08-13-01 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 13, 2001 Mr. Lawrence Cunningham, Granger, Indiana, advised that he represents the University of Notre Dame and the Athletic Department. He stated that Councilmembers involved in this initiative asked the University for their support which they are pleased to offer. He noted that they have received many complaints from alumnae and people in the neighborhood that ticket selling has become an ever increasing problem. He noted that their support of the ordinance is largely based on the public safety issues and the vehicular and pedestrian traffic on home football weekends. There was no one else present wishing to speak in favor of this bill. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill. Ms. Elizabeth Pennino, 1220 North Lafayette Boulevard, South Bend, Indiana, advised that there is always going to be traffic along Angela Boulevard. She noted that in the transactions she has observed, people are not standing in the center of the street. If these individuals were obstructing traffic there are police officers there to correct that behavior. She noted that people come to our community without tickets and they know they can buy tickets on the street and they are willing to pay and will do whatever it takes. She stated that the community is behind the people selling the tickets. Mr. Derek Dieter, 1135 Portage, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he has been a police officer for twenty (20) years and he is in opposition to this ordinance. He noted that he has never seen an accident in the area of Angela Boulevard and Michigan because of someone scalping tickets or someone standing in the street waving cars over. When officers see someone doing this they are asked to move and they have had no problem with that request. He noted that there are laws on the books that can be used if a problem arises. Mr. Ken Donnelly, Resident of Portage Township, noted that he opposes portions of the ordinance. He stated that scalpers do create a traffic hazard. He also stated that he believes that there are sufficient municipal and state ordinances against holding up traffic or trespassing that are already on the books that would address this issue. Two (2) specific sections that he objects to indicate that a place of public entertainment that exists on private property is a place of public entertainment. He also inquired if there could be potential jurisdictional problems because the University of Notre Dame is not in the City limits. He noted that if such persons would violate the ordinance as amended they are still subject to civil forfeiture. If a person is guilty of trespassing or blocking the right of way or is charged with such, the tickets are confiscated and a hearing is conducted and if a judge rules against the City then the tickets are returned after the event is over. He stated that the City is opening themselves up for potential litigation under civil forfeiture which violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Mr. Tom Dixon, no address given, stated that his concerns about this ordinance are constitutional in nature, namely the broadness and the vagueness of this statute and its enforceability as well as some significant constitutional challenges that the City could face. He asked how much the City can endure in legal fees in challenges to this ordinance if it passed. Mr. Donald Miller, 701 West Sample Street, South Bend, Indiana, informed the Council that he is a day shift supervisor at the South Bend Police Department. Mr. Miller stated that the police officers have the burden of a lot of ordinances already passed that they cannot spend time enforcing. He noted that the police use a state traffic ticket violation for prostitutes that step out into the street and they could use that same law for ticket scalpers who step out into the street. He further stated that his problem is finding officers to answer these extra scalper calls when they are needed elsewhere on more important things. He noted that he cannot tie up police officers for these types of things. There was no one else present wishing to speak against this bill. Councilmember King asked Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand to clarify some of the legal issues raised regarding the constitutionality of this ordinance as this was a matter that the Council received