, roberson, kurt huffman, adrian tortello.
Welcome, folks. Introduce yourself for the record and you 90s.
Good afternoon. My name is eva hammer, resident and district three executive director of pro-animal Oregon. You may hear today that foie gras is humane, or that it should be judged by the best farms and not the worst. But foie gras production depends on force feeding ducks until they develop fatty liver disease. It's not a side effect. It's not an accident. It happens just sometimes. Foie gras is fatty liver disease. Folks in opposition might say that besides the force feeding, these farms are actually very nice. And we are talking about the same farms. They won't remind you that ducks are built to swim. And this is one of the natural behaviors that they're denied. And the factory farms that produce foie gras. I'm talking about painful deformities in the legs and sores on the feet, caused by too much pressure on weak legs that never get relief from the water. You might hear that Portland has bigger issues to address. This ordinance is simple and narrow, and passing this now will be much more efficient than by ballot initiative later. Finally, you might wish that this ordinance did more to help other animals who suffer in factory farms like chickens used for meat. I agree that other animals also need protection, and I look forward to working with you on that. But some cruelty is not a reason to allow other cruelty to continue. This is a narrow, practical step against a uniquely indefensible product. I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Hello, my name is andrew fortgang. I'm a resident of district four and co-owner of le pigeon and canard restaurants in district three. The proposed ordinance and supporting documents presented with it are not representative of the foie gras that is actually sold in Portland, which comes from two family owned organic farms in upstate new york. The bell farm is where the foie gras we use comes from, as well as the majority of foie gras served in Portland is owned by salvadorian immigrants. It is a 40 acre, vertically integrated farm, meaning they grow their own corn and soy for feed, and the manure is redistributed to their fields as well as their neighbors. For fertilizer, the ducks are kept in well ventilated, climate controlled barns, where they have plenty of space to roam within those barns, never in cages. Not only is the liver used, all of the duck is used and sold. None goes to waste. This is exactly the type of farming we should be encouraging. The supplemental materials used as the basis for this proposal include. Include the false claim that birds raised for foie gras in united states are under intensive confinement, in many cases hundreds of thousands at a time. That is simply impossible. Based on the actual numbers, the bell raises 180 ducks a year, 350 are grown throughout the united states versus 9 billion chickens. But that industry is too big to go after. Proponents of this ban want to have it both ways. Foie gras is a large factory farming, herding, damaging the environment, but also a small niche luxury product. It can't be both responsible. Lawmaking does not ignore all of these contradictions when it considers taking away the citizenry's choice something that is not to be taken lightly. Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for being here.
Good afternoon. My name is adrian tourtellotte. I'm a district four resident and I support the foie gras ban. I've been following the range of work of councilor. Green has been advancing programs like keep Portland housed planning efforts like inner eastside for all and current policy work such as the transportation utility fee and the street damage restoration fee. That's housing stability, long term development and infrastructure funding all moving forward. At the same time, this ordinance is clear and focused decision within that broader framework, it addresses a specific practice causing extreme animal suffering, and it does so in a way that aligns with portland's values. It fits within the larger picture. It doesn't take away from it. Please vote yes on the foie gras sales ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Dunphy and fellow councilors. My name is kurt huffman. I own a company called chef's table, and since 2008, we've opened over 100 restaurants here in Portland with the mission of giving chefs the opportunity to own their own restaurants. I'm not here today to debate foie gras. I'm here to call out a process that should alarm anyone who cares about how this city governs. Two days ago, in a conversation with councilor Novick, I learned this proposal has been in development for nearly a year, a year, and during that entire time, neither councilor Green nor councilor Dunphy made any meaningful effort to engage the industry. This policy would impact. My company operates more than 30 restaurants here in Portland. I sit on the board of the Oregon restaurant lodging association. I'm the current chairman of the board of travel Portland. Collectively, those organizations represent a huge share of the city's hospitality economy and not one call until just prior to the arts and economy hearing several weeks ago. Not one. Not one meeting, not one attempt at serious dialog. Instead, the only engagement we've seen came from the proponents of this ban targeting our restaurant, saint jacques, reserving a table, waiting for the dining room to fill, and then standing up to shout invectives at staff and guests. That's not public process, that's intimidation. And it filled the vacuum left by a complete absence of leadership. Let's be clear about what's happening here, and I'm going to run out of time, but I'll just say that it's deplorable how this has come to a vote without engaging an industry like ours that has done more for the city's reputation and tourism than any other industry by tenfold. So it's just regrettable.
Thank you. Thank you all.
Miss brave is joining us online.
Council. My name is brave. I'm from district three and portland's future is of compassion and justice. And this foie gras ban would further represent what we all would want to see in our world. And I greatly support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next up we have adriana voss, andrea analise de nicole corrado, juliet dunn, naomi mckusick.
Welcome, folks. Come on up. Introduce yourself for the record, feel free to share your pronouns and you have 90s.
My name is juliet dunn. I'm from district four and I am supporting the foie gras ban. When I have had personal exchange, I have a personal exchange with a chef who formerly served foie gras. I have also had conversations with other ones, and I find that what they believe in private is very different from what they say in public. I had a conversation with a chef who sent me footage of la belle, and when I pointed out the very clear welfare issues, he said he agrees. But unfortunately, due to the nature of force feeding, there can't be any higher welfare, provided the ducks have to be confined in pens to force feed them. They will never swim. That's just how it is. And I would say that that is proof enough that if the best of the industry cannot provide a semblance of a happy life for this, these animals, then why should it exist? Ban foie gras. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is naomi mckissick. I'm a resident of district four, and I fully support this ban. And I'm going to share a little personal story with you. So I recently lost my aunt to a very long battle with breast cancer. And during the end of her life, her tumors metastasized and spread to her liver, which caused it to massively expand. I witnessed firsthand how much torture this was to her. She was constantly bloated, she could barely move, and she had no appetite. And because of this, she had to be forcefully tube fed, which she did not want. And it was one of the biggest factors in making the end of her life so miserable. Now, I want you to imagine that. But without the freedom and familial support a cancer patient receives, this is what happens to thousands of ducks daily in the foie gras industry. Ducks are deeply intelligent creatures, and they experience and conceptualize pain, just like us. Banning foie gras and Portland ensures that another chunk can be taken out of an industry that tortures these beautiful birds. And that's why I support this ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is adriana voss-andreae. I'm a voter in district three and also have a small business in district four. I just want to express that I, I urge you to to listen to your constituents, listen to the preponderance of people who are constituents, not only who showed up today, but also who represented in the poll. And, and, and we know that the vast majority of your constituents want this ban to happen. So I urge you to vote yes. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay. Calling analise de nicole corrado. Hillary t for gabriel rucker, sean rice, hannah rucker, aldrin. Odell.
Welcome, folks. Come on up. Introduce yourself for the record. Hi, I'm gabriel rucker, I'm the chef owner of le pigeon here in Portland, Oregon. Thank you for my time. When I think of Portland, I don't think of it as my city. I think of it as our city. When I think about Portland, I don't think about what's wrong with it, but I think about what right, what is right with it, and what do we have going for ourselves? How can we be better? Our restaurants are the lifeblood of the city. The city that makes the heartbeat. When people are in need, we feed them. We organize fundraisers. When our schools can't get enough funding, we donate our own funds, funds that we barely have any excess of. People come to Portland to eat. People come for our restaurants. They spend money on shopping, hotels. They come for my foie gras profiteroles. I can't think of any time that someone has not come to visit Portland because a restaurant serves foie gras. I think that we are missing the forest for the trees here, and that going after us and the farms that produce foie gras is performative at best. It doesn't tackle the real issues around food that we face. I also think that we all share a lot more in common in this room than we have differences. We want what is good for our city, the people that live here, and the planet. I propose that instead of making laws that tell people what they can eat, we put our differences aside and figure out how to educate people on what is good to eat for their health and for our mother earth. Let's not just be the city that works, but the city that works together. Let's make Portland look good. Because when you're in the news for making it legal to smoke crack on our sidewalks, you might want to think twice about making duck liver illegal.
Thank you very much.
I'm hannah rucker. I oppose this ban. I think that pro animal Oregon doesn't represent the majority of Portland. They're just the loudest. And they're going after low hanging fruit. In order to gain attention. They're choosing the easiest route. And that choice will affect independently owned businesses that are a vibrant part of the Portland community. Food tourism is a counterbalance to the rampant drug use happening on our streets, lack of school funding and houseless crisis. Everybody that's an adult has a choice of what they want to eat, and there's lots of restaurants for people to eat in that offer a variety of different foods. The people that don't have a choice on what they eat are the students in the Portland public school system. And I just want to read a little bit of the menu that we're serving them for lunch every day. Well, first breakfast, cinnamon toast crunch, vanilla cream breadsticks, french toast sticks, cinnamon toast crunch, liege waffle apple, cinnamon muffin, mini pancakes. For lunch, we have crackers and chicken jerky. We have chicken fried waffles. We have. I just want to say that this chicken is coming from goldkist farms, which is a huge production farm. They kill 8 million chickens a day and serve them to our children in the public school systems, which desperately need funding. And we are sitting here wasting taxpayers time and money. And I don't think that pro-animal organ should be involved in the government decisions of what's happening for independent businesses that pay taxes and contribute to the community.
That we.
Live in.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is alder nordell. I'm from northwest Portland. I'm a small business owner, and I support this ban on foie gras because consumer choice should not dictate public policy, law, legal precedent, and the morals and ethics of your constituents should be the primary concerns. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Hello.
I'm sean rice, district three voter, resident, and I support this ban. I hope that you do too, because it's pretty simple. Go, ducks. Thank you.
Hillary, for.
This.
Next up we have sophie. Greenbaum, ashley hall rocks zeta, matt hall, john van den berg.
Welcome folks. Come on up.
Good afternoon council. My name is rock zeta. I am a district four resident. I'm here to support the foie gras ban. But I also want to recognize councilor Greene's work. It is varied. And from his ban on predatory ai, rent setting algorithms and the resolution to investigate zenith energy to his amazing program, keep Portland housed, which has helped thousands of. Down on the luck portlanders avoid eviction and stay in their homes. This work is already happening. It's ongoing and it's making a big difference. And at the same time, we have a clear decision in front of us here today. Foie gras production involves force feeding animals in a way that causes severe suffering. This policy addresses our support of that directly. For me, these aren't separate conversations. They come from the same place, reducing harm where we can and making thoughtful choices about what we allow in our city. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is matt hall. I am in district four and a voter, and I oppose this ban. I feel based on the numbers, you know, to conflate factory farms, which I think everyone agrees with is a bad thing. Over 9 billion chickens are killed a year in the united states for food processing. Foie gras production makes up roughly 0.0005% of all animals that are killed for food. I feel that the city owes it to its residents, as adults, as people that can make our own decisions to choose what we are okay and not okay with. And I find it particularly rich coming from the city saying we know things are bad and we shouldn't do it. When the third largest revenue producing thing we have in our state is video lottery, an addictive thing that we all willingly sell, willingly go with, and are okay with because it inflates our pockets, not the pockets of small business owners, not the pockets of people that come in here for tourism, not the people that employ hundreds of employees in the food restaurant, paying taxes, paying a living wage to their employees and taking care of them. We are all adults. We can all make our own decision. If you don't like it, I agree with your decision 1,000,000%. You are entitled to it. However, my stomach, my choice. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Ashley hall. Ashley hall, district four voter. I am against the ban. I believe that the heart of our city is in our restaurants and our culinary what we've done. Restaurants like lake pigeon have been around for almost 20 years, and they are institutions by the awards they've won, putting Portland on the map and the fact that we would want to harm businesses that are not moving out of Multnomah county, but staying here when we have a 32% commercial issue with vacancy in our city, I think is just this is not where we need to put our time and our efforts. You can choose to eat if you want to with your pocketbook. Let that be how it goes. But we should not be the ones telling anyone. It is our choice. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
John van den berg. And I've worked in the city for 37 years. I'd say our firm's probably brought in hundreds of millions of dollars over our time in the city. I support this ordinance, and I thank all of you for your service and for your empathy.
Thank you very much.
Hillary is joining us online. All right, let's move to sophie and we'll check on hillary. Go ahead. Sophie.
Hi. My name is sophie sherlock. I use she her pronouns and I'm here to testify in support of the ban. I will try and keep this short because I have seen so many written comments online about how this is a waste of council's time, and they could be focusing on more important things. And yet, some of those people also chose to show up here today, and I assume are also waiting to testify to take more of council time to tell you off for using council time to pass this. I have seen the sponsor of this bill say that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I couldn't agree more. As others have pointed out, he's already sponsored legislation around surrounding housing and our economy. This clearly isn't taking some huge chunk of council time away from issues that we might think are more important. It's here in front of us now. It is easy to vote yes on now. There is no reason not to at this point. Foie gras is cruel. There is no reason to keep using it. As others have pointed out, it is the lowest of the low for animal cruelty. I am also confused by opponents of this ban saying that, well, what about all the other animal cruelty? That's not a reason to not pass this. It's a reason to come back with more legislation later that addresses that animal cruelty and is not a reason to keep to vote no on this and keep permitting this to happen. I'm really grateful for the people who brought this forward, both in council and for pro-animal Oregon, and other sponsors and other organizers who made this happen. Thank you for your time, and I hope you vote yes on this ban.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Ryan mead, kimiko matsuda, joshua porter, ted bascom, peter hurd.
Welcome, folks. Come on down. You're welcome to go first since you.
Are you Ryan?
No.
I'm ted. Okay, great. Hello, I'm kimiko matsuda. I work across Portland, small business, culinary and cultural communities focused on economic recovery, economic recovery, tourism, and long term investment in this city. I respect the values behind the proposal. My perspective is less about fragrance and is about stewardship and how we lead in this moment. Portland's recovery remains fragile. Our culinary community is one of our strongest economic and cultural assets. They create jobs, drive tourism, and shape portland's identity at a national and global level. Support, from their perspective, is stability, partnership and meaningful engagement in decisions that affect their industry. Decisions are not experienced in isolation. They accumulate over time. They shape how it feels to operate a business in Portland and whether people choose to invest, expand or build here in the future, there is a real risk of investment fatigue. The people driving this city's recovery have continued to show up and reinvest, and we want to make sure that we do not impact that erosion or momentum. This is a moment that calls for discipline. Our policies should strengthen, not strain, the people building the future. I ask you to vote no on this ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm ted, I live in district three, and I support the ban on foie gras.
Thank you very much.
I'm josh porter.
District four.
Navy vet, PSU student. While some argue that we should focus on the broader issues of factory farming, which is awesome, we shouldn't let the pursuit of a perfect solution stop us from taking meaningful action. Now. Force feeding causes undeniable suffering, and the city has the power to end it today. So please vote I to show that when progress is in reach, Portland moves forward. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is peter herd. I'm a district two voter. We have heard from restaurants in the area who are concerned about how this will affect them. The handful of restaurants that actually do serve foie gras. I say that we help them out by giving everyone an equal footing under this regulation, by enacting a restaurant ban on serving foie gras. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Ryan mead. I'm here to discuss the proposed ban on foie gras. Obviously, I spent over 20 years working the restaurant industry here in Portland. I've dedicated my career to it. I'm not just here as an individual, but someone who has worked alongside chefs and restaurants. I want to start with a simple idea, and that's consumer free choice. At its core, that means adults have the right to eat where they would like to eat, buy what they want to buy, and decide where they'd like to spend their money. You don't have to like foie gras. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to order it. But the choice to do so do so should remain at the individual level. And that's ideas tied directly to a free market. And a free market works because it lets consumers decide what succeeds and what doesn't. If people don't want to eat foie gras, they don't have to order it and restaurants will stop serving it. And that brings me to restaurants. Small, independent restaurants in Portland are already under immense pressure. Rising costs, increased regulation and declining traffic have made it harder than ever to survive. Adding yet another restriction doesn't just limit a single ingredient, it limits creativity. My argument is simple whether you personally agree with, agree with, or not. This is about where we draw the line. Local government stepping in to dictate what restaurants can and cannot serve as a precedent that everyone in this room should be concerned about. At the end of the day, this doesn't stop consumption, it pushes it somewhere else. Let chefs create less. Let restaurants cook, let consumers choose, and let the market decide. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Thank you all for being here.
Next up.
Next up we have steven freitag, olga, ilya, tien tran, jessica lange, molly flanagan.
Welcome, folks. Whoever wants to go first.
Hi, I'm jessica lange, a constituent of district two, and I support the ban on force fed poultry products, aka foie gras.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is tim tran. I'm from district one. I support this ban. Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi. Good afternoon council. My name is olga eliuk. I live in district one in Portland, and I support the foie gras ban. I wanted to just say that there has been a discussion. Multiple people mentioned that we should be talking about animals that are being mistreated on a larger scale, such as chickens, for example. And I agree that those are important issues, and there definitely should be discussion about this. However, today what we have in front of us, it is a very specific and focused policy. The policy about foie gras production that involves mistreatment of animals, force feeding of animals that causes extreme and well-documented suffering. And it is a distinct practice that the city does have the authority to regulate. And if we wait until we can address all the issues with farmed animals all at once, we will never be able to move forward and take any steps forward. So right now, we are in this place where the harm is clear, the policy is focused and the city has the ability to act. So we can have larger conversations about farmed animals and our food systems. And we also can make this decision today. So I urge you to support this foie gras ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm steven freitag, district four, and I support the ban.
Thank you very much, guys.
I'm molly flanagan, district three, and I support this ban. Thank you so much for having us.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have kelsey glasser, york hayes, valerie, tabitha, amina butterfly, heather. Robertson.
Welcome. Come on down.
Thank you. Hello. My name is kelsey glasser. I'm an independent restaurant owner and I oppose this motion. Caring about animal welfare is something I take very seriously. I myself grew up on a farm in the Willamette valley and have seen firsthand what ethical farming should look like. Restaurants like mine don't source from factory farmed industrial meat systems. We work with small farmers because we know this choice is better for our planet, our guests, and most importantly, the animals themselves. That's why this proposal feels so misdirected. I know it comes from a place of concern for animal welfare, but focusing on one highly visible ingredient raised on a very small scale while overlooking the much larger impacts of industrial agriculture, does not create meaningful change. Foie gras production is extremely limited in the u.s. And by contrast, conventional poultry production slaughters over 9 billion chickens each year, where animals have markedly worse living conditions and shorter lifespans. If the goal is to reduce harm, industrial factory farming is where the true issue lies. Instead, this policy places additional pressure on small businesses like mine trying to operate thoughtfully and keep the lights on. Portland's economy still has not recovered, and we are navigating rising costs and ongoing challenges. Now it feels like our character is being questioned by a city government that claims it wants to support small business, but has not consistently backed those claims up. If we truly want to move the needle, we should focus our energy on the systems that have the greatest impact and the policies that could actually make a difference. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, council members. My name is york hays. I'm a business owner, a resident of district four. I'm here to support the ban. I want to speak briefly about the idea. We've heard a ton today about taking away personal choice. Cities make decisions all the time about what can and cannot be sold in the marketplace. That's part of how we set standards, whether it's for safety, for health, or basic levels of harm that we're willing to accept. This policy operates in that same space. It doesn't tell people what they can eat it. It has the city determine what is allowed to be sold based on those standards. Passing this ban is a decision about standards, not personal diets. People still have choices. What changes that our marketplace reflects a baseline that excludes this level of harm. For me, that's a reasonable and appropriate role for the local government. Please vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon council. My name is valerie tabitha, and I'm a district four resident. I'm here in support of the ban on force fed foie gras. And I also want to recognize the work that councilor Mitch Green has been doing on the transportation utility fee, which is looking at how we create stable, reliable funding for our streets and transportation system. This is the kind of policy that affects daily life, whether people can get to work safely, whether streets are maintained, whether our system is actually sustainable long term. And I believe that supporting this ban on force fed gras takes nothing away from other important projects that Portland is currently working on. This is something small and easy that we can get passed that will give people something to feel good about. While the city continues to work on much bigger priorities, and I think this ordinance aligns with portland's values, I strongly urge members of the council to vote yes on the ban of force fed. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm heather robertson from district one. Force fed is an
Inhumane practice and I support a ban.
Thank you very much.
Amina.
My name is amina butterfly. I live in district one. Pleasure and business should not come at the cost of exploitation of those who cannot defend themselves. Please vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have amy meyer, hallowell, jobi bailey, beth redwood, danny rubin.
Welcome.
My name is. My name is cheyenne, and I'm here to voice my support for the ban on foie gras. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is jobi bailey, and I am in opposition of the ban on foie gras. I'm a longtime resident of the Portland area and a 25 year veteran of our local restaurant industry. I've had the privilege of watching Portland grow into one of the most celebrated food cities in the country. I have also seen how difficult it has been for our industry to recover from the pandemic, especially as our city continues to work through a broader economic and reputational challenges. While this proposal directly impacts restaurants, I believe the broader issue before you is one of personal choice. Portland has long provided itself on being a place where individuals are trusted to make their own decisions, where diversity is diversity of thought, lifestyle, and expression are not only accepted but protected. That principle extends beyond social identity. It applies to everyday decisions, including the people that choose to eat or what people choose to eat. Restricting that choice, particularly when it affects small number of producers and a narrow segment of the dining public, raises important questions about where we draw the line on personal freedoms. For many of our community, that line matters. I'd also ask the council to consider our priorities. Our city is facing significant challenges, but budget constraints, public safety concerns, infrastructure needs, and the access and access to essential services like education and mental health support. At a time when resources are resources are stretched thin, allocating attention and enforcement toward the issue may not reflect the most urgent needs of our residents.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is danny rukin. Good afternoon council. I live in Portland, district one and I'm here to support the foie gras ban. I've been following the work happening at city hall. I want to acknowledge that there's a lot moving forward right now, including work led by councilor Green programs like keep Portland housed inner city inner eastside for all and the transportation utility fee and the street damage restoration fee that are in process. Thank you so much. That's a lot. And it matters. As a resident, what I see is a city trying to take care of people in real, tangible ways. This policy fits into that same pattern. It's a smaller decision, but it's a simple and clear one. It's about whether we allow a practice that causes extreme animal suffering when we don't have to. For me, this comes down to what kind of community we are. Across the board, while we're doing the work on housing, on infrastructure, on long term planning, we have an opportunity to reduce harm. New york city has been the most recent city to finally pass the ban on foie gras. And if they can do it with their nonstop full plate of critical issues, so can we. It's not a zero sum game. We can walk and chew gum. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is amy meyer. I'm a resident and voter in district three, and I support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Beth.
My name is beth redwood. I've lived in district two for 12 years, and I support the foie gras ban. To me, it's simply a matter of conscience. Do we prioritize the palate pleasure of a few people who could easily choose to eat something else? Or the obvious, well-documented pain and torture inflicted on the animals whose enlarged disease fatty livers are the product. I believe in good conscience that when portlanders have an opportunity to stop supporting egregious suffering and cruelty to living beings, that we will take the ethical, humane stand. Please support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have linda liu. Jacqueline. Ryan. Ryan. Coco. Sorry. Ryan already testified. John gramstad. Shannon leahy.
Hi, my name is jacqueline gans. I live in Washington county. This cruelty is unacceptable. I support this ban. Please vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Let me make sure we don't have any folks on the. Oh go ahead. Linda.
Hello. My name is linda liu. I am a district four voter. I support the ban on force fed foie gras and beg that you do too. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much.
Okay. John. Gramstad. Shannon leahy, sean. Christine. Marissa kroes, dylan. Dylan. Hamish. Bradley. Avery. Lang. I'm going to pause for a minute in case anybody is here. Go ahead.
I'm avery lang from district three and I support the foie gras ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Yes.
Welcome.
Hi there. Thanks for being patient. My name is dylan dillow. I live across the river in camas, Washington, frequenter of Portland restaurants and someone who earned an agriculture degree here in the state of Oregon. I just want to voice my support for the foie gras ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is hamish. I'm a nursing assistant in district three and I support the ban.
Hi, my name is sean christian. I'm a district three resident and voter and I support the ban.
Thank you all so much for being here.
I don't think my video is working. Can you hear me?
Yeah, we can hear you.
Okay. My name is marissa cruz. I live in district three. I'm a chef and local bakery owner here in Portland. I support this ban because Portland is a city that prides itself on compassion, progress and supporting our community. I don't believe foie gras represents these values. I believe supporting this ban is the right thing to do for people, for animals and for the planet. Over 99% of restaurants, chefs and food shops in the city do not serve or sell viagra. There's a reason for that. If Portland chefs believed in this product and believed the people of Portland wanted to eat it, there would be more than eight places that currently sell it. The people in chefs of Portland overwhelmingly do not want foie gras. A chef here today made the argument at the last hearing that we should be focusing on factory farming and ending that and not foie gras. And I agree, as a society, factory farming should end. I don't support factory farming with my dollars. But you don't decide not to change anything because you can't change everything. Social change is a collection of small acts of individuals, of communities and cities, and I don't think anyone here today believes that we shouldn't make any changes because we can't change everything, or believes that we shouldn't end some harm to animals because we can't end all harm. Frog gras will end in this country. It's just a matter of time. It's already declining significantly across europe and the united states. And I hope Portland city that I love and call home is on the right side of history today and supports this ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Shannon.
Hi. Yes, my name is shannon leahy. I'm a Portland resident. I live in district four. Like the majority of the citizens polled, I strongly support this ban. I'm deeply moved by the testimony being given today. Portland can lead as a forward thinking city, and I believe it is in our best interest to embrace every opportunity to adapt and invest in positive changes that support our communities, not to uphold broken, destructive systems that benefit only a few. We should unequivocally stand up against cruelty and prioritize important issues like this ban that cost us nothing as a community to champion. Thank you.
Okay, next up, we have nat russo. Sarah barham, pranav merchant, finn spohrer, nicole funds funds. Kendall.
Hey, I'm finn spore and I'm from district four and I support the ban.
Thank you very much.
Pranav.
Sorry. Hi. Sorry. I want to thank the council and the city of Portland, first of all, for allowing people from out of the city to testify because I don't live in Portland, but I visit often to because I have family there. And I just wanted to say I wanted to call in to support the ban. I think all the arguments about personal choice and culture and business vitality are all great, but I don't think any of that should be found, should be based on unnecessary cruelty and violence towards animals. I think morals come first before any of that other any of those other considerations. So I hope you guys pass the ban and, you know, keep Portland. I think what was it ahead of the curve. Thanks.
Thank you so much.
Hi. I'm nicole, I'm a worker in the food service industry in district one. And I support this ban because my right to choose does not give me a right to abuse animals. Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is sarah barham. I'm born and raised in Portland and I currently live in district two and I support this ban.
Thank you very much.
Hi, I'm matt russo. I live in fairview, just a few streets out of Portland, and I frequent restaurants in the Portland area. Quite often I support this ban. I want you to picture yourself having a tube down your throat, force feeding you for two weeks, and how much that suffering causes, and try to have some empathy for those animals and really think about the power you have today to stop that. Stop some of the amount of suffering that this world has, and being the right side of, of it all. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have johnny oberman, matthew king, peter misono, alex vetaw, tammy dunn. I see matthew online. Go ahead.
Yeah. Can you hear me? Okay.
We can hear you.
Okay. Hello. My name is matthew king and I represent the christian animal rights association. The bible condemns animal cruelty and proverbs 1210 based on proverbs 1210. Our ministry supports the ban on force fed products like foie gras in Portland because it is incredibly cruel to animals and even to the biblical writers. It would not be acceptable. Force fed products like foie gras have no place in a civilized society. Other compassionate cities like pittsburgh, brookline, massachusetts, new york city, and in the entire state of california have banned foie gras. Someone earlier defended la belle farms. Yet that producer has faced significant ongoing accusations of animal cruelty because of their force feeding methods. And it's interesting how a lot of the arguments don't address the animal cruelty issue. They talked about other issues like crack school funding, free and personal choice, budget, public safety, the lottery investment, and factory farming, which doesn't involve force feeding to function as a distraction to the issue. This is a menu item that no one needs and is very much a luxury item. Again, our ministry supports the ban on force fed products like foie gras and Portland because it is incredibly cruel to animals. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Thanks. Council members. My name is peter. I live in district three, small business owner. I'm here to ban the proposal. Portland should think very clearly, carefully before it rushes into a foie gras, banned because it risks feeling good while doing almost nothing to actually help animals. The truth is, foie gras is a tiny, niche product. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of animal suffering comes from factory farming, where countless animals live their entire lives in crowded, stressful, often brutal conditions. If we truly care about animal welfare, that is where our focus and our courage should be. Banning a single luxury item menu item might make for a strong headline, but it does not make meaningful change in the system. What it does do is put yet another burden on a small handful of restaurants and shops. While the real engine of cruelty in our food system continues untouched, Portland is a thoughtful, values driven city. We should be leading on policies that actually reduce suffering at scale, supporting higher welfare standards, rewarding humane farms, and pushing back on the worst factory farming practices. If this council wants to stand up for animals, let's be honest about where the harm really is. Let's not settle for a symbolic ban that targets an easy, visible villain while ignoring the everyday realities of industrial farming. We can do better than feel good legislation. We owe it to both animals and small businesses to pursue reforms that are serious, effective and truly compassionate.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Johnny.
Johnny lieberman, district one in Portland. And I am in support of the ban.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have alex. Oh, let's check to see if alex is here. Tammy. Done.
My name is tammy dunn. I live in the Portland metro area. I can't imagine opposition to this ban when the harm to sentient, sentient beings is so grave, and the product it produces is insignificant to the well-being of any person or business. These are the same sweet animals we take our kids to the park to see. I support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next up we have. Michelle casey, jeremy beckham, jolene rutherford, nicholas selby. Go ahead michelle.
Thank you. Hi, my name is michelle casey. I live in district two and I fully support the foie gras ban. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
I'm nicholas selby, I live in district two, and I'm here to support the ban on force fed foie gras. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi. My name is jolene rutherford and I am speaking in opposition to the ban. This issue comes down to personal choice. Portland has always trusted its residents to make informed decisions about what they eat, even when those choices differ. If we start deciding what people are allowed to eat, we lose something bigger. We lose trust in our community. Please don't replace that trust with a ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Olivia Clark: Hi, my name is jeremy beckham. I'm a student here at lewis and Clark law school. I think the images that everyone saw today of how foie gras is produced kind of speak for themselves. It's a form of animal torture. And I'm here to support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you.
So. Eleanor roberts caudill, jessie caldwell, maria diaz, sierra barnes, victoria castillo.
Welcome.
Hello, jessie caldwell from Portland district three. And I'm here to express my full support for the ban. I'd also just like to say that with any issue of rights, be it civil rights or labor rights, it always is organized at the community level first, before large sweeping changes can be enacted. And so I think it's important that we do that here. And it's more than just performative. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Sarah is joining us online. Sarah, can you hear us?
Oh, can you hear me?
We can hear you now.
Okay, great. My name is sarah barnes. I'm a constituent in district four. I would like to testify in support of the foie gras ban. I think we've heard a lot about how this is potentially a waste of time. But I'd like to point out that even with .000 5% of the animals being killed for foie gras, with billions of animals being killed for food, that's still a big number of individuals. And this is a real chance to make a large impact for animals. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is maria diaz and I live in district three. I support this ban, and I'm urging you to also support it because the life and well-being of a sentient or the life and well-being of a sentient being should always take priority over somebody's choice to use another's body for sensory pleasure or profit. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is victoria castillo, and I'm a member of vegan scouts, local community organization that also supports this ban. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. It's not a waste of time or money to fight for what's right. Saying this ban is not meaningful because bigger problems exist just avoids the question. Small changes still reduce harm. Former arguments bring up chicken consumption distracts from actual policy questions. The fact that chicken farming is larger doesn't mean smaller issues shouldn't be addressed. Scale alone does not determine whether something is worth regulating. The arguments pertaining to personal choice are not very strong if the issue involves harm to others public health, animal welfare, environmental impact or regulation just skips over those competing concerns. It's an oversimplification. Some may argue that banning foie gras limits choice or impacts businesses, but we routinely draw lines around what is acceptable in the marketplace. We do not permit products that are produced through unnecessary suffering when humane alternatives exist. This is an opportunity for Portland to lead, not follow. Other cities have already taken steps in this direction, and your action today can reinforce a broader movement toward more humane food systems. I ask you to consider not just the economic arguments, but the ethical ones. Consider what it means to allow a practice that depends on the prolonged suffering of animals for luxury consumption, and consider the message it sends about who we are as a city. Please act with compassion and integrity. Ban foie gras.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have two. Henry tina ciccarello, brian pease, nicholas bergantino, daniel redwood.
Good afternoon, members of the Portland city council. My name is henry and I'm a proud Oregonian and resident of portland's hollywood district two. I'm here today to urge this council to ban the sale of foie gras in Multnomah county, not as a radical act, but as a natural expression of who we are as a city and who we choose to be as a culture. Portland has long stood apart in a national climate increasingly defined by indifference to each other, to animals and to the planet. The city has chosen to lead with compassion. We believe that how we treat the most vulnerable among us defines our character, and that belief extends beyond our species into the greater web of life that sustains us all. What we spend money on shapes the world we live in. Every dollar spent on a product rooted in deliberate cruelty is a small vote for a crueler world. And every time a city chooses to remove that option from its local economy, it sends a different signal that here we choose kindness and compassion over the deliberate production of pain for the selfish sake of profit or personal preference. This ban asks very little of Portland. Foie gras is a luxury item with a minimum footprint in our local food economy. No jobs are lost, no communities disrupted, and what we stand to gain is much more valuable and alignment of values that sets our city apart and joins it with some of the most socially advanced cities and nations in the world. That matters more now than it ever has. When cruelty is normalized at scale, local acts of conscience are not small things. They are the building blocks of a culture rooted in cooperative intention. Portland has always understood that. May your decision today be another opportunity to prove it. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Brian.
Thank you. Thank you, council members, for taking this up. My name is brian pease. I'm a civil rights and environmental attorney in san diego, california, where I've been for the past 20 years. In the early 2000, I co-founded a group called animal protection and rescue league, and we visited these foie gras farms and exposed the cruelty there, which helped get the california ban passed. And the idea that la belle farms, for instance, is a is a smaller farm. It's not. It's massive, just like hudson valley foie gras, these are massive factory farms. When you're in these sheds as far as the eye can see, you just see rows and rows of these, the force feeding pens with the ducks. The reason that there are a lot more chickens killed is because there are a lot more farms. But here we have two farms that are supplying the entire united states supply of foie gras. La belle and hudson valley have also been under fire for exploiting their migrant workers. There have been class action lawsuits about that in california. We passed other bans after the foie gras ban, including by voters. We have cage free eggs only in california. So new york city did the same thing. They passed it as a package of animal welfare laws. It wasn't just foie gras. So this is an important piece, but the idea that restaurants will stop serving if consumers stop eating it is simply not true. In fact, it's the opposite. The reason that the restaurants have to serve it. If some restaurants are going to turn turn a blind eye to the cruelty is that then they figure, well, we might lose business to the few consumers who don't care about the cruelty, and we're going to offer it as long as it's legal. We need to set some standards. If somebody wanted to walk down the street kicking their dog in the head, we wouldn't allow that either. So choice here is not we. That's this is what government is for. It's to level the playing field and create humane standards for all the businesses to follow. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Tina.
Hello. My name is tina ciccarello. Empathy matters. These force fed ducks are babies. They are typically only 10 to 12 weeks old. A duck's lifespan is typically 5 to 15 years. If people aren't okay with showing the force, feeding footage of ducks to their kids or grandkids, then they already know how cruel it is. I wouldn't want someone I love to be treated like these birds. I hear quite a bit of people mention the word choice. These birds aren't given one. When we know better, we have the opportunity to make kinder choices. So why don't we? I support the ban.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead.
All right. My name is nick berg, and it's nice to see everyone. You have multiplied since the last time I was here. I support the ban. Just I wouldn't want that to happen to me very basically, I am a little bit jealous of the other individuals here though, because I can't really prepare stuff. It's also my weakness as a substitute teacher. If you give me a script, I'm not great with it. But it's like reasons like this. I took the bus here and I overheard this gem of someone talking about how their friend eats pizza 22 days of the month, and a sandwich the other eight days of the month. Foie gras was not one of the days. The truth is, people don't overwhelmingly care about this. As a sub, I'm really worried about next year's school year. I think people do probably want to vote on this, and the numbers are actually really clear that people don't like that. People don't really eat it too much, and it just seems very, very cruel. I also like really bad analogies, so I apologize. But the wnba season, we have a team that's really, really exciting. I can't wait Sunday preseason in basketball. Good passes are ahead of the person. This is not trending towards, oh, there's more and more foie gras everywhere. It's going one way. People are like, oh, this is a cruel practice. I have five seconds, but there's been two times this is overturned. Once was a clerical error and with other was some dude from chicago people. Yeah. Thanks.
Thank you.
Daniel.
I'm daniel redwood, I am a resident of district two. I strongly support the ban and urge the council to pass it. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have us s patel. Michael thielen, drew mccormick, andrew esposito, leslie burke. Go ahead.
Me hey everyone. Mike phelan, district three sunnyside, where I've lived most of my adult life. I think we all agree. Everyone cares. That's why they're here. I think what what really compelled me to show up today, it just bothered me to hear from kurt and from kelsey and from others that, you know, they had reached out to the backers of this van and they haven't felt engaged. They haven't felt heard. I've had the luxury and the pleasure and the privilege of working with the culinary community in Portland for 20 years. I started east Portland, among some other projects, and this community represents the very best of what this city does in terms of sourcing, in terms of sustainability, stewardship, regeneration, in terms of keeping the neighborhoods alive, in terms of creating jobs, tax revenue, all that I would ask before we make decisions, we do better job to engage with this community and respect what they do before we blanket bans. And, you know, really, as leaders find ways for all of us to work together to address larger issues related to animal cruelty, I oppose the ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi. My name is ss patel. I'm a visitor from out of state and I support the ban.
Thank you very much. Hello, everyone.
My name is andrew esposito. I'm a voter in district two. I strongly oppose this ban. I'm here today in my 90s to talk to the group of people behind me and the group of people ahead of me. The group of people behind me have vocally protested at restaurants over the last couple of weeks. Real life anguish has happened to employees at these businesses that are dealing with these protesters in a way that they shouldn't have to their employees of this business. They aren't making decisions, and instead they're dealing with very loud, disruptive protests in front of their business. I asked the group in front of me, have we done anything to contact the police department to work with them, knowing that some of this could be coming to light, knowing that there are vocal disruptions and protests happening, and I asked the people behind me to please show up better. I understand that you're very passionate about this and you feel a certain way about it, but you are disrupting the business in this city that has helped put this city on the map. This avenue right here is the correct way to spread your message, not showing up and forcing the cops to be called on you as you harass guests at a restaurant on a Friday night. Please keep your fellow city council members in check, please. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
My name is leslie burke. I live in district three and I support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Andrew. And we already.
Hello?
Can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay.
Hi, I'm drew mccormack. Thank you for taking the time to listen. I'm here to strongly support this ban on foie gras. We talked about chickens and factory farming. As far as I know, chickens are not force fed. Also, two wrongs do not make a right. We talked about free choice, but the government regulates and restricts what enters the market all the time. We've talked about whether this was meaningful change. I absolutely think this is meaningful change. You can stop foie gras and you saw the images. You saw the videos. The common technique to make foie gras is to restrain the bird by hand or machine. With its neck extended, a tube is pushed down its throat and the food is forced down the throat, either manually or mechanically. These birds are sentient. They feel pain. Some ducks even die from suffocating on the food. Foie gras is inhumane and incredibly hurtful. Please support the ban. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have garrett arts, followed by violet russell. I'm going to also run through the names that I've called, just to make sure nobody has shown up. Only stay. Nicole corado, hillary taillefer, john gramstad, alex vetter. So. Parnok. Eleanor roberts. Cordell.
Hi, I'm garrett arts Portland homeowner. Can you imagine in your own home, your cat or dog having a tube stuffed down its throat until it became sick or diseased? You wouldn't stand for it. It's very easy for you not to stand for that for ducks either by just saying yes on this ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi, I'm violet russell from district two, and I support this ban.
Thank you very much.
My name is eleanor roberts cordell. And I support this ban. Please. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
That completes testimony.
Okay, colleagues, we are at almost exactly the time limit that I set for this. We are going to continue this item to a future hearing. We're going to have a second first reading so we can have council discussion. But we are out of time for today to discuss this and need to move on to the next item. So. We will more action on this soon. Can we please move to item number eight? Thank you all for being here today.
Item eight document 2026-039. Amend chronic nuisance property code to address human trafficking, gun violence and administrative challenges. Amend code chapter 14 b 0.60.
Thank you. So colleagues. This matter was previously considered on March 13th, upon which councilor Kanal moved to divide councilor Novick motion to consider a bundle of amendments so that Novick three, four, five and six and pirtle-guiney three would be voted on separately. Under our code, councilors may divide questions by right without debate or a vote. The original introducer may designate the order in which the elements will be voted on. Councilor Novick. Do you have a preferred order?
And I think simply doing them in numerical order is fine.
Okay.
And I also want to note that we do have an additional proposed amendment at Koyama Lane Novick one, which addresses the suggestion by the county health department, which submitted testimony in favor of the ordinance. But they also suggested the inclusion of requirement for annual public reporting and the implementation.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: I want to just quickly, for the sake of time, withdraw and substitute that motion, okay. To divide instead of dividing it into five categories, I would like to divide it into two, which I think would save us all a little bit of time. And I'm just checking my notes. Sorry, I didn't remember that this was pending when we got there. So three sorry. Novick three. Novick four. Two. And there's one more. Novick six would be in one category. Novick five would be in the other. And I'm trying to remember where. Yeah. Novick three, four and six and one category. Novick five and pirtle-guiney three in the other category.
Okay. Councilor. Novick. Do you have an opinion on which of these we would move on? First?
Let's then.
I'd like to do three, four and six. Okay. Six. Actually, I think is the most significant. So Novick three relates to what activities are defined as nuisance activities. And the purpose of Novick three is to hone in on defining when. With regards to human trafficking, to delete a reference to prostitution or related offenses, and to add human trafficking or related offenses so that to make it clear that we're focusing on the traffickers and the buyers, rather than on the sex workers. Novick four is actually I'm going to talk about Novick six first. I think that actually kind of makes more sense. Novick six. It would. And this is actually based on a suggestion by councilor Pirtle-guiney. The. What the original ordinance did was take. The current law says that you can. The city can invoke the chronic nuisance property law. If there is three documented instances of nuisance crime activity within 30 days and my proposal was to change that to three in to 2 in 90 days, and councilor Pirtle-guiney suggestion, this would switch that to 3 in 90 days, and that would apply to both. Yeah. So that that's that's one thing. The other thing is also a part of Novick six also relates to a concern that councilor Pirtle-guiney expressed. Currently, the law refers to three instances documented in police reports, but it doesn't say what the police report has to be based on. Exactly. So we want to clarify that it's three or more police reports or other official documentation that a police officer is determined that probable cause exists to believe that nuisance activity has occurred, as opposed to, for example, a grumpy neighbor made a complaint that wasn't verified. I don't think it was ever applied that way, but I thought it was worth it was worth clarifying that. At councilor Pirtle-guiney suggestion. That's Novick six. Yeah. So and again, I said no. Novick three, as I noted before, was about what fits into the definition of nuisance crime. Then, consistent with Novick six adjustment of the timeline, Novick four would adjust a different timeline. Currently the as as my original proposal read, it said that if the person in charge responds and agrees to abate the nuisance activities giving rise to the violation, the city administrator may postpone referring the matter to the city attorney. If no agreement concerning abatement is reached within. We had 30 days. This would change that to 60 days or if no agreed of course agreed upon course of action does not result in the abatement, the actual abatement within we had 60 days. That extends to 90 days. So that's a that's a timeline issue. And. Okay, I think that concludes the package of three, four and six.
Thank you, councilor Novick. But I will be.
A five is is part of a separate package as per councilor Kanal motion.
Sameer Kanal: So the first division is focusing on Novick three, four and six. The second division second separate vote will be Novick five and pirtle-guiney three, which we'll discuss in a second. Colleagues, is there any discussion on. Novick three, four and six? Councilor Kanal are you okay?
Sameer Kanal: Sorry. Legacy.
Just point of information.
Previously.
Just because. Yeah, a lot happened there. So three, five and six we are voting on I'm sorry, three, four and six. We are voting on as one package right now. Yes. That's the goal. Okay.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: I can support three and six. I won't support four.
Can we treat that as a further motion to divide councilor Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman: Certain. Certainly. I'm not really sure why you've grouped so many things together. I'm usually, you know, we do an amendment to an amendment to amendment. So. I certainly would prefer it that way because I think amendment should stand on their own, because these are not just like a bunch of technical changes. These are a bunch of substantive changes. So I'm not sure what the thought was when the council president read off all the things from the last meeting, frankly, it was like trying to catch up to what the divide was about. But I just wanted to signal for you where I was at.
Well, in that case, if let's see, I think the only way for you to do that is to further divide. So. I'll move myself. Can I move to further divides? Let's see. Three and six from four.
Point of information. Well, I'm in the queue and I was going to share. I was going to divide the question. So maybe I could. Great. Are you dividing all of them? Because I think we just need to divide all of them.
I was since councilor Zimmerman said his issue was with four, which was part of a package of three and six, I was just separating out. Four if we if we if it's if it's if it's actually simpler to vote on all of them individually, then let's do that.
I think it would be.
That would be my preference. Okay. Do I need to move that or.
I think that's what councilor Novick is dividing the question.
Okay, so we move that.
There we go. We will vote on each of the amendments sequentially. So we will start okay, with Novick three. And is there further discussion on Novick three?
I mean, just because we are coming back after many weeks, it would be helpful if you could just at the beginning of each amendment, just give us a quick rationale. Councilor. Novick. Before we vote.
Sure. I thought I tried to do that earlier, but I'll emphasize there's a list of crimes that are defined as nuisance activities. And in our original proposal that or maybe it was the original law. It included loitering to solicit prostitution and prostitution related offenses. After listening to public testimony, we realized that that could be construed as we're targeting sex workers, which is not the intent. So we remove those two from the list of nuisance activities, but added human trafficking related offenses as defined in ors, so that those are those are crimes where the focus is on the traffickers and the and the buyers. So that's that's just a matter of we're taking out some nuisance crimes and adding others.
Thank you. Councilor councilor Avalos further question? Okay. Councilor Green.
Mitch Green: Thank you. Council president councilor Novick, just speaking to Novick three. I'm supporting this amendment. I think that it deals with one of my biggest pieces of heartache, which was, you know, sort of anti-sex worker language here. I think this is an improvement on that. And so for that reason, I'm prepared to support Novick three.
Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor pirtle-guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney: Thank you, council president, councilor Novick, I just want to thank you for working through the language on this piece of it, hearing the feedback that was given and making sure that we are putting something in place that really does target human trafficking and the offenses that we are concerned with and does not inadvertently catch up people who are doing work.
Thank you. Anyone else in the queue? Can we please call the roll on Novick three?
Kanal.
Our mics aren't working. They are now. Okay, I.
Pirtle-guiney I. Ryan I.
Koyama Lane. Absence Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman I Dunphy. I oh, sorry. Nope. My order is a little bit out of order. Sorry. Amylose aye, Morillo Smith. Absent Dunphy. I thanks. The amendment is approved with a vote of ten I votes and two absent.
Thank you, councilor Novick. Could you give us another just brief one sentence on Novick four.
It might take a little more than one sentence. So Novick four relates to the timeline. After the city is notified somebody that their properties could be designated as a nuisance property, there's a timeline for reaching an agreement for what steps the owner will take to to mitigate the nuisance or, and then how when the nuisance is actually abated. So basically it says the the amendment says that if no agreement concerning abatement is reached within 60 days, it was 30, or if an agreed upon course of action does not result in the abatement of nuisance activities within 90 days, the city administrator or the designees may refer the matter to the city attorney. So it's lengthening the timelines for that negotiation and for the actual abatement of nuisance.
Thank you, councilor Novick councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: It all sounds good. I'd encourage you to put yourself in the position of a person who lives next to a nuisance property. You've already gone through a 90 day period and you're about to add another 90 days to it. So in that case, a half a year where people can drag their feet, allow bad behavior, have screaming, have nuisance, have whatever activity happening. So I would encourage you to just think about what that means in all of your constituent relations as you're trying to work through a problem, and that we are not quick to determine if a property is a nuisance, to then give another, longer period. I think we are being nice at the at the the Portland polite level of extremism. And this is an area where once you've been identified as a nuisance property in this type of behavior, we're not a city who applies these standards loosely. In fact, watching this occur is very. It's not used often. And so we're using it in cases where I think extreme situations have occurred. So I wouldn't ask your neighbors, I'm not going to ask my neighbors to then give another 90 days to somebody who is not working with us to put a solution together. So that's why I'm going to vote no, and I'd encourage you to do the same.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Seeing no one else in the queue, keelan can we please call the roll on Novick four?
And I would like to clarify really quickly or confirm that the motions for all of these were moved by councilor Novick and seconded by councilor Ryan. Is that correct? No.
The original motion. Not the motion to divide, but the original motion to move the amendments was seconded by you back in March. Is that still.
That does seem like a long time ago. So what's my question? Am I good with this?
I just need to confirm for the record that we have a.
Second, a second.
On this particular.
All the amendments.
Sure.
Councilor Ryan, if you have cold feet on any of them, I will replace your second. But let's get to that after we move forward. Here.
The timeline one has me questioning.
Okay.
I'll offer a second on this one.
Okay? Okay. Thank you. How friendly was that, barry? Yeah.
Thank you. Kanal.
I Novick 444.
I pirtle-guiney. I Ryan.
I'm sorry.
Oh, sorry.
I'm sorry.
One five.
We're on four still on four.
We voted on three.
On four.
And I didn't say anything earlier. So I will just say very quickly, we had something similar to this in permitting work. And so I understood eric's comments I vote no.
Koyama Lane absent aye, Morillo.
Sorry, I know.
That we're.
Like going through this quickly and I'm trying to process the language changes and all of the amendments as we're voting. Apologies. No, it's okay. I think I will vote yes on the amendment because I think it improves it. But I think maybe I have a question for the underlying ordinance after that. As far as is a property designated a chronic nuisance based on two incidents in 90 days. So that doesn't have to be convictions or arrests or charges. Is that correct?
We're actually proposing to change two and 90 to 3 and 90, and it's based on documentation in the police report, which states that the police officer has found probable cause to believe the nuisance activity exists.
But so probable cause, my understanding is not a very high bar because it's enough for arrest, not for adjudication. So like anyone could call the cops on anyone.
And well, but officers are used to dealing with the concept of probable cause. It is. It is a real standard. And. But it is true that if you want to have a conviction for for a nuisance activity, as a basis for designation, as an activity, this does not do that.
Yeah. And colleagues, we are in a vote. I just want to make sure I apologize, councilor.
Okay, sure. I'm a yes on the amendment. And then I will have that question coming for when we discuss it further.
We will discuss the underlying. For sure. Thank you.
Okay. Sorry. So Morillo, what was the vote?
That was a yes.
Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Novick. I Clark.
No.
Green.
Zimmerman no.
Avalos I.
Smith absent.
Dunphy I.
The amendment is approved with a vote of seven eyes, three noes and two absent.
We move to Novick five, please. Councilor. Novick.
Thank you, mr. President. Novick five make some edits to the section on abatement measures. One is that the court, in determining whether to order somebody to take abatement measures, is supposed to take a variety of factors into account, including the sort of financial impact on the property owner. And so we decided that in that the same standard should apply to the city administrator or designee in determining what abatement measure should be included in an agreement, the city administrator should consider the same factors that the court has to consider. And then we also, as a potential abatement activity. And we I think we did have sex trafficking in mind when we had this in one abatement activity designated to something that you could do is work with peer led groups, including on property visits, to increase availability of resources, services and support and communicate information about resources for victims, including support groups, advocate information, and the national human trafficking hotline. So we're adding that to the. The list of abatement activities is sort of a menu of possibilities. So we're adding that to the list of possibilities.
Thank you, counselor Novick colleagues. Discussion of Novick five. Councilor. Morillo.
I don't have anything on this. I think these are good improvements.
Counselor Zimmerman okay, counselor. Pausing for a more dramatic effect because I feel bad cutting off counselor Morillo earlier.
No, it was okay.
Can we please move to a vote on Novick five?
Kanal no.
Pirtle-guiney I.
I Koyama Lane absent Morillo.
I. Are we moving through these two quickly? Because I'm hearing no's and then I'm not understanding the logic. And I would love to hear people's answers as to why I just like this is to be honest, these are a lot of amendments that we are going through in a in a reading at full council. So I'm trying to understand. Are we just pushing along because. Councilor Kanal can you say, why.
Can I.
Yeah, can I, I'm happy to give counselor like councilor Kanal do this, but also. I'm trying to move us forward when no one was in the queue, so I don't line up, please. Question.
Yeah. As a presiding officer, yeah, we're we're normally allowing 1 or 2 sentences, you know, as part of explaining the vote. Sure. So may I revise? Absolutely. Okay. Given that context, because I do not believe we should be adding more and more abatement measures and making it hard, applying the same standard of the court, which I think will ultimately lead to more. I think that this amendment maximizes the the impact on the the people who are 199ft away from a nuisance activity. And for that reason I'm voting no.
Thank you, councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Okay, I think we're back in the vote. Unless our other people going to say something else.
No.
Okay. I'm an I.
Thank you.
Sorry, just to confirm that was I. Yes. Thank you. Novick I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman.
No.
Avalos no.
Smith absent.
Dunphy I.
The amendment is approved with a vote of seven ayes, three noes and two absent.
Thank you. Novick six councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: Thank you, mr. President. Novick six again moves the standard for a chronic nuisance property from two nuisance activities, 90 days to three and 90 days. And again, it says that rather than just simply saying that the city administrator can act to designate a nuisance property based on police reports, quote unquote, it has to be reports that a police officer has determined that probable cause exists to believe the nuisance activity has occurred. So this actually adds a stronger I mean, strengthens the standard from what it was before, because it didn't actually say what what the police report had had to say. So it's not a matter of it's not a matter of. Previously, the nuisance law said that it could only be invocation could only be based on a conviction. It's never been that. So it's sort of it's in a way it's the intention is to sort of tighten it up.
Thank you. Councilor Novick colleagues discussion to Novick six. Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: So there's some comments earlier about what constitutes, you know, an offense in this case. And I just I think that when you're dealing with properties, and I do think we've been going through these too fast and this probably should have just been scheduled immediately thereafter the following meeting, because I think we have moved through some stuff with a little bit of loss. I mean, a lot of weeks have gone by, and I think that's a fair thing to like, remember the entire conversation. But in property, in property code, in, in, in, in property nuisance issues, we're really not talking about did it go to a court of law and then get proven at a court of law that a thing happened? That's not what nuisance is. Nuisance is largely based on code compliance officers and and officers ability to observe a thing. And so I think that largely this has gotten thrown into the category because of the way it was free. It was prefaced during the committee brief about being along the reigns of of prostitution, human trafficking. But frankly, most all of this could have been written without ever mentioning those words or without ever really focusing on those, those activities. Because what this is really about is some of the stuff that comes with it. That is certainly a nuisance in the neighborhood, a nuisance on the block, and that that part of it is not about that's not about the sex work. That's not about a buyer. Those those parts of our code are not changing. We have all those. So I think we've gotten a little bit cross eyed just in terms of there's a lot of reaction to a changing topic in our community and one that I think government is getting better about targeting the right part of a chronic issue. But but on this, you know, moving to three in the 90 day, that makes sense to me. I'll be supportive of it, but I am speaking to it because applying, applying the same standard of you have to go to court to get proven for. That's just not how this will go. And so I just wanted to raise that given how we use property nuisance codes across the city, and you could talk about it for, for anything, it could be somebody who, you know, has something going on on their lawn that is just, it's not safe for the general public to, to go around. We would apply a very similar types of nuisance abatement issues. And, and I think that that's important to keep in mind here. And that's more of what this underlying ordinance is about than, than some of the other stuff. So I think six is a fine change. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo: Thanks for thanks for that. Councilor Zimmerman. I mean, I think that is actually what concerns me, though, is that this is being painted as something that addresses human trafficking. And you have, I think, stated more plainly that it actually doesn't. Because again, if the if the requirement is that it's a chronic nuisance based on, you know, three or multiple incidents within 90 days, and it's a police report with probable cause. And we know that police officers can say almost anything is probable cause to arrest somebody, and that there tends to be racial profiling and how they do all of that and who they tend to target, what businesses they tend to target. I have a hard time understanding how this is going to be helping in that. In that sense. Because. Under nuisance code, if an officer believes that someone took a substantial step toward disorderly conduct, that's one of your incidents. Even if the person had a lawful reason to be there, even if no crime was actually committed. So that's kind of where I'm struggling with this. And association by location. Like if our neighborhoods are pretty dense. So I'm just struggling with like, if it's 200ft away from a property, if you're at a bus stop and something is happening near your property, you're going to be held liable for things that you're not directly responsible for. I just have a lot of questions about this as a whole.
Mr. President, can I respond to that?
Absolutely.
So. I'll actually take up your second, second issue first. Councilor Morillo. This only only applies when a person associated with the property has has committed a nuisance offense. And per person associated with the property means a person who, on the occasion of a nuisance activity, has entered, patronized or visited a property or person present on the property, including, without limitation, any officer, director, customer, agent, employee or any independent contractor, property, person in charge or owner of a property. So it's not just the activity occurred within 200ft of the business, it's the activity was done by somebody who had this association with the property. So that's one thing.
I ask a follow up on that.
Sure.
Okay. That's helpful. Does that mean that, okay, if I'm a hotel owner and someone stayed at my hotel and then later they did human trafficking at a bus stop or something, does that mean because they stayed at my hotel, that they had association with me?
It says on the occasion of a nuisance activity. So it's basically to get at you're sort of using the you're using the property as a base for the nuisance activity. And what I will note is this is another instance where we have actually tightened up the preexisting law because the preexisting law and this we did in an amendment approved in committee, the preexisting law said that it also applied if if a person attempted to visit the property, we decided that that was too broad. You shouldn't hold property owner responsible for the activity of somebody who didn't actually visit but just attempted to visit.
Okay.
And the other thing I just wanted to mention on the issue of the probable cause issue, is that the city can't itself, on its own force a property owner to undertake mitigation activities. The city owner instigates a negotiation with the property owner, but only a court can force the property owner to do something. So ultimately, the city would have to go to court and the court would have to make that determination.
Okay. That makes sense. I think maybe, maybe the tension here is the the inherent trust or distrust of our criminal justice system and how it will be applied to these different people and property owners, because I think you're right, there is going to be a court process, whether that due process to force the sale of someone's property based on police reports of attempted misdemeanors by their customers, is exactly the question that this ordinance is going to be litigated over at the city's expense.
So I just have to say that instances where property is forced to be sold are going to be exceedingly rare, but normally would be the court would order the property owner to take certain mitigation measures.
Yeah. And so and then we'll be okay. Sure. Okay.
Thank you. Councilor. Morillo. Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Thanks. First, I want to say I agree with the assessment that counselor Zimmerman gave. And I also agree with councilor Morillo point that that is, in fact the concern for where because we're we're still, I believe, technically on Novick six. Yes, I want to stay. I think the changes from 2 to 3 are all good. And so there's four things in this. Three of them are changing 2 to 3. And that's why I think I'll probably be voting yes on this. I also agree that there's it does narrow the scope to say that there to say probable cause versus not. I think part of the challenge is, in my opinion, and I think each person's assessment of this are going to be a little different. These are small changes that don't necessarily address the underlying big picture concern with the ordinance. So I'll be voting for this amendment. I think there's a broader conversation on the underlying to have that we should do. The one thing I did want to mention, because it was brought up in the in the debate, I don't know that it is. Councilor. Novick. I want to just question one piece of the the assessment definition of persons associated with. Because what it says in here is persons associated with means. Any person who, on the occasion of a nuisance activity, has entered, patronized or visited a property or person present on the property, including, without limitation, any officer, director, customer, agent, employee or any independent contractor of a property, person in charge or owner of a property. And it is factual to say that the text or attempted to enter, patronize or visit or waited to enter, patronize or visit was removed. And that I think that that is an improvement. But I don't know that I would go as far as to say that that means it has to have been used as a base. I think that is a. I think that is not as narrow as this text reads, and I want to just bring that up in the context of. Maybe that's an underlying conversation, but I wanted to mention it since it was brought up here.
I appreciate that. I also want to note that I think that many of the objections here are to the existing law, not to the amendments I'm bringing, because actually, in many cases, we're trying to sort of tighten up the preexisting, preexisting law. So I think that what we are trying to do, the big thing, is extend three and 30 days to three and 90 days, and then a few other things. I think that the primary objections that we've heard are to the underlying law, not to my amendments.
Thank you. Councilor Novick counselor Green.
Steve Novick: Thank you, counsel. Novick. That actually just gets right to my questions, partly because I'm not as informed about this as you are. So Novick six is is is Novick six and procedure sub a is that just adjusting your your also innovation or is it adjusting something that already exists in law? Can you help me help help me understand there's probably two moving pieces there that I need to understand.
So Novick six, the 2 to 3. Originally we started off with the existing law is three instances. Within 30 days out of committee. We passed two instances in 90 days. So now that would be changing that to 3 in 90 days. And the rest of it is currently the city administrator can tell a person their property has been determined to be a nuisance property based on three or more police reports without clarification. And we're saying police reports that an officer is determined probable cause, blah, blah, blah.
So that that's on top of currently existing law.
That's on top of currently existing law, the 2 to 3 thingamabob, the currently existing law is three and 30. We've been committee. We had a two and 90. Now we're having it as three and 90.
Got it. I can support Novick six. I think it improves currently existing law and what has already been discussed. Thanks.
Thank you, councilor Green. Councilor Kanal is that a legacy? Okay, colleagues, any further discussion of councilor Novick, I guess Novick six. Can we please move to a roll call vote Kanal.
I pirtle-guiney I okay, Ryan. I Koyama Lane absent aye, Morillo. I Novick. I Clark. I Green. I Zimmerman. I Avalos. I Smith. I Dunphy. I the amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and one absent.
Thank you. Councilor. Pirtle-guiney are you able to discuss pirtle-guiney three?
I will cry if you can hear me.
All right.
Yes we can.
Perfect. And I'm sorry I had to leave. Colleagues. I need to be somewhere by five.
So pirtle-guiney three.
Is admittedly confusing looking because we were trying to note how it changed from the originally submitted pirtle-guiney two when we were first looking at this. And that amendment had been submitted early. So I would ask you, when you look at pirtle-guiney three to the parts that are being proposed as changes are in the first paragraph, the addition of the words of delivery of the notice, and then the entirety of the new sub five that is listed here. Please ignore the highlights and other notations. This is an amendment to an amendment to an amended version. What pirtle-guiney three does is attempts in two ways to ensure that a property owner actually gets the notice that is being required before any actions are taken. When I first read councilor Novick ordinance, I was concerned that a property owner could have action taken against them when they hadn't in fact received the notice because somebody else had either knowingly or unknowingly intercepted it. So this clarifies when that clock begins, it's 14 days within 14, or it is at 14 days of delivery of the notice, not just when the city has has processed it, but it may take a while to get to to delivery. And then it has new language for number five, which is attempting to raise the bar slightly to ensure that somebody actually has the best chance possible of receiving that notice. Before we begin the clock.
Thank you, councilor Pirtle-guiney councilor to discussion of pirtle-guiney three councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Thank you, council president. So I, I support the first part of this, which is the clarification of adding of delivery of the notice. I don't think it's necessary, but I think it helps. But because I oppose the second half of it, I'll be voting no on it. And I think this provides the opportunity to hold someone who is a person in charge accountable. If an employee does not actually comply or pass on the notice. And so that's why I think it's a challenge here. And I recognize that there's some issues with this that that I think relate to what councilor Novick was bringing up earlier, that a lot of when we talk about the amendments, sometimes we're talking about the underlying. But I'm looking at net benefit here, and that's my assessment. I don't think this is necessarily like attempting to create a problem. That's how I assess it. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal councilor Zimmerman, thanks.
You know, I'm going to vote no on this too. I think this is just an example of like, we woke up and decided we had to figure out a government policy for the first time in 150 years. I'm pretty sure we know how to deliver a notice. And so I think this is just making it messy. And frankly, we have an entire section of employees, a code book that's this thick. We have a bureau full of 880 some odd people I don't know, and no one has ever brought to me that we somehow had to rewrite how to deliver an official notice. And so this continued need to pare down and rewrite and put into prescription. Every possible thing I think is making this a mess. And so I, I don't know that the changes are terribly. Impactful, other than the fact that it, it is not making it as clear as it could be. And I think it's an example of, of trying to shoehorn ourselves into something that, that I'm really not sure what it's about. I know that this government has successfully delivered official notifications to hundreds, thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of people over the course of its existence by.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Kanal, are you still in the queue or is that okay? Okay. All good. Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please vote on pirtle-guiney three?
Kanal no.
Pirtle-guiney.
Hi, Ryan.
No.
Koyama Lane absent. Morillo.
No.
Novick I.
Clark I.
Green no.
Zimmerman. No.
No.
Smith no.
Dunfee I.
The amendment fails with a vote of four I seven noes and one absent.
Okay.
Councilor Novick are you able to speak to Novick Koyama Lane one.
Yes, because it's very short. It simply says the city administrator or their designee will. For three years following implementation of updates to chapter 14 b 60 report annually on implementation reporting will summarize data pertaining to the use of the code, including how often it is used, outcomes from implementation, and any implementation challenges reporting will address any unintended consequences or equity impacts due to implementation of the code updates. Reports will be made available to the public.
Thank you. Councilor. Novick. Councilor. Novick. Are you moving this amendment? This is.
A new. Yes, I move it right.
And is there a second on this amendment? Second councilor Clark, seconds to the amendment, councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Nothing that Multnomah county health department loves more than a report about. Not much. So I would encourage you to really consider your source here, particularly in the last couple of years and the Multnomah county public health department or this division. Bringing this forward was inappropriate. And and frankly, you know, this is probably a nothing burger, right? Because I imagine they're going to use this like one time, maybe two times in the three year period. And they're going to say probably in a sticky note. Councilor. Novick. We used it two times. Thank you very much. Right. That's about the extent of it. But there's this idea that everything we do, we then have to put a report requirement into the ordinance, and some stuff doesn't have to always be reported on. Right. We can it doesn't mean we don't find out about it. It doesn't mean we don't go in and say, hey, can you run that for me? If we find some malfeasance or we're having a sense that there could be, but we're starting to lean toward this idea that we have to put this type of clause at the back end of everything. And I think this was to scratch an itch for a friend at a health department. And I don't get it, but thanks.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Councilor Kanal thanks. I. I would prefer that we don't have the equity impacts. Instead that we instead of reporting on them, I think that's the broad concern I have about this one. I'll also note that the use of the word unintended legislative intent has been established, that this is designed to help this code be used more frequently. That's been brought up in committee. I don't think there's any. I think that's a neutral way of framing it. I also would note that the last sentence of the community impacts says that we. There is an understanding that there will be opposition, and I don't know if that's intended or not, but that there's at least acknowledged impact on owners of motels in this. So I don't know that unintended captures that particular impact at all. So for those reasons, I'm against this amendment.
Mr. President, may I direct respond?
Yes.
I actually I upon reflection, I think that reference, obviously, I've had to consult with councilor Koyama Lane on this. But yeah, I think references to unintended outcomes are inherently confusing because who intended what? So I would actually remove this proposal. Simply saying reporting will address any equity impacts and get rid of unintended outcomes or.
Okay.
Wait, what are you doing?
I'm moving to amend my own amendment.
Councilor Novick moved to change the language to remove the last part of it there. Okay.
Not just to remove some words. Couple of words we will address any and cross out any unintended outcomes or and just say equity impacts.
Okay.
This is just removing it.
Okay. Councilor Zimmerman Kanal. Oh, Smith.
Thank you.
Council president.
All I have to say is councilor Zimmerman's remarks.
Eric Zimmerman: He was thinking the same thing. I was thinking ditto, ditto, ditto. This is we're getting a little bit out of bounds in the reporting. And I know in the in the in the charter, it gives us that option of having the city administrator do a report. And it's not really necessary. We have so much work to do. And, you know, I said it the other other day, none of these things came up when it was going through committee. None of these issues with all of these. Amendments. They never came up. And people had some of the same questions. But they wait to the big council to drop all these amendments to something. And it's his amendment. It's his it's his original underlying. And he probably forgot something. But and I and I support that. Do you want to I can let you talk. Thank you councilor. So ditto ditto ditto councilor Zimmerman. I won't be in support of this at all.
Thank you, councilor Smith. Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue. Oh, just to clarify, you had seconded for the purposes or did you second? The second?
I'll second.
Okay. And was there another removal?
It may be easier to withdraw.
Novick. Okay. Koyama Lane one.
And reintroduce with a second.
I should have remembered that. Thank you. I hereby withdraw the original and move it as previously edited.
Okay, we'll call this Novick seven and councilor Clerk, are you okay to second that? Okay. Colleagues, any further discussion? Can we please move to a roll call?
Vote Kanal.
No.
Pirtle-guiney.
Yes.
Ryan.
No.
Koyama Lane. Absent. Morillo.
No.
Novick.
Aye, Morillo.
Clerk.
No.
Green a.
Zimmerman no.
Avalos.
No.
Smith.
No.
Dunphy no.
The amendment fails with a vote of three eyes, eight noes, one absent.
Okay, colleagues, are there any other amendments that have been filed? I don't have note of them, but. Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Yeah, I filed it on February 24th. I haven't had a chance to do it yet, so I'm going to move Kanal one. And just to speak to it in 14 b 6010 and 14, b 6030 a two. In the first case b in the second case it says on or within 200ft of a property. And my amendment would remove or within 200ft of and hold property owners accountable for what occurs on their property, but not what occurs 199ft away from it.
Second councilor Kanal moves Kanal one councilor Green moves or seconds councilor Kanal. Can I just clarify the the red line? I assume this is a scrivener's error, but that it. With the red line of a two it reads property on which which.
Yeah, that is a scrivener's error. Thank you. On which any person. There's not supposed to be the word which twice. Yes. Thank you. And I'll note that this was written if you'll notice the below later in the in the file it shows a red line from the version as it was then. But these other two places, I think, where it shows the actual amendment itself indicates clearly what it is. It is removing or within 200ft of in two specific locations.
Okay.
To the Kanal one councilor Zimmerman, thanks.
So I'd like you to think about what it is that councilor Novick has brought this overall for. And what we're really talking about are properties that serve as centers of gravity for other types of stuff that happens in the direct proximity of them. 200ft is a is a one block. And so when you think about the nature of the issues we're talking about, if the property isn't of itself the center of gravity and a person steps off that property, but is directly, as we talked about, directly connected to directly using it as a home base. That's what this gets to. And so by removing the 200 foot piece here, it does a couple of things that I hope you will not support this amendment, because we can write laws all single all day long. That and and they'll be on the if this occurs at this time, therefore, it's illegal. Most nuisance property laws. Because nuisance property is so darn hard to to really tie to. How does it fit? It takes a holistic and encompassing look at what is. Who is the center of gravity. And so the 200ft serves as a flexible measure for the people. We're asking to deal with a very hard job when it comes to interpreting what they're observing on a street, on a neighborhood block, face in, in an area that work is not easy when at any time. And it's certainly not easy if the the only standard for an act that considers itself to be illegal or it's an act that is, is, is a nuisance is that you must have a foot on a given property. So if you are standing on one property and something happens, but the half an hour later or 30 days later, you were doing that on the sidewalk instead of on the driveway for the neighborhood. Who's going through the nuisance? There's no meaningful difference. And I'll just to get to the to the larger point. And I think that councilor Kanal, you're probably proposing this so that we don't over enforce against property owners who are not participating in the activity. And I think that that's a fair thing, but it's also how nuisance code is written is so that they can take a look at. Is it all about is the activity all about centering on this place agreeably against their will? Et-cetera. And I'll use this example, I am sure that in any one of our hotels downtown that a person has engaged in purchasing of sex, that of course has occurred. The question is, is that hotel centering its business model on being the place where they know they can do that and get away with it? Are they encouraging or being the place where the same group of people hang out on the sidewalk or in the street adjacent, waiting for the business opportunity to come? But the difference here is that a thing occurring in a hotel room and to councilor Morillo kind of saying is like, just because you stayed a place, does that make it a crime? Because you then went to that place and engaged in a thing at the bus stop? I think that's, that's a really good example because this is about is a certain place serving as a center of gravity for that activity. And in the case that councilor Morillo brought up, I don't I don't think that would be an enforceable situation. So I think I understand the intent here, but I do think it really it allows us to write a law to. Councilor Novick overall, an overarching ordinance, pat ourselves on the back and be completely unenforceable. So if we do this 200 foot, it would be excise the 200 foot piece from here. I think the likelihood that any sort of nuisance property would be used to abate some of the places that we heard about from the testimony near the high school, and others really will almost be be zeroed out with with this, because what we heard from the school principal is not because their students walked onto the property. That is the problem. It's that as their students walked along 82nd, they were at multiple points along the area, faced with some pretty nuisance property type of activities. Knowing that there are a couple of bases centers of gravity. And so for that, I just would encourage you to, to really think through that. For this one, I'll vote no. And I certainly appreciate the debate.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo: Thank you, council president, to be honest, that rationale is making me less and less willing to support this for a few reasons. For one thing, like let's let's go through the sequence of events here. The threshold under this ordinance is that a property can be designated a chronic nuisance based on a few incidents, however, many we've amended in 90 days. Again, it's not convictions, it's not arrests, it's not charges. It's police reports with probable cause, which is not a high bar. I want to emphasize that, again, it is not a high bar for a police officer to write a report. Then those incidents don't even need to be completed. Crimes under ors161 .405. An attempt is going to be defined as a substantial step that doesn't even need to be unique to criminal conduct. It counts as a nuisance activity. If an officer believes that someone took a substantial step toward disorderly conduct, that's one of your incidents. Even if the person had a lawful reason to be there, even if no crime was actually committed in possibility is not a defense under oregon's attempted statute. And then then we move into the 200 foot radius issue. Those attempted offenses don't need to happen on the property. They can happen within 200ft. And I think the fact that you're saying that it's about the center of gravity, of where potential sex work is happening to me, that indicates that, again, this policy is not first, we're saying it's not really addressing trafficking, it's addressing nuisance. Then we're saying this is about the center of gravity for where sex work could be happening, which to me, it's like we're revealing that we're calling this a trafficking policy, obviously, because it looks really bad for anyone who votes down on it, you know, but it's not actually addressing the underlying issue that we're really concerned about. But it is a very emotional and intense thing to say that it is addressing when it is not. And in our neighborhoods that are so dense, I don't see how a 200ft from a property boundary, which includes sidewalks, transit stops, parks and neighboring buildings, could not possibly impact other people who are who are in the vicinity. And the association requirement is really broad on the property itself. Quote under section a1, there is no requirement that the person committing the nuisance activity have any connection to the property or its owner within the 200 foot radius. Section a two requires that a person be associated with the property, but that's also defined to include anyone who has entered, patronized, or visited for a motel or a business. That's literally every customer. The property owner doesn't need to have any involvement in the activity whatsoever to be held liable. So the consequence of this is that the city administrator or their undefined designee can demand abatement measures, including surveillance cameras, id verification of all visitors, visitor logs and trespass agreements, giving police enforcement authority on private property if the owner doesn't comply or if compliance doesn't satisfy the designee, the city can go to court for $1,000 per day in civil penalties. Closure of the property for up to a year for sale or demolition. So under this ordinance, if a police officer writes a few police reports within 90 days saying that the customer or visitor at or near your property appears to attempt a misdemeanor and you don't install surveillance cameras and hand your visitor logs to police, the city can seek to take your building, and no crime needs to be completed on your part. No one needs to be arrested. You don't have to have done anything wrong. So I'm concerned about the way that our own surveillance state is being used for people who are being accused of things because of proximity and, and that it is not actually going to address human trafficking, which I think is something profoundly important for us to actually try to address in our community. I do think that it's a real issue. I do support sex workers, and human trafficking is distinctly different from sex work, but I, I don't see how this is accomplishing any of that. So I will be supporting councilor Kanal amendment, but I wanted to walk through that rationale of why that 200 foot distance is really critical. And I have to, like analyze this as a whole to explain that. So thanks for giving me some time.
Thank you, councilor Morillo. Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: First of all, I just want to note that as I understand it, councilor Kanal is saying on the property, right, not on the property itself.
That's what would be remaining.
Yes. So that to me means that if you're a sex trafficker is standing two feet in front of a property saying, if you come in here, there's a 12 year old girl ready to have sex with you, then that's then that doesn't that doesn't count. And I also want to say that if councilor Kanal amendment passes, I will vote against my own ordinance. We've talked with law enforcement about it, and they say that if you have it, just be on the property, then it's less it's less useful. I mean, that that outweighs the 3 to 3 and 30 versus three versus three and 90. So if we pass this amendment, that's a death knell for the for the for the ordinance itself. Also, I was a little confused by councilor Morillo talking about there just has to be a step towards a crime that sounds like, like the definition of conspiracy law or something. But what it says the police officer has determined that probable cause exists to believe that a nuisance activity has occurred, that a crime has actually occurred, and not that a step towards a crime has occurred. So anyway, that's I think that's that's enough. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Thank you. And I respect that that disagreement. I agree with councilor Zimmerman's point that this is a debate worth having. The way I would frame this is about guilt by association in the. The primary sense is are you responsible for what happens 199ft away from you? And is it possible for that determination of your responsibility to be made by without, without adjudication in a court of law right now, in the current code, as. And this is not something councilor Novick created. This is the underlying code. And I want to fully acknowledge that that right now that is allowed. And this code is not currently used that frequently. I think I brought this up earlier, that part of the reason for this is to make it more possible for it to be used. And my concern is that this weakness in the underlying code that allows for that guilt by association, then becomes more often used. I want to point to a person who testified about something that was even happening on their property in the meeting back in March, where they were going to be, in their view. And I think it's fair to say even even in the current version, held accountable for something that they called police to try to get help for and were not given support. And so, and I bring that up to say, because there was a conversation around, you know, that we wouldn't be holding someone accountable for something happens happening on the sidewalk outside of their building, you know, down a few feet. That's accurate because it wouldn't be something that is their fault. The, the problem that we're facing with human trafficking, we brought this up in the committee pretty clearly, the human trafficking unit does not have the resources to address this. They do not have any overtime they did two years ago. That's their own accounting in in committee. And they currently do not have overtime dollars, despite the fact that this council adopted a budget note to move overtime dollars into a suite of of programs within the police bureau that includes human trafficking. And the idea that we can't do what is already authorized, but instead have to find some other way. And we have found that the property owner is available and doesn't have that, that the resource to to combat this and have put the responsibility on them. And again, that's not councilor. Novick. That's not this proposal that predates this entire conversation. And I think in order to be able to talk about how we would utilize this code more, it would be really important to me to see that guilt by association is removed from this, this conversation. And I just want to preempt one other conversation. Say, I did file this back in February. This is something I raised as a concern back in the committee as well. Thanks.
Thank you. Councilor Kanal colleagues. I will note it is currently 5:00. We are not going to be able to get to the general discussion of this today, but we will continue this item at the top of the agenda tomorrow afternoon. But we're not I'm not not closing it out. I want to I'm going to limit debate in the.
Point of order on that.
Okay.
Two, two things. One is this is the last amendment. Yes. If we were to vote on this, we could conclude our our first reading on this today. Yes. And the second piece of it is I, I would strongly request that it not be at the top of the agenda if it is continued.
Okay. Well, let's see if we can get through. I haven't let's get through the three in the queue and then go to a vote and call it a night. Councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. This is a good this is a good part of the conversation. It's an important where I think some of the confusion has happened. So I'm going to talk about this city's enforcement of nuisance types of codes against a property and how it could have gone to anybody within 200ft, but it didn't. And so I'm going to talk about fourth and Washington in my district. And within 20ft is kelly's olympian. Another 20ft is casa nightclub. On the other side, we've got the the the new food carts. We've got the royal sonesta hotel. My point in bringing that up is that code compliance. Portland police, Portland fire PBOT myself, when I worked in the mayor's office, we went to the target. We went to the center of gravity. We talked about the issues that were going on at that one property. And if we saw things that happened to be in front of kelly's olympian that we knew to be related to fourth in Washington, we didn't extend that to kelly's olympian as being a contributing factor. At the same time. And during this this era, we were having some pretty serious conversations with our club owners in town about the prevalence of their clubs being used as kind of the place. Everybody got amped up and then had a gunfight in old town. So we had conversations with with casa nightclub and other places. And you know what? At the same time, even though we had a nuisance property at fourth and Washington, we kept that part of the conversation confined to casa, which was across the street, well within 200ft. The reason I say that is, in my entire time in government, I've never had anybody come and say I'm being accused of participating in or convening or having or promoting a nuisance property with something I am not involved in. That's just never happened. I think that it's easy to think of the boogeyman in this situation, but also I think our systems have largely got a lot of cross checks to make sure that we attribute a nuisance only to those who are involved. And frankly, the the standard has been in Portland that we're quite careful not to apply nuisance to those even in rough areas, even on on streets that are really struggling to those that are not participating. And frankly, in old town, that's a daily occurrence for us in terms of some folks are really trying to contribute positively. They're right next door to some folks who are not. And we have split that out. And so I have faith that if we got a whiff of it being used inappropriately, that we have the tools to correct that quickly, but also that the systems would have a cross check. But in my entire career, I've never had somebody say, I'm being accused of a nuisance property issue and I wasn't participating. I don't know where they got this accusation. It just hasn't been the case. So I just want to offer that up and I appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: Thank you, mr. President. I just wanted to note that tara and patel of the asian American hotel owners association came to us. The first hearing on this in committee and said, I want to be sure that when one of my folks calls up to report a crime that's not held against them as a nuisance, as a nuisance instance. So we passed an amendment to address that. And I also want to say that we don't have businesses coming in front of us saying this is a big threat to them. And it's actually somewhat ironic to me that the councilors who occasionally get accused of being anti-business, are standing up for seeming to stand up for business when the businesses themselves don't think they need to be standing up. Finally, this is not just about human trafficking. It also can be used in cases where properties are being used for gunplay or for drug dealing. But I will note that safety compass, which survivors of sex trafficking who advocate for victims of sex trafficking, was supportive of the proposal. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilor Novick councilor Morillo.
Angelita Morillo: Yeah, thank you for that. I know I do think it is a little bit funny because. It, you know, we had a porno and other organizations who represent a lot of asian American businesses on 82nd avenue actually have a lot of issues with this. So I don't think that's necessarily true. And they came and spoke to us and sent us a lot of emails. I'm sure you saw them all as well. The argument that if you know, councilor Novick again, is painting a very, I think, emotional story of, okay, there's a little girl getting sold on the sidewalk right outside of a hotel. And if we remove the 200ft, that's going to prevent us from stopping human trafficking. That's just not true because human trafficking is illegal right now. So if a little girl is getting sold on the sidewalk right outside of the hotel, theoretically the police would be able to stop them. Right now, the reason they're not doing that is because they can't be everywhere all at once. We don't. And we police are frankly, not the tool to actually address human trafficking, if that's what this is truly about. There is not a single published study that connects chronic nuisance property ordinances to reductions in human trafficking. The polaris project, the organization that operates the national human trafficking hotline, does not recommend most of the measures in this ordinances abatement menu, polaris recommends staff training, visible hotline information and guest rooms, which we did approve, and I prefer that direct hire, employment and relationships with service providers. All of the academic research found that nuisance abatement against trafficking venues was rarely used, and when it was, it displaced operations to neighboring jurisdictions rather than ending them. So if the issue is truly with the underlying policy, then to me that means that this actually what we need to do is truly address the underlying policy and the gaps that exist within it, and not to pretend that this is going to actually address big harms in our community, like human trafficking, which deserve real consideration. So I assume with the makeup of who's sitting up here, this amendment is going to fail. And I look forward to having further discussions, but I will say I will leave it on this, because in the following days, we're going to have complicated policies coming forward. Most of the amendments brought here today were by the sponsor themselves. That's not being held against him. And last minute amendments keep getting brought up. So I don't want to hear anything later when we have other complicated policies coming up this week about who can and cannot do that. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Morillo. Colleagues, I'd like to move to a roll call vote on Kanal one, please.
Kanal I.
Pirtle-guiney. Absence. Ryan.
No.
Koyama Lane absent. Morillo. I Novick. No.
Clark no.
Green I.
Zimmermann no.
Avalos. I Smith.
No.
Dunphy. No amendment fails with a vote of four eyes, six noes and two absent.
Okay, colleagues, we are. Over time we have no more pending amendments. This item now moves to second reading and we are recessed until tomorrow at 2:00.
And we will allow.