With differing opinions over the intent of a proposed ordinance versus its possible real world impacts, the Astoria City Council voted 3-2 at a Monday night to reject an ordinance that would have temporarily banned people from downtown Astoria if they broke certain laws.
The ordinance would have created enhanced enforcement zones in downtown Astoria and parts of the Uniontown and Uppertown neighborhoods. People who committed offenses ranging in seriousness from arson to camping violations faced the possibility of being excluded from these areas for up to 90 days — and the threat of a trespassing charge and jail time if they violated the terms of the exclusion.
Astoria Police Chief Stacy Kelly called the ordinance a tool to address growing issues with bad behavior downtown, a way to levy more serious consequences and possibly gain better compliance.
While the concept of exclusion zones had been discussed in the past, this marked the first time a proposal was formally in front of the City Council. Monday’s meeting was a continuation of a hearing from last week where the City Council heard several hours of testimony from people on both sides of the issue.
People in the business community who testified last week urged the City Council to adopt the ordinance to help with public safety and other concerns downtown tied primarily to Astoria’s homeless population.
But critics argued the ordinance would unfairly target homeless people. Some also wondered how police would enforce the ordinance.
Ultimately, City Councilors Vance Lump, Andy Davis and Andrea Mazzarella echoed these concerns, saying they felt the ordinance would not fix the problems people wanted it to solve.
From the beginning, Lump had said he would vote against the ordinance.
“Passing this ordinance is a decision for our community,” he said, reading from a prepared statement on Monday. “Do we want to, as a community, blame those that are struggling the most — the very people that we, as a society, have failed? Do we want to make a hard life even harder? Because that’s what this ordinance will do.”
At previous meetings, Davis and Mazzarella had suggested a number of amendments to the ordinance, including changes meant to create more flexibility and oversight. But on Monday, they concluded the ordinance as presented still went against their ethics.
The offenses and crimes listed under the ordinance that could lead to exclusion are already illegal, they noted. For Davis, a big question was how the ordinance would help police enforce laws they already struggle to enforce. He also noted that fines are not an effective deterrent for some people.
“But the remedy we’ve got here is sort of phasing them to a different part of town and then, if they come back and do the same sort of behavior, to give them a trespass charge, which — again — allows us to arrest them…and then I’m frankly afraid the (district attorney) is just going to do the same thing and just say, ‘No, we’re not going to put these people in jail,’” Davis said.
“And they’re going to be out the next day and we’ve paid money and wasted police time to go through the rigmarole of putting them in the judicial system. Again, to get us basically nowhere except that maybe we got them off Exchange Street, right?” he said, referencing a group of unhoused campers on two blocks of Exchange Street who have been a focus of the debate over the ordinance.
Fitzpatrick and Adams voted in favor of the enhanced enforcement zones ordinance.
Fitzpatrick reiterated that the intent of the ordinance was to target bad behaviors, not individual people. He noted that the illegal actions of a few people are impacting others in the homeless community as well.
In emotional testimony that referenced his first wife’s opioid addiction, Fitzpatrick said he believed the consequences doled out by the ordinance could cause people to reexamine their behaviors and seek out help.
At various times during the meeting, and as it became apparent that the majority of the City Council was against the ordinance, he asked Mazzarella, Davis and Lump what could be changed to convince them to support the ordinance.
“We’ve got this ordinance,” he said. “It’s been massaged. It has been amended. It has been created based on the input that the council has given to the staff, to the police department and our city attorney.
“It’s a good ordinance at this point,” he continued. “It may not be perfect, but it’s a good start and we’ve got to move forward with it.”
Adams said she felt she needed to speak to the needs of the downtown district she represents and the concerns about public safety brought up by business owners and residents there.
She said the City Council cares about all of its constituents.
“And we’re not saying that one population is more important than the other and we’re not trying to put the rights of one population over another population,” she said. “I urge us to look at the ordinance in the way that it is.”
Even though he voted against the ordinance, Davis said issues around public safety and public health still need to be addressed.
At the end of the meeting, he pushed for a conversation with police and the municipal court judge to better understand the challenges with enforcing city laws. He also asked that the City Council reexamine aspects of Astoria’s camping ordinance.
Mazzarella, Adams and Fitzpatrick vocally supported the requests.