My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-02 Council Meeting Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Common Council Meeting Minutes
>
2002
>
06-24-02 Council Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2013 10:24:38 AM
Creation date
4/17/2013 9:38:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Council Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
6/24/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REGULAR MEETING <br />JUNE 24, 2002 <br />concealment of illegal activities which often have a secondary effect similar to Councilmember <br />King's ordinance with regard to panhandling where vandalism, violence or intimidation results. <br />Lastly, that law enforcement gives proper notice as far as what conduct is illegal so that innocent <br />activity would not be encompassed within this ordinance itself. The South Bend ordinance closely <br />follows the road map that was provided by the U. S. Supreme Court. The City of Chicago has shared <br />lengthy and invaluable information including verbatim transcripts of committee meetings which took <br />place when they passed their ordinance as well as a training video tape. There were five (5) criteria <br />which the City of Chicago looked at when they were determining what is a hot spot and what the <br />areas are where there should be enforcement of an ordinance of this type. Attorney Cekanski- <br />Farrand noted that some of the factors considered and the reason this bill is being continued until the <br />July 22nd meeting is to make sure that everyone is comfortable with the criteria that will be <br />established. She noted that there would be an analysis of the crime within a proposed area and there <br />would be input from community leaders, local community -based organizations, elected public <br />officials, input from sector commanders and the special needs of the area. She noted that this <br />ordinance has a proposed effective date of October 1, 2002 to enable the Council, the administration <br />and Police Chief Bennett and his department time to work together in preparing the day to day <br />regulations that are so important to the effectiveness of an ordinance of this type. In addition, there <br />is much training that must take place and the City of Chicago has agreed to work with the City of <br />South Bend with regard to that training if the City goes forward in passing this ordinance. Attorney <br />Cekanski- Farrand noted that City Attorney Chuck Leone brought up two (2) items this afternoon <br />at the committee level. One was who would be ultimately responsible for the designation of these <br />hot spots which we have agreed to work out in the next several weeks having input from Chief <br />Bennett in particular. The second item raised by Mr. Leone was the Philadelphia component with <br />regard to community service for violators of the ordinance. Attorney Cekanski - Farrand noted that <br />it is their desire to make this the best possible ordinance so it becomes the type of regulation that <br />other communities of our size can emulate throughout this region. <br />Councilmember Pfeifer reiterated that this ordinance was initiated because of concerns raised by <br />residents. She noted that business owners and restaurant owners who want to come into our <br />community have talked about this problem as well. She further noted that it was hoped that this <br />ordinance would be in place this summer but what is important is that the City have an ordinance <br />that they feel good about and that the Council have public input as well as input from the City <br />administration, Councilmembers and the police. Councilmember Pfeifer also noted that they want <br />to make sure that a good job is done of training police officers and neighbors so they can work <br />together. <br />Councilmember Kirsits asked if the City is in a stronger position adopting this ordinance with it <br />being adopted neighborhood by neighborhood instead ofmaking it abroad City ordinance. He noted <br />that he is concerned about this fact and whether it would withstand the constitutional test that way. <br />He further noted that he is concerned about the City profiling neighborhoods. <br />Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand stated that the City is in a stronger position adopting <br />the ordinance this way. Another point that was brought up was why the City needs an ordinance of <br />this type and why can't the City enforce what is currently on the books or the state law. Attorney <br />Cekanski-Farrand noted that there are different standards with regard to reasonable suspicion. <br />Reasonable suspension is what is necessary in order for an officer to make a proper dispersal order <br />in a civil action like this. The City is attempting to carve out a civil tool to provide to police <br />officers that will be pro active and that can hopefully address problems before they become greater <br />problems of a more criminal nature. <br />Councilmember White inquired what would happen if a neighborhood association decides not to <br />participate but that particular neighborhood has been identified as being a hot spot. Can the <br />ordinance still be enforced regardless if the neighborhood association decides not to participate? <br />Attorney Kathleen Cekanski- Farrand stated that the ordinance as currently drafted does not <br />INS <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.