The record · Transcript
Council session — 2026-02-24
Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (15,008 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.
Councilor Novick. We're just waiting for anybody else on the committee to show up. Yes.
I was wondering. I'm wondering if that was the right place.
Yeah. You're so.
Councilor. Good to see you there. I was getting lonely. Looks. I realize it's 235, but I understand we're going to have a full complement of counselors, so I figured I'd give everybody another couple of minutes. Okay, hopefully our colleagues will be along, but. Good afternoon. I call the meeting of the community and public safety committee to order. It is Tuesday, February 24th at 2:30 p.m. Diana, can you please call the roll?
Good afternoon. Smith Kanal here Morillo Zimmerman here Novick.
Here. Christopher, could you please read the statement of conduct?
Welcome to the meeting of the community and public safety committee. Testify before this committee in person or virtually. You must sign up in advance in the committee agenda at ww. Agenda. Community and public safety committee, or by calling 311. Information on engaging with the committee can be found at this link. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour prior to the meeting. In person, testifiers must sign up before the agenda item is heard. If public testimony will be taken on an item, individuals may testify for three minutes unless the chair states otherwise, your microphone will be muted when your time is over. The chair preserves order disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others testimony or committee 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, the committee may take a short recess and reconvene virtually. Your testimony should address the matter being considered. When testifying, state your name for the record. If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent, and virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the clerk calls your name. Thank you.
Thank you christopher. In this meeting, the community and public safety committee will hopefully approve the community committee meeting minutes for January and continue consideration of an ordinance to amend the nuisance property code. And I apologize if I seem discombobulated during this meeting. I've had to get up at 630 every morning east coast time for the past several days, and that doesn't sit with me well, but I'll try to be coherent. Dana, could you please read the first item.
Item number one January 13th, 2026 to January 27th, 2026. Community and public safety committee minutes.
So again, this first item is the approval of the committee minutes for the community and public safety committee meetings held in January. These minutes are available online as part of the meeting agenda. If there's no objection, the minutes will be approved by unanimous consent. Seeing slash hearing. No objection. The minutes are approved. Diana, could you please read the next item?
Item number two Portland fire and rescue budget overview.
This item is being referred back to the sponsors offices at the request of the city administrator to sequence the conversation after the currently scheduled date for the council work session on the service area budget. Diana, can you please read the next item?
Item number three amend chronic nuisance property code to address human trafficking, gun violence, and administrative challenges.
And now, in keeping with councilor With co-chair Kanal and my procedure. Since this is an item I am proposing, I hereby pass the gavel to councilor Kanal.
Sameer Kanal: Thank you. Councilor Novick I guess I'm just handing it back to you to present to start the conversation. Back off. But I will note we did discuss this a little bit beforehand. Last meeting and I'll pass it over to you to start the discussion.
Thank thank you, chair Kanal. So I want to begin by thanking this committee and everyone who's engaged on this legislation. Over the past three meetings, we've talked to human trafficking survivors and survivor advocates, sex worker advocates, motel owners, law enforcement, legal experts, and others. To try and refine this ordinance, I'll be offering two amendments today in response to some of these conversations. But first, I want to level set a bit and refresh the committee and anybody listening on what this ordinance does and does not do. What this ordinance does do is expand the threshold for identifying properties negligent or complicit in criminal activity, make it easier to use the chronic nuisance statute by. Instead of having to have three nuisance activities in 30 days to start the process to within 90 days. It narrows the definition of persons associated with a property to those people who have actually engaged with the property instead of, for example, waited to, which is existing language in response. Although human trafficking is not the sole point of this, it responds to community requests to address human trafficking, specifically around mcdaniel high school. It adds human trafficking related violations to the list of nuisance activities. It adjusts the procedure to provide more resources for property owners to identify a plan for abatement. I want to highlight here that when the police engage with the property owner about abatement, the property owner takes the first stab at figuring out an abatement plan. And by listing potential abatement measures, it gives the property owners kind of a measure. I mean a menu that, among other things, they could choose from and coming up with their plan. And by listing particular optional various abatement measures, it provides some transparency. Any of the abatement measures listed here could already be considered under current code. This is just sort of giving people a playbook. And another thing that I would like, like to note is that this is a course of last resort after other engagement. Using the nuisance activity code is, of course, a last resort after other engagement with the property owner has failed. What this ordinance does not do is further criminalize sex work or sex workers. Change. The approach of the human trafficking unit is their engagement with sex workers, or reestablish any kind of prostitution free zone. I'd also like to remind people of the presentation we heard on human trafficking at our January 23rd meeting. What we heard was an alarming description of the problem, both locally and nationally, including who is trafficked and how. How pbh and victim advocates groups work to connect victims with resources while focusing arrest on buyers and, where possible, traffickers. How resource strain requires the type of innovative approaches to reducing human trafficking that this tool represents, and how tpb considers this code to be a tool of again of last resort. After outreach and request to property owners have failed. Lastly, before I discuss the amendments I'm proposing, I would recognize that again. While the conversation is centered on businesses along 82nd avenue, it implies other places as well, including holding housing providers accountable for creating safe living conditions for their residents. The two amendments I'm introducing are responsive to feedback we heard from councilors and the community, and they're actually amendments that to exist items in existing code that people had concerns about, not amendments to our amendment per se. The asian American hotel owners association suggested that the ordinance the current code creates a disincentive for property owners to report crimes because it makes no distinction between nuisances, nuisance crimes that the property owner has reported themselves or have been reported by other people. So amendment Novick one would create a carveout for property owners that report the nuisance themselves. The nuisance crime activity and carve out for those that are doing that and are also working to keep their property safe. If the city is satisfied in good faith, they are working to abate the activity themselves. Secondly, councilor Dunphy raised an issue with the inclusion of the noise code as both a nuisance activity and in the abatement measures, so Novick two would remove both of those sections with an acknowledgment that the noise code, as councilor Dunphy has repeatedly pointed out, has previously been used to shut down music venues, particularly those owned by people of color. So I hope the committee adopts these amendments and passes this important ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you, councilor Novick. My understanding is that there is also invited testimony or a panel. Is that correct?
That is correct.
Would you prefer to introduce the amendments first, or would you prefer to do the invited testimony and then do so?
Let's be consistent with our practice. Introduce the introduce the amendments first. So then they invited testifiers to discuss that if they if they so choose okay.
And then councilor Novick are your are you intending to move these as a package or as two separate amendments.
Unless somebody has any objection I'd prefer to move them as a package.
Okay. So there's a motion from councilor Novick to introduce amendments Novick one and two. Is there a second.
Second.
Second from councilor Smith? Thank you. Before we go into discussion, I just will also float that I have an amendment that I'll be putting forward as well to strike a2 altogether, which is the property on which or within 200ft. I'm getting a printed copy of that and I haven't moved it yet, but I'll wait till after the discussion to to talk about that. Are there any other members of the committee would like to float anything with relation to amendments before we invite testifiers? Okay. Councilor Novick, would you like to call up the the panel.
Actually actually chair Kanal I was I was told that you would call up the panel. I hope that you have the the names in order because I actually, to be honest, don't.
Okay well then I see representative tui tran and followed by principal adam schools of madison high school. I'm not sure if they're online or here in person principals here. Okay. Please come on up. I don't see representative tran online, but hopefully we'll get a chance to hear from her as well. Do you mind if we go out of order? Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: Not at all. Thank you. Thank you. Spencer. And where is?
Please go ahead.
Thank you. Yes, hello.
My name is adam skiles, principal mcdaniel high school. I'm here speaking today. Just kind of, I think, on the experience that students and youth have in the 82nd avenue corridor, right by mcdaniel high school. Before I start, I do want to say I think a lot of times we talk about mcdaniel high school specifically, but there's also a middle school that is a couple blocks away and three elementary schools all in that same area. Our students routinely, every single day. There's a likelihood that they're going to be walking through some sort of human trafficking event taking place that happens in the mornings when they're coming to school, that happens during lunch, when they're going to the mcdonald's or popeye's or down to the subway. And in the evening it happens. And when those events happen, sometimes nothing does, but they have to walk through it. Some of the time there is proposition that takes place. There's individuals that are being brought into our community because of this behavior that aren't from that area. And those individuals, sometimes they have at times talked to our female students and have been extremely inappropriate. Our young students, they do a great job of telling us and we go running out. We call the police. There's a response, but the reality is, is they shouldn't have to have that experience. Walking to and from school. Our young men at times also have the same experience, and they will have engagement with people and that can become unsafe. There's a level of crime that gets brought into the neighborhood because of this. And again, our students are traveling to and from school constantly having to just walk through an unsafe environment being created. I think one of the things that has really stood out is we've known this for years, unfortunately. But now that we have a beautiful brand new building with a beautiful turfed lit field, we have a lot of community coming in and we have, you know, third grade soccer teams that are practicing in the evening and there's trafficking being taking place right across the street. And so these little third graders are out playing soccer in lit fields, and they're having to, you know, their parents are having to answer questions about what's taking place right across from where they're playing. We've also had a lot of activity just on our campus that has been brought because of this. People coming from specific hotels with weapons onto campus or running through campus, or us having to go into a secure situation and nothing because of what the students have done. And I'm to be honest, nothing from what people that live in the community have done. It's people who are being brought into the community and engaging in illegal activity and unsafe activity. And I know I've said this a lot. I've had a chance to talk to many people about it, and I know that some of the time what I'm saying is just pushing it to a different area. And I get that. I hope that there's a solution and support in place, but what we need is a safe environment for students to be able to come to and from school, and we do not right now have that in the current situation that we're facing. And I know that the human trafficking division for PPB is extremely responsive, and they work with us and they communicate with us. We know that the city has been as well, and community advocacy groups, and we've even got a couple of anti-trafficking groups that come to the school just to answer questions. And they're answering those questions not because our students are more at risk, but because they grow up in an environment where they're having to have conversations with their families in elementary school around what's taking place because it's right in front of them. So I hope that the city does everything that they can to create a safe environment for students. Again, I understand that, you know, what we're asking for is to create an environment for mcdaniel students to be able to travel to and from school safely, and that might just push the issue to a different area. But youth should be a priority, and you should not feel unsafe traveling to and from school. So.
Thank you so much for being here. Principal. And I see we have representative tran online.
Good afternoon. Chair Kanal chair Novick committee members. I am state representative htwe tran in house district 45. Today I'm here representing the student of mcdaniel high school as well as residents of sumner park, rose, rose way and madison south neighborhoods. I also stand with human trafficking advocates across Oregon who are demanding that we stop looking the other way. Last week at the state capitol, the house overwhelmingly passed house bill 4157 to support trafficking victims. During the hearing, a survivor shared a haunting story of being repeatedly assaulted and purchased in full view of the staff at a hotel near mcdaniel high school. The hotel is still in business today on 82nd avenue. We must do better. We must be better leaders for our children, both those being trafficked and those who simply want to walk to school without witnessing human rights violations. My colleagues and I are currently pushing for an additional $3 million to rehabilitate 82nd avenue. We cannot allow known human trafficking hubs to undermine this critical investment in safety in safer, business friendly streets. Last spring, the legislature also passed a bill to address the explosion of illicit massage businesses. Our work at the state level is in direct response to the incredible activism of my constituents and survivors, who are now fighting for the freedom of others, and I want to thank councilor Novick for his leadership on this issue, and council president Dunphy for working with our fellow constituents on the issue of trafficking. I believe the nuisance code amendment is a vital first step in helping both our neighbors and those forced into trafficking. To be clear, this amendment is not an attack on hotel owners, nor is it about displacing the housing insecure or targeting consensual sex workers. I believe it to be the opposite. It is a surgical tool designed to address blatant, violent human trafficking crimes that often involve minors. The people harmed most by our current lack of enforcement are our most vulnerable people of color the undocumented, the unhoused. When a business is willfully negligent in allowing trafficking, they are more than a nuisance. They are a threat to public health. The students at mcdaniel are watching us. The state has acted and will continue to act. Now it is time for the city of Portland to do its part. Please pass the amendment to give our children the safety they deserve. Thank you.
Thank you, representative tran. I believe next we're going to go to public testimony. Diana, could you please call the first group?
Yes. We have. First up is phillip chachka, and then lee tilley, anna lindsey, followed by dave sax.
Go ahead whenever you're ready, phillip. Thanks.
Hello, councilors. My name is philip chachka. I use he him pronouns and I'm a member of Portland copwatch. I also have a student at roseway and one that just graduated from mcdaniel. For ten years I lived in district one and lived across the street from what I would describe as a chronic nuisance house with a chop shop in the backyard, drugs and associated activities I am sympathetic to community community members who endure stressful neighbors, and also the stress and dysfunction of those who are caught in cycles of drug addiction, poverty, and coerced prostitution. I appreciate the the attention the city and parties are paying in this matter. I do not support the amendment as it currently stands. I believe it is too would be too easy for government overreach to happen and would risk losing civil rights and due process rights through through these enforcement actions. The amendment should be considered a wish list from law enforcement, the same law enforcement that recently diverted city council designated overtime pay away from human trafficking unit to other police bureau units. Now they want the city to pick up the slack. As a member of Portland copwatch, I do appreciate instances when the police willingly give up some of their workload to alternatives of police. In this instance, to city administrators, I think that part of the amendment should remain to protect due process and ensure the city isn't unreasonably targeting a property. I think the current threshold of three nuisance activities should remain, but double the timeline from 30 days to 60 days instead of the requested 90 days. If if 60 days isn't enough, council could revisit the issue next year and adjust. I think the council should also remember that nuisance activities that could designate a property as a nuisance don't have to be linked to convictions in court, but only need to be worthy of probable cause warrants. Undoubtedly, some of the allegations against the property will turn out to be unfounded, and it would be unjust to compel them to pay costly or invasive abatement measures if the original allegations turn out to be untrue. Under this amendment, the city could compel a property property to install video cameras and then compel the property to share the footage with the police. Even if the police don't have a warrant for the footage, it's a way for the police to use third parties as agents to bypass privacy and surveillance laws. I want to safe and supportive neighborhood for everyone the rich, the poor, people struggling with addictions, people in trafficking situations, and people with mental health illnesses. Enforcement is a small part of that overall equation, and love all the work people are doing in the community to provide housing, health care and food for their neighbors. Thank you.
Thank you. Please go ahead.
I just go, hi. You guys have probably seen me here a lot, but today I'm going to speak about something that's close to my heart. My name is teal. I worked as a sex worker in Portland by choice, and I'm here to testify. The opposition to the ordinance. Human trafficking is a real and pressing issue in our city. However, I'm here today with the concern for the unintended impacts this could have on sex workers in Portland. When you criminalize sex work and any action aiding a sex worker, you put our community members at risk, pushing them into the shadows and forcing them to work in unsafe conditions. Additionally, this amendment not only endangers sex workers, but also further puts at risk our immigrant communities, who are already currently facing increasing violence from law enforcement. Like many others, I relied on community visibility and the ability to assess risk and safe and stay safe. This ordinance makes that harder. I do not want others who choose to work here to face greater danger as a result of well-intended but harmful policy, for example, amending policy that includes verbiage such as prostitution dredges up negative ideas around consensual sex work. I urge you to work with bipoc led sex worker organizations with within the community to rewrite this so that it does not affect or harm my community. So I would I would like you to withdraw from the amendment. Thank you.
Thank you. Go ahead. Dave.
Yeah. My name is dave sacks. I'm the owner of the people's courts, which if you don't know, is a large 42,000 square foot recreational and restaurant facility directly across the street from mcdaniel high school on the corner of russell. And kind of right in kind of in the middle of a lot of the motels that are, I think, the subject largely the subject of. The ordinance, we are having more and more now on the corner when people are pulling into our parking lot. Are seeing sex workers out on the corners. It's directly across the street from the high school. We have probably 30 kids a day walking across the street from mcdaniel to have lunch. We have several mcdaniel students have worked at our facility, front desk, kitchen staff. Like I said, they're coming over for lunch now and we have a lot of concerns about both the students who are exposed on a daily basis and also our customers. We have, I mean, 82nd avenue. I think we're there haven't been a lot of businesses that I'm aware of. On 82nd in the last since I've been in Portland. I was born and raised here, where people from around the city were specifically going to that business. They're coming from the west side, they're coming from north Portland, they're coming from the suburbs. We're drawing business, other businesses for private events, for birthday parties, for wedding related events to our facility. And people have a great time. But it's not infrequent that we hear surprise about what they're seeing when they pull into our parking lot. And. There's some incredible things happening on 82nd with the bird alliance directly to our north. Obviously, an incredible amount of funding going into the street improvements, but as long as there is a strip of motels on northeast 82nd where everybody knows what's going on, our customers know, staff knows, the students across the street know 82nd avenue is is just not going to be able to. I don't believe we're going to see the improvement for neighbors, employees, students that I think we have the potential to see by enforcing some stricter laws related to known what is known criminal activity to everybody in the area. Thank you.
Thank you to all of our testifiers. Diana, are there any other public testimonies.
That concludes testimony?
All right. Thank you. We have a amendment that has been proposed and seconded, will open up discussion on Novick one and two. Any councilors who'd like to get in the queue to discuss that, please feel free to and councilor Novick if you want to, feel free to as well. Seeing no one in the queue, just giving it a second before we go straight to a vote. All right, diana, will you please call the roll on? And this combined Novick one and two.
Smith. I Kanal. I Morillo absent Zimmerman I Novick. I with four eyes and one absent. The motion to amend the ordinance as shown in Novick one and two has passed.
All right. Thank you, counselors. So now we're moving into discussion of the underlying proposed ordinance. I haven't formally moved it yet. I'm waiting on the the printout, but thank you. If anyone would like to discuss the underlying proposal, please feel free to get in the queue as well. Okay, councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Thanks. Chairs, I want to appreciate the folks who came out to testify. I really appreciate it. Fun fact I hired one of my employees actually by meeting at the people's court. So we're very familiar with your operation in my office. In fact, I think we've all played there in the league, but. But I'm also familiar with mcdaniel high school, and I'm familiar with that, that area. And I want to really be appreciative to councilor Novick and your staff over these last several weeks and how we've worked through some questions that I had, not just on this dais, but even kind of behind the scenes to let me understand better in terms of the impact, the intent you have. You have answered a lot of questions for me and put some of my concerns at ease. And so I do appreciate that and my questions and my concerns did come around the the differences between a trafficking situation and not and what what goes along with that. And so. I, I plan to be supportive of, of this today. And I say that with only one area where I still have a little concern, but I won't be offering any changes today. But generally I'm supportive because for the type of I don't know the right term here to use, but the, the, the non force, the voluntarily sex work that does occur that occurs in all communities. I don't see right now something in this legislation that is adding a criminal, another criminal level to it. What I do see is unfortunately with sex work there comes other activity in and around and associated with it that do become nuisances to those that surround. Right. And and it is it is unfortunate that so much other stuff happens around this thing that has existed in all communities since the dawn of time, but it also today involves drugs, it involves weapons. It involves people who have no connection to the neighborhood or the street that they're on. And I hear very loud and clear those who are in and around those areas that have truly to the word become nuisance properties because they become hotbeds for it. And so my support today is going to be because I, I think that the aggregation, if that's the correct word, I'm looking at our day. I don't know if it is, but the aggregation of that that 90 days and doing their giving, giving our, our teams the ability to apply multiple small little things allows us to take an action against a property who has skirted city code or state law for long enough and is deeply a nuisance to their neighbors to the school nearby. Not. And it's not just mcdaniel, right? This is something in every district, but we're using this as an example because I think most of us have experienced it there, that that extension to 90 days, I think is a smart move, adding a lot of small things to make a bigger case is a smart move, and I think it's going to help us address some of these. And so I'll be supportive. Thank you, counselor Novick to that, the I want to address the area that I remain a little bit of concerned about. It hasn't had a lot of talk, but there's an aspect in here of, you know, Portland police do not. Inspect businesses. Generally Portland police go when a business has a problem. There's this aspect of inspecting of of the massage businesses that I am still wrestling with that. But I think I see the I see the intent by councilor Novick and how this has been written. And so while that one remains a slight kind of a grade in area of concern for me, I note it here, but I will offer no amendments today. I'm not prepared to do that, but I do think that it is the area for. For us to be cognizant about in terms of making sure that where that authority is used, that it's deeply focused on trafficking on on people who are being forced to live in a situation that they do not choose, that they are being forced to conduct behavior and activities that they do not choose. And for that reason, I think it's important to support it. And so. I am mindful over all the years that I've worked in public policy related to human trafficking, I am more mindful today than I was some 13 years ago about the nuances there that go into it, and that there are. I think, many people who conduct voluntary sex work in this community and do it without a great amount of nuisance, and I'm cognizant of that, and I'm trying to think through that and how that occurs. Yes, it's an illegal activity. And like a lot of things, how that manifests in our community is a challenging topic. So. Anytime you put this. Any time you put this topic forward, I think that it is going to get thrown into that category. And at the end of the day, when I really look at councilor Novick code amendments here, these are about nuisance properties and not a change to the different types. We're not making a certain type of behavior more or less illegal. And that that takes nuance and that takes more than just a headline. And so that for those reasons, I'll be supportive. And I appreciate again, I can't under line enough how much. Thank you for not pushing this in one fell swoop at the first meeting. This has been a helpful and a very productive process for me as a as a legislator. So thank you to the co-chairs.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman. I'm in the queue next. So first, thank you to councilor, Novick and staff for your discussion on this and for drawing attention to the problem with both the presentation last meeting and the discussion that has been started by this proposal. I also want to specifically commend you for taking the input from councilor Dunphy and making an amendment, and for discussing the item with the asian American hotel owners association, attending a town hall that I also was at, and coming up with a second amendment. I was happy to support both amendments, and I also support many parts of the underlying ordinance. I do have some deep concerns with the fundamental thrust of the underlying ordinance, and I'll talk about that. But I wanted to ask some questions as we go forward here and and offer a chance for for response here. It sounds as though right now under the existing code, which allows for city attorney's office to refer cases to the court, that that happens fairly rarely is the goal of this. Does that include increasing the number of cases that are referred? And these are mostly directed at councilor Novick. So please feel free to.
The goal is to enable the law enforcement to use the statute in cases where there are repeated nuisance activities, but there are not three activities within 30 days, which, given how stretched our law enforcement is, there could be, you know, 40 activities within ten days and they might not see them. So the goal is never to we we hope that it's never has to be, you know, formally invoked because because that there's never a procedure that goes to court. Because we hope that as in the past, in the vast majority of cases, there's a resolution between the property owner and law enforcement that they have the first opportunity to propose abatement measures. Then the police can go back and forth with them about whether those will be sufficient. And going to court is the last resort. One thing to note is that the fact that the only way to actually require abatement activity is to go to court, is then the court itself would then get to consider sort of equitable factors is what are the abatement measures the city is asking for unreasonable or unreasonably expensive. So I think that in a way, the fact that ultimately you'd have to go to court to get enforcement is sort of a, you know, due process constraint. If the city decided to go hog wild in a manner, ridiculous things.
Okay. Thank you for that, that response. And by the way, I do support the change from two and 30 to 3 in, sorry, three and 30 to 2 and 90. I do support that that change, but I'm not 100% certain in the event that this is not even if we resolved that issue, there's still all these other items in there. So the justification for this has been around changing the dates and number of required reports. And that seems to be sufficient to address what you just stated. Councilor Novick. So I'm not 100% clear right there. I'm also unclear with relation to the days. If we're only why we're only allowing the property 30 days to come to an agreement with the city when we're giving ourselves 90. And I was hoping you could speak to that.
Well, I mean, we're actually. Let's see. Do you mind again? I, I said, I just do you mind if I called spencer noles, my chief of staff, to help address that?
Not at all.
He's coming up if he can't see. And if you could introduce yourself for the record. Spencer.
Hi. Thank you. Spencer noles, chief of staff for councilor Novick. So I as far as the change to or having 30 days, I think it's just a matter of creating a timely response. We did extend the number of days that they have to file or respond to the notice from 10 to 14, and so I think the selection of 30 days was just to suggest a timely response would be would be better.
Thanks. So we're talking about 14.60 .030 section. It was section d. Now it's section c due to renumbering. And it's on page seven of the exhibit a for those who are looking at it. This also in addition to extending that ten days to 14, it also reduces from if an agreed course of action does not result in the abatement of the nuisance activities within 60 days, or no agreement is reached within 60 days, it reduces that to 34. If no agreement is reached, while remaining 60 days for if an agreed course of action does not result in the abatement. So I was just hoping you mentioned why it's increased from 10 to 14. Could you speak to why 60 was reduced?
Reduced? Yeah, I think it was to again, just suggest that more immediate action would be better, more immediate response to implementing the abatement measures. And I think that in our conversations with PPB and the da and others who have been trying to implement this tool, they've expressed a number of instances where there were some. I guess, delay tactics on the part of property owners to, you know, kind of wait out the clock and then have things reset. And so I think shortening that window was sort of the thinking there.
Okay. Thank you for that. I just to clarify the concern there, I have two concerns. One is just that I know we have significantly more resources at the city than motel owners do, and creating that seems pretty likely designed to get it to go to that alleged last resort of of court. The other piece is that sometimes business owners and property owners are two different people, but they have to collaborate, and sometimes it's easier to work with the business owner than a property owner. The other piece of it is the councilor Novick. You mentioned the potential application to city owned housing or city run housing facilities, and I am concerned about potential barriers and burdens for low income people, immigrants, people of color, by requiring government issued identification to enter properties. And so I was wondering, I want to just give the the honest what is my concern and give you a chance to respond instead of asking around the question here, I'm concerned that it could be disproportionately used in a biased manner. I'm concerned that it may also affect non-citizens and people who are undocumented specifically. And so I wanted to also ask about that and give you a chance to to speak to what remediation or reduction in risk that that might raise.
Well, I mean, it's a it's a delicate matter. I mean, obviously a reason to require identification is if there's activity going on that we want to be able to identify the people engaging in illegal activity. And let's again, we'd like to see if spencer as or. Deputy da has any anything to add to that.
He's coming on up. And please introduce yourself for the record.
Yes.
I think if we're considering how it might be applied to housing providers, you know, when in the section that talks about how a court might consider which which. Remedies to apply, it considers, for one thing, like the financial status of of a property owner, among other things. So I think the city, in suggesting abatement measures, would take into consideration all of the circumstances at any particular property in suggesting what abatement measures would be appropriate. Certainly, the population living in a housing situation would be something that they would consider as well.
Would you like me? Councilor jr. With the Multnomah county district attorney's office, I supervise the human trafficking unit, the what I and correct me if I'm missing what you're asking councilor, but what I understand this is an abatement measure is there are many motels and hotels that are known for not gathering who is actually staying there, identification or names. And that attracts individuals who don't want to be found that are engaging in criminal activity. And so some of that is, as you know, many hotels require id and some way of identifying yourself. So one of them could be an option for an abatement measure to not attract individuals who want to hide their criminal activity. Secondly, I know that there are other businesses, whether they're adult clubs or adult establishments, or after hours clubs or places that serve alcohol, that the identification would also be to prevent minors from from renting rooms or being there. I will say just this week, two minors were found at about 3 a.m. On 82nd avenue, and those minors need a place to stay. They usually are being aided by an individual who rents rooms or has them rent rooms. And if you don't have to show id or identification, individuals, including minors, can have access to places they shouldn't. So there's a there's a couple reasons for identification. I don't believe it's for preventing people from finding housing, but more to identify individuals who are avoiding identification as they're engaging in criminal activity.
Thanks for that. I'm a little confused by the mention of places that serve alcohol. Do not. We already have laws requiring those establishments to verify the age of people that they're that are being served. So how is that?
Well, I guess what I'll say is access to alcohol. Maybe not bars, right? Official bars. But if there's alcohol, let's say an after hours club, right? That's not an official licensed alcohol. There are things of that nature that individuals have access to that one of the abatement plans may be that you need to identify individuals that they're of age.
Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Just one other clarification on that particular piece. What is the is there what is the missing piece from the da's office in terms of what is necessary beyond the the change of the dates and the number of reports that justifies all these other changes is what I'm still unclear on. I understand the dates and the number of reports.
Yeah.
So I would just love to hear from that side. And then I'll pass it to councilor. Novick.
Sure. And I think, just to be clear, I want to make sure I identify when you say the other changes you're talking about suggestions for abatement, as well as a list of some of the charges that would be chronic nuisance. Is that what you're asking for?
Councilor I.
I am referring to the same area you're referring to. I would I wouldn't use the word suggestions personally and how I'd describe what the what the abatement does, but sure. Yeah, sure.
Well, from, from our standpoint, you know, I have been doing this since 2008. I have engaged in probably 30 trainings with motel staff owners, business owners to train them in identifying trafficking, to train them on what to do if they see trafficking, to train them on the fact that the average age of a trafficked individual is between 13 and 15 years old, all those sorts of things, and we have seen that many of the hotels either do not engage in these trainings, do not volunteer their staff to come or refuse to be trained or refused to change certain things. That may be very helpful. For example, I know of a certain motel that we have talked to them about for almost a dozen years about having active surveillance cameras to identify drug dealing and other illegal activity, and they refuse to do so. And because of that, we have had multiple homicides at that facility that were either solved by a huge delay in trying to identify what happened or not solved at all because of similar things like just having proper lighting or proper security measures. And so I think this list of what I would I view that as sort of suggestions or abatement is a list of ideas that would guide a conversation between business owners and law enforcement as to some options to help them be not a chronic nuisance, to help out and avoid those nuisance activities by a list of things that they could do. That's how I view that, and that's what I believe when we discuss that this isn't a this isn't a definite list. There are other things that could be done, and businesses could say, we're willing to do x, y, and z. And if and if the individuals involved think that that's a great measure and that would help, it would not have to be on this list at all. As far as the crimes, I just think it's an update. This code code is pretty old and update to describe some of the crimes and some of the activities we see that are nuisances, and the livability and the community that we've heard from.
Thank you for clarifying that. I, I should have clarified one other thing. The list of nuisance activities, I think broadly does help. I have some concerns about a couple of the specific words as one of our testifiers mentioned as well. But on the whole, I do see that as a general improvement from the previous list, I'll pass it to councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: Yeah, this isn't much difference from what the deputy d.a. Just said, but I just want to underscore the list of potential abatement activities is a is sort of a menu which is not going to be applied in every case. So there might be circumstances, certainly be circumstances where identification is not appropriate. And that is something that would be discussed between the individual property owner and that and the police. And it's it's not going to be a one size fits all thing. It's going it's a menu of options at in any given case, the menu is probably got I mean the order, the order from the menu is going to be different.
Right. But the the people ordering off the menu, the discretion here is, is with the da's office and and police. Is that that that's I think the the issue with the whether or not it's a suggestion or not, it's a suggestion to the city and the da's office, not a suggestion to the property owners, because it says directly here that it's a requirement.
The property. It's it's it's it's up to the property owner to come up to initially come up with proposed abatement measures. And if the property owner comes up, the proposed abatement measures that the city thinks are going to be effective, then that's that's all she wrote. But also ultimately, the abatement measures can only be enforced, literally enforced by going to court. And the court is going to consider various equitable factors in deciding which measures are appropriate. So it's not a matter of the city can just decide to force every property owner to adopt all the abatement measures on the list.
Sure. I think a maybe an analogous situation, though not a perfect analogy, is the idea of a plea agreement in a criminal case where the act of going to court, especially for lower income people, the act of going through a process is itself restrictive, is itself going to be a push and, frankly, a use of resources. So I have two other questions. Specifically, there's a there's a couple places where it discusses resources, but it does not actually name them in any place. The first of those three is the same section 14 b 6030 part. Now a in the amendment for it's the bottom of page six. Any city resources that may be available to assist in implementation of abatement measures. And it simply it's saying that the notice given will require that we notify what city resources may be available, but nothing in the ordinance that I saw and correct me if I'm wrong, please says what those resources have to be. Can can anyone speak to that in particular around the financial impacts of of requiring someone to put up surveillance cameras, hire security staff or implement lighting?
Yeah, I mean, I think. One example. So there was a pilot run on 82nd at one point where a certain motel worked with the office of violence prevention to do and to do some septet improvements, I think including chemo on that list, to say, hey, this is an organization that could work with you, perhaps to provide some public space lighting and include that in as an abatement measure within your plan would be appropriate. Those are the type of resources that I think would be considered as something within the city that's available to a property owner. And I think when we talk to a lot of business owners out in the city, they're not aware of pmo or problem solver groups or those type of resources being available. So just making sure that they're listed out, you know, maybe that helps get over the finish line without all the other steps that have to might happen.
So it's listing existing city resources as opposed to necessarily creating new ones.
Correct.
Loretta Smith: Thanks. I'm going to pass it to councilor Smith and then councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Thank you. Thank you for introducing this. Councilor Novick. I want to talk about this amendment. Are we still on the are we on your amendment? Not yet.
I haven't moved it yet.
Okay, okay. In your in the underlying do we require any communication between. The folks who are making complaints about what's happening on 82nd to the city administrator? At all? Do we involve them?
Is your question if community members were to file a complaint?
Right.
So the it's I wouldn't say that there are complaints, the nuisance activities an occurrence would be, for example, a an arrest or a verified police report.
Not just the violation.
The da could probably speak better to that. But yeah, it wouldn't be like someone calls in a complaint and then that something is happening and then that counts as a nuisance activity.
That's correct. There would require probable cause, and usually it's through police reports, convictions, arrests, things of that nature. So yes, that would be what would trigger this city code.
Okay. Okay. Thank you. Excellent.
Thank you, councilor Smith, councilor Zimmerman, and then councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: Thank you. So I don't want to I think I'm thinking through this in, in just like simple nuisance property terms, having worked with a number of nuisance properties over my time as a staffer in particular, the way this goes is generally thing happens, then someone is is involved. Usually that's a police officer, sometimes it's a code enforcement officer, and the first interaction is generally you need to make sure that doesn't happen again. Then the owner or the operator either takes you seriously and by their own, by their own decision making probably adheres to one of these many abatement recommendations. But they say, oh darn, I'm about to have this put on me, which is going to cost me money or or threaten my my line of business. I better get it taken care of. And so I'm going to choose some things off my sidewalk when I see them arrive next time and not put up with it. And for the grand majority of portlanders, that's kind of it, right? You can't let this happen on your property anymore. And the seriousness of the face of the person saying that message is enough for a lot of people to go, yeah, I don't want to be in this position again. And then I think about, you know, the most the heaviest handed that I have been as a, as a city employee ever, you know, and it involves going to the fourth and Washington drug market. And I don't know how many times we worked with and tried to get that cleaned up. And there's so many things that happen. And eventually it comes down to, okay, got it. You're not going to play ball, which means we're going to play ball for you. If you don't board this up, we're going to board it up and we're going to we're going to charge you back. If you don't clear this activity off your property, not only are we going to clear this activity off your property and charge you for everything we find, and I mean charge in the financial sense, then we're going to board it up and charge you for that. And then we're going to put a fence around your property. It's an escalating thing of if you want to work with us. I have never lived in a city that works with people, more frankly, than the city of Portland. When it comes to, can we work with you to abate a problem? If you understand the basics of civil life, I think you can be successful under this model. And that's what I'm seeing here. What I'm just seeing is that this this is most of the time in this conversation, an abatement and nuisance issues. We're not talking about an associated criminal activity. It's just that in this time it definitely has a criminal activity, connective tissue. And so I'm sensing that but I don't I don't have large concerns in that line of like these abatement options and where it goes, because I look at these as almost like informing a person who is being told your property is a concern for us, that it may be violating the chronic nuisance property, please get it taken care of if you don't, here are the list of things that you are potentially liable for, some of which are quite costly, and we do have the authority to place them upon you and your business. So I almost look at it as an informing document in one sense. And good operators are going to do everything that they can to come into compliance. The other thing that I've learned in the years of working on some tough properties is often the interaction goes, I'm so glad you're here. I don't know how to deal with this problem. I need help to deal with this problem. And this is actually the first time that they have that interaction. And we are we are immediately in a partnership between officials, government officials, be them the county and the city and et-cetera and property owners and neighbors. And I think that's a really positive thing. So I originally a few weeks ago, I kind of read it as, as like this is a list of things that must happen, will happen. Now, I think it's more of an informing document of what could happen. And please take care of it on your own before we take care of it for you. And I actually think when we talk about. What neighborhoods go through that are dealing with a nuisance property, I am okay with us erring on the side of actually enforcing the nuisance code, because I think we have gone so far away from it over the years. And I just want to give an example to my colleagues not related to prostitution or to sex work, but related to code enforcement in the city of Portland. Some years ago, when I worked for the mayor, I. I was working on enforcing some chronic nuisance properties in multiple parts of their city, and I had a wonderful conversation with the manager in the city who was in charge of that, and we got to talking. I said, okay, what is the what is the law you need passed so that you can affect this issue? And she was so candid. She said, Eric, I don't need any new laws. I need authority to enforce the laws that already exist on the books. But the commissioners in charge of the last several years have said I cannot noted. Got it? Point taken. And we took that binder off the off, quite literally off the shelf and said, you're on. And commissioner Rubio and mayor wheeler signed a signed a memo that code enforcement was back on. And that was something that left our community for a lot of years and a lot of ways. And that has a cascading effect in a lot of places across our community. And then it takes hold and then you see the more criminal based activity, because it is it is the perfect example of the broken window theory. Broke stuff gets more broke and attracts more people who want more broke stuff. And it's also what doesn't get looked at. And so you do other things in that area. So I that's where this nuisance thing, I think is an appropriate use to combat what's affected certain neighborhoods far more than many others. And I think we owe it to them to be quite, quite firm in this and how it's applied and in what I've seen is we actually don't have a firm hand by default. We have to work at being firm. And so I feel confident that this would not be an overstep. But it's a great dialog anyway. That's my experience and that's why I support it.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman, councilor Novick and then I'm next in the queue.
Yes. I just wanted to two things. One chair Kanal I think that you alluded to concerns about the financial impact of a business owner, some of the potential or the property owner of some potential abatement activities. And I just wanted to note that in the commencement of action section of the ordinance, it says under section e, in establishing the appropriate remedy in the amount of any civil penalty, the court may consider any of the following factors shall cite those found applicable. And number two is the financial condition of the person in charge. So we would expect that the expense of a proposed abatement activity and the ability of the property owner to bear that expense would be something that would be considered and it would be considered by the court, and therefore the city would consider it an advance. Another thing I wanted to say is that I thinking about your, your your argument that 30 days is a short period of time to come with an agreement as to how to abate the nuisance. And I can see that argument and I would accept expanding, extending that 30 days to 45 days as a friendly amendment.
Thank you, counselor Novick.
Can you say that again? The number.
He's a 45 days. I do think that would be an improvement, but I think the let me just three things. First, I think the. The act of going to court costs money in the first place. And I think I'm alluding to a fundamental disconnect here that I'm going to get to in a second. But I, I think that once you get to court, some of the damage is already done in this scenario. So I appreciate that. That's a factor. I think that's a very good piece. I'm glad that that's in there. I don't think it's enough is, I guess, what I'm trying to say about that particular piece. The second piece relates to something councilor Zimmerman said. I actually agreed with like 99% of everything you just said. Councilor Zimmerman. I think the particular thing that you brought up that I thought was really helpful is the idea that in the first time there's an interaction, it's often, I would love some help. And this is also alluding to that fundamental disconnect, because the the fundamental disconnect I think that I'm having with this ordinance is who is to blame for what we are seeing on 82nd. I think that's like the sort of first principle behind this. And I'm concerned that instead of requiring because the other presentation we had, in addition to the human trafficking presentation was on the fulfillment of the overtime budget note and how we passed legislation, budget note in June to move overtime dollars to human trafficking and how we saw that that was not done. And then we also heard in the human trafficking presentation from sergeant robert that they do not have an overtime budget right now. So there's council direction as a budgetary authority saying that money should be moved to human trafficking for overtime, among other things. And then we saw that that didn't happen. And now we're having a conversation about how to put potential requirements for abatement onto motel owners for things that are happening potentially 200ft off their property. And so that's the first thing. And the other piece that I'll mention for councilor Zimmerman's point, I agree with you on the fourth and Washington piece. I'm concerned that they would also be held accountable for something that happened. Or actually, let's flip this around. I'm also concerned that kelly's olympian would be held accountable for what's happening at fourth and Washington. And as far as I'm aware, kelly's olympian has nothing to do with that open air drug market that existed at fourth and Washington, but it is certainly within 200ft. So that's that's the concern I have, and that's why I have the amendment that I was working on, which I'll want to let the q clear before I officially move it. But to remove that 200ft requirement, which I think is particularly damaging, I fully understand if something's happening on your property, the the responsibility there. I have other issues with it, but I think that's one of the biggest ones, so I'll stop there. Councilor Novick, I think you're back in the q.
Yeah, I mean, I don't think that having a more fully funded human trafficking unit would remove the desirability of this ordinance. I mean, the, the the point of this, of this, of the original ordinance and of this amendment is when there are properties that are turning a blind eye to illegal activity or in some cases, maybe knowingly profiting from it, then we should put a stop to that, and they should help address the underlying activity. Most property owners do not do this. I mean, as laws are quite often addressed, not to the the, you know, the people acting in good faith, but the the large number of people acting in good faith, but of the limited number of people who are not. So I think that no matter how big the human trafficking unit was, we would still want property owners not to turn a blind eye to illegal activity. As to the 200ft thing and the other points that you just raised, I mean, we'll note that persons associated with the property means any person who, on the occasion of a nuisance activity, has entered, patronized or visited the property, and we eliminated the previous language or attempted to enter, patronize or visit. So it's somebody has to have an actual relationship with the property. And if somebody is using a property as sort of the base for illegal activity, if the observed illegal activity occurs a few feet away. And I think that that's legitimate to address. But I also did want to ask deputy d.a. Ujifusa to address that as well.
Yes. Thank you. Councilors, I hear you, councilor Kanal. Two things I'd like to mention is when we had a robust human trafficking unit in the city of Portland, I would say double the the individuals we had. Now, we still have a significant problem. And part of the reason for that is we we estimate that there are 10,000 purchases a week in the city of Portland for buyers. And so even having an officer at every one of these places, 24 over seven would be difficult. But I want to get back to the the 1460 ten a2, which is the 200ft subsection. What we have found is many property owners, like councilor Zimmerman discussed that aren't there to say, help us or aren't there to say absolutely what we what can we do but have ignored? And you talk about one instance. We see hundreds of instances where we have gone to these business owners and property owners and said, hey, we need your help. We need what we found is they say, well, it's not happening inside my building. Or they'll tell their patrons, just do it outside the building. And so it has been a loophole for businesses who aren't willing to try to increase the safety in their property, to say, do it on the sidewalk outside, do it. Do it next door. But what we have found and what I think is very important, is that word that councilor Novick or that phrase persons associated. And so for an example, on a hotel, the individuals who are staying at that hotel but are out on the street in front of it, they're technically not on the property, but they're bringing people to their hotel. That's the incident. And whether we're requiring individuals to wait and see and wait for them to go into a hotel room, especially when we're talking about minors, I think that's concerning. I also think it's a loophole for many businesses to say it's not exactly on my property. It's ten feet away, 20ft away, 100ft away. But they're associated my property. But since it's not happening on my property, then therefore I'm not covered under this statute. And those are the concerns I have. And those are the actual real life situations we see is business owners and property owners telling individuals, just step off the property and therefore it's not associated with me. And I have some concerns about that. And we see that all the time, especially when it comes to prostitution related activity, commercial sex, human trafficking activity where individuals, hotel owners and massage parlor owners are are trying to insulate themselves from illegal activity that they know is happening on their property.
Thank you, councilor Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman: Yes, that's why I at first I was appreciating this 200ft because I had the exact thought about kelly's olympian, fort Washington, that whole thing. I could certainly sit and have a beer at the people's court and conduct operations as a pimp in the hotel next door. And I don't think in that situation that the people's court is the one who has the violation. I think my my activity, by being there and using my devices allows me to conduct activity. And I think that that's where this 200ft matters. And I think that that's something that we frankly have seen in terms of the offshoot and the the distance and distance is important here to say what associated activities are happening because, you know, 200ft, that is one city block and 20 is one city block. So we're really not talking a very far distance. I also I, I wouldn't support a change here because I don't think it says everything within 200ft or anybody within. I think it allows discretion to occur during the investigation to say that is an associated behavior or activity, and therefore it applies versus saying anything. And so I think that that's an important discretion that I'm, I'm comfortable with. So I wouldn't be in support of changing the 200 for those reasons.
Eric Zimmerman: Next in the queue. And I think I want to I don't know if this is better for councilor Zimmerman or for councilor Novick. Both of you may feel free to respond. Whose discretion?
When I say it, I mean it as those conducting the investigation and and the code enforcement and saying, does this or does this not meet the meet the. The purview of what a nuisance property is? So for the investigator whomever that is?
Okay. Councilor Novick I don't know if you want to look like you came off mute.
Yeah, I think that it's. For one thing that we're only going to ask. Ask a property owner to take action to, to to abate the nuisance. And again, that's the if somebody is using a property as a basis for illegal activity, even if the observed illegal activity happens within, within the block, then it's still appropriate to ask the property owner to take action. But I would note that, I mean, under your proposed amendment councilor Kanal, although we haven't gotten to it, you simply removed the words 200ft and had it be on the property. And under that proposal, you could have people, you know, right outside the door engaging in illegal activity while using the property as a base. And it wouldn't it wouldn't qualify.
Thanks for clarifying that. And I'll address that second piece in a second. Could you just whose discretion?
Well, again, as in pretty much any activity relating to law enforcement, there is some there is some discretion inherent in law enforcement officers, which is constrained by ultimately, you know, having to require anything, having to convince a court. And we're not talking about like using mandatory minimum sentence laws to threaten people with, you know, 25 years in prison in order to get them to plead to three years. We're talking about a conversation about what activities to take to to what abatement activities to to take on.
Yeah, thank you for that. So first to that point, I mean, the discretion piece is, is a huge challenge here because what we are, I am concerned about the idea that we're going to address a real problem by putting adjacent business owners out of business. That's fundamentally the concern here that we're going to create this, you know, diverting the responsibility that we have as a city government to address this onto private property owners and business managers, and through the imposition of very expensive abatement measures, which I'll note, when we were at that town hall, I asked if people could afford to put up lighting if they were required to, and there were several hands that went up for that one. And if I asked about 24 over seven security, not so many hands. When I asked about surveillance camera, not so many hands, in fact very few. And I think there is a idea here that there's an unlimited well of resources that doesn't exist, and there's no funding behind this to support people. And so I'm, I'm concerned about the imposition of, of that based on the discretion that already exists and isn't being used. Right. Because this, this, this code already is fundamentally structured similarly to this. We're making adjustments to it. And that's it's not being used right now is according to your presentations. So that's that's one piece. I do take your note pretty well about the amendment. And I think there's an idea here about the grounds that you put out in terms of right outside the door. And so I'd be happy to workshop that. Piece. But I think there's a sort of a guilt by association component to the 200ft. And I'll note this is not in your amendment. This is in the the original code. The 200ft standard already exists, and I don't want to put any blame on on councilor Novick or team for for creating it, but I do think it creates a guilt by association component to this that I'm deeply uncomfortable with already. So that that's my my concern here. So yeah, go ahead, counselor Zimmerman.
I was going to ask. J.r. I'm thinking back to like a long time ago. I feel like we had some conversations about the doubletree at one time in our careers together. There are certain hotels and I'm and I'm using one of our our bigger tower type hotels for a reason here to illustrate a point. The. I guess I have to believe that some level of trafficking has happened in every single hotel in Portland.
Absolutely. In every high school in Portland.
That's a hell of a statement. That is scary. That should be scary to all of us. So the point here is, isn't that because a trafficking situation or because the officer who's behind you, his team, makes an interdiction in a hotel, we therefore start these nuisance proceedings. I don't get that sense from this. And the reason I ask that is this seems to be written so that if after the course of your work, you go, gosh, we sure have a lot of red dots at that same location. Why is that location? Is it because we only seem to patrol that location? Or is it because those who engage in this activity have chosen that this is the easiest location to get away with it?
Yeah, we do missions all throughout the city in hotels and locations. There are hotels that ask us to do missions in their hotels because they want to be known as a hotel, that this activity does not happen in, that law enforcement are providing stings in that this is not okay. These are not the hotels we're talking about. And I guess to add to your point, this 200ft has been on the books. That's correct. Councilor Kanal and I have not identified a case in which someone associated that, as you said, guilt by association or someone being caught up that wasn't associated with that hotel has been put in sort of a chronic nuisance concern or your concerns that you've addressed. What I, what I have seen is that it is literally the last resort with many other tools being used, including buyer suppression, long term investigations, organized crime investigations, septet working with pmo, working on educating groups. This is the last resort on these sorts of things. But yes, absolutely every hotel has had prostitution, human trafficking related crimes involved in those hotels.
This is why we see a spike every time a super bowl goes to a town. Right? We know that's going to happen. This is the nature of it. It's not just your hotel motels along 82nd or interstate back in the day. Right. And and I think that's an important point. I bring it up because I actually. I have had throughout this conversation or this discussion some, some similar concerns. Councilor Kanal in terms of like, whose duty is it to regulate other people's behavior? And I'm comfortable with this because I have seen so many times when the other people's behavior has not then led to a third party who happened to be where it occurred, falling into a legally precarious position, except for when they seem to, after a lot of evidence and a lot of red dots hitting on the same map. They are the best ostriches around. They are head in the sand. This is how I make my money. I don't want to know anything here. Nothing. No, nothing. And I think that's more what we're targeting. And in that, in that case, I think it's actually gone beyond whether or not we have 10,000 vice officers or we have zero vice officers there. There is a choice that's made by properties. If it gets to this point, meaning there are so many opportunities before this point to correct, if you will. And so that's I guess I want to just explain, because I, I would have those similar concerns if I thought this was being used broadly in a way to hurt businesses around or adjacent businesses. That would be very concerning for me. And I'll tell you, if I were to see that kind of evidence with that 200ft, I think I would give more credit to it now or I'd be more deferential to it. But I'm not seeing that, and I have seen enough interactions in my career now where the operator was made aware of it or they or to to to the da's example invited it in. Et cetera. Et cetera. And it was okay. Right. Everybody was able to go about business and do do whatever their line of business is, whether that's being a club, whether that's being a hotel. And 99.9% of the stuff that happens there is what's supposed to happen there.
Thanks, councilor. I, I wanted to follow up on on two pieces of that, but I wanted to to go back to the the question around I'm there's another fundamental disconnect here, which is if it's not being used, then I'm, I'm not clear on why this is the tool. We have public safety liens as a different tool. We have eminent domain as a different tool. My understanding is at least 1 or 2 of the particular property owners on 82nd have offered to sell the building that are at question here. Obviously eminent domain would require compensation anyway. So. I see the issue here. But for you know, I think somebody said councilor Novick may have said I think 3 or 4 properties was the specific thing that was said here. I'm unclear on why we're doing this for everywhere and applying it not only to hotels, but also to affordable housing projects and things like that, because I don't think this would apply necessarily to some of the places that are higher profile obvious nuisance properties as well. But that's a separate issue. So if you could just speak to why this tool, as opposed to any of the other tools which are already on the books, and I'll be very specific about one of them, in addition to the ones I just mentioned. There's enticing is part of the the code, the state? Sorry, not the code. The state ors as a crime. Already I'm unclear as to why the the perfect ostrich example is not already committing a crime under state law.
Yeah, I'll start with the first part councilor, which is when I say it's not being used. I guess what I meant was it's not going to court most of the time. The fact of working to abate and working with law enforcement starts that process and that conversation that doesn't go to the next point. Most cases, in my experience, your second question is about enticing. Well, criminal code requires right a proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also includes criminal intent. And so it's a much higher burden that putting your head in the sand probably doesn't get there. For example, promoting prostitution or as 167012 if an individual with the intent to promote prostitution aids and facilitates acts or manages right, that that requires us to prove that they intended to promote most of the criminal statutes is a much higher burden standard, both in intent and also proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is for what I think counselor Zimmerman posed is there is a reason certain places in the city of Portland are magnets for crime, and there is a reason that roughly 50% of the buyers that we come in contact with in law enforcement are from out of state, that somehow find their way to these locations. And it's because there are dozens, if not hundreds of of crimes and criminal activity that goes on that those individuals, as opposed to other individuals who own similar businesses, somehow attract that. And so this is a way for like I said, many tools are being used. We use stings and investigations and online tools and law enforcement. And education and victims advocates to go out and to solve this very complicated problem. This is a tool that goes to the enablers or the businesses that enable this activity, or make it harder to investigate and stop in our city. That's how I view it.
Thanks for that. I'm going to just say one thing and ask one last group question here, and that is, I'm going to not make the motion to amend here, because I want to workshop for the item that or the note that councilor Novick made, but I may do so at the full council should it get there. My question, and this is related to discretion, because we've seen the disparity in the the da's offices choices on other areas of work, not necessarily this area. I want to be clear about that in terms of who gets charged with what. And I want to be very clear about that. Is there any sort of remediation for racially disparate outcomes planned in this? Because we are talking about an industry, two industries that massage came up as well, that are primarily owned and operated by people of color. We are not. We councilor Dunphy, when he came here last time, he referred to on the noise code. But we also saw with the restaurant on 82nd that was a shut down due to an interpretation of food smells in their level of offensiveness. That was certainly informed by a certain viewpoint. I'm trying to understand how we're going to avoid disproportionate use. Against people of color when the goal of this appears to be to maximize discretion, and we've seen I'll just say it, we've seen at the at other facilities in other this is not your area of work, but choices to charge protesters but not counterprotesters at the ice facility. We've seen different choices that are disparate by race out of the da's office. So I have to ask, what is the way that we protect against that here?
Yeah, I'm not I'm not aware of any disparities in charging, other than our duties as prosecutors are, to view the evidence, if the evidence, they're supposed to charge it. What I will say is that when we talk about disparities there, this my concern is the individuals of color and the vulnerable victims that are being trafficked out of these places. And I think that disparity is much higher. When you look at statistics from PSU and other places, the amount of individuals that are vulnerable, victims that are runaways, that are foster kids that are being trafficked, that's what human trafficking, those are the real numbers and those are kids in our community. When you talk about the disparities or a certain group being focused on, I view this as sort of the effects of crimes being identified and investigated throughout the city. And there is no I guess, what I would say is there's an objective matrix to identify these crimes, these crimes. It's not like I would say, I guess my best example is. In the history of the city, there have been places like the dfc where officers have focused on locations in the city. Right. And because of those locations in the city, it was disproportionately, disproportionately applied here. Trafficking goes on online. It goes on through every community and neighborhood in the city. And so this is just an outline of crimes, including crimes that don't have to do with trafficking, drugs and violence, and other things that would be applied to say, hey, when neighbors and communities are affected, communities of color, neighborhoods of color, that this is a way, this is a tool to help improve public safety in those communities.
Yeah.
I would like if either councilor Novick or spencer, if you could maybe speak to this, if there's anything else to add. I'm not interested in pitting communities of color against each other. I want to be super clear about that. And so I would love any insight that you have from the counselor's office or counselor.
Well, first of all, again, this is not just about hotels, although obviously that we are concerned about human trafficking and that does occasionally happen in hotels. It's about any establishment which is associated with the with the listed crimes. And there's I don't. The fact that there might be some association of ownership with some properties, with certain groups, I don't think means that you I don't think means that you don't adopt an ordinance or amend an ordinance because of that fact. I mean, I think that the vast majority of the asian American hotel owners are going to have no problem with this because they are cooperating and trying to abate the nuisance activities. So I just I mean, obviously there's an discretion in everything law enforcement does. And we we as councilors should be on the lookout for disparate application of the law. But I don't think that you don't adopt the law to address a real problem, that because of the possibility of disparate application, I mean, we know that there's disparate application of laws, of laws prohibiting violent criminal activity, but that doesn't mean that we don't criminalize violent activity. We just try to do our best to avoid disparate application of and enforcement of those laws.
Thank you. I appreciate that. And I want to be clear, I don't see any intent of of achieving that here. From from this ordinance, I am concerned about disparate outcomes that may not result from a negative intent but would still result. So I just want to be super clear about that. I am very concerned, broadly speaking, about the idea of saying we have to do something and then looking for the first thing that's that's convenient to do. As opposed to actually investing as council directed in going after the people who are actually doing the trafficking. And I fully recognize the the point that our assistant d.a. Made about higher burden of proof. I do appreciate that. But that's that's my concern here, is that we're not aligning a solution with a real and large problem, and instead outsourcing the responsibility to other people. I see councilor Morillo is in the queue.
Angelita Morillo: Thank you. Councilor Kanal. I think, you know, I've been thinking about this policy a lot. I think the testimony that we received in the first hearing that we had on this was really powerful and important, and I really appreciate the folks that came here to share that. I certainly share councilor Concerns that some of these things, I think, are going to have unintended consequences on communities of color. I also, I think the the thing that I'm struggling with, with this policy overall is this question why are we creating a regulatory framework that punishes businesses and specifically small businesses, by forcing them to purchase cameras or to do more regulatory authority things, rather, because the police are unable to carry this out? And so we're saying, hey, businesses, we need your help to helping us enforce our laws. We need you to be a partner in this. But rather than incentivizing it, we're punishing them because we even had a discussion, you know, just a few weeks ago about how we're potentially trying to remove permit requirements for sandwich boards outside of people's businesses because we understand that there is like those additional fees and things add up and harm businesses and make it harder for them to operate. So with that in mind, why are we adding an additional like punishment framework for people who are not directly responsible for this? Who would have to buy security cameras, regulate like the storage of that footage? For how long do they keep that footage? What? What they're doing the police work, but we're going to punish them if they don't. But we're not going to incentivize them if they do. And so I guess I'm just airing out that I have concerns that this is going to create additional harms for the victims and the people that are asking police for help. And when we're asking them to do the job of law enforcement rather than than alleviate the problem. And that's just kind of a question that's been sitting with me the entire time this policy has been brought forward. And I think maybe councilor Novick has a response as well.
Steve Novick: Councilor Novick.
Steve Novick: I've somehow managed to okay, block out the screen. I just wanted to remind people of the testimony of robin miller, who's a survivor of trafficking, and her impassioned plea that she felt that hotels where she was trafficked and abused, that she thought that she knew the hotel owner knew perfectly well what was going on, and they were okay with it because they were profiting from it. So I just wanted to note that and also recognize that I've not formally moved the underlying amendment. So I hereby so move not appreciate a second.
So just to restate the motion and I'll ask for a second. To be clear, councilor Novick you're at you're moving to refer the ordinance to the full council.
Yes.
Okay. And so there's a motion to refer the item to the full council. I assume with the due pass recommendation.
Recommendation.
Okay. Is there a second? Second seconded by councilor Smith. Is there any other discussion? I don't know if these are legacy hands from councilors Morillo and Novick.
I mean, I wish that councilor Novick would be able to answer my concerns with the inherent policy before we move to a vote. But if not, then I will just vote no. But that's fine.
Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, would you please call the roll? Dana?
Sure.
Smith I.
Kanal nope.
Sorry. My buttons not working.
Morillo no.
Zimmerman aye, Morillo.
Novick I.
The motion to refer the ordinance as amended. Document number 2020 6-039 to city council with a recommendation it be passed, has passed with three eyes and two nays.
Thank you. Diana, I'll pass it back to you. Councilor Novick chair. Novick.
Thank you, co-chair Kanal. Our next meeting is Tuesday, March 17th from 3 to 5 p.m. We expect to review the proposed masking ordinance and a resolution on ice operations in Portland. The meeting of the community and public safety committee is adjourned. Thanks, everybody.