43
Youngstown council makes significant changes to a proposed anti-loitering ordinance
YOUNGSTOWN
City council gutted a proposed anti-loitering ordinance so much that it no longer would make loitering illegal.
Council’s safety committee agreed Thursday to recommend a scaled-down version of the proposal that caused some controversy as well as an objection from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.
In addition to no longer making loitering illegal, the ordinance that council will consider at its Aug. 17 meeting includes several changes from the initial proposal its members opted to not support June 15.
They include:
Making it illegal to “recklessly sit, lay or stand on any sidewalk, street or public place that is within 25 feet of” the entrance to a business or governmental office when they are opened. The original would have made it illegal to “sit, lay or loiter within 50 feet” of those buildings.
Expanding the law to the entire city when the original was just for the central business district.
Charging those who violate the proposal for the first time to face a minor misdemeanor, and a fourth-degree misdemeanor for subsequent violations. The original proposal was to charge a first-time offender with a fourth-degree misdemeanor, and a second-degree misdemeanor for additional violations.
Removing language that would have given police the ability to question people about their reasons for being downtown.
“The original ordinance would have required people to give an explanation” for what they were doing downtown, said Law Director Martin Hume. “It’s now you’re either doing [something illegal] or not. You are either recklessly blocking the sidewalk or you’re not.”
Councilman Julius Oliver, D-1st, and Councilwoman Basia Adamczak, D-7th, said they had concerns about the original proposal’s constitutionality, even though Hume said it was constitutional.
“I want to create an environment where businesses can flourish, people feel safe and no one feels unwelcome downtown,” said Oliver, whose ward includes the downtown.
As for the original proposal, Adamczak said, “I’m not sure it was targeting certain individuals when it was written, but there was so much discretion for police to approach individuals. Police will be able to approach, but because the language is so clear, discretion has been taken away.”
The proposal, sponsored by Mayor John A. McNally, came after several downtown business owners complained about large groups of people blocking the entrances to their stores and restaurants, saying that some were selling drugs, drinking alcoholic beverages and being disruptive.
Also Thursday, council met to discuss seven recommendations from the charter review commission for the Nov. 8 election ballot.
Council informally agreed to put three on the ballot. The proposals are “housekeeping” measures, said Christopher Travers, commission chairman.
The three would: delete a $12 meeting penalty for council members, which hasn’t been enforced; eliminate outdated references to disbursing public money by checks only, which the city also doesn’t follow; and remove a reference to appointing a member of the abolished park and recreation commission to serve on the planning commission, which already is being done.
Council rejected Thursday a charter review commission recommendation to change the word “will” to “shall” when it comes to having the commission convene every four years.
“I’m a little bit disappointed they rejected it,” Travers said. “It’s one word, but it’s an important word.”
Council will meet Monday to discuss the three other proposals though several members expressed concern about them. A final decision on what goes on the Nov. 8 ballot will be made by council at its Aug. 17 meeting.
The three proposals would:
Require council members be a resident and elector of the ward from which he or she is elected for at least one year before the general election in which the person is a candidate. It allows candidates to be exempt from the proposal if their home is redistricted into another ward.
Require council to redistrict its wards when a U.S. Census shows a 7 percent difference in population between the largest and smallest ward.
Some council members took issue with the 7 percent difference. The existing language calls for redistricting when there is a “reasonable population change.”
Deletes the outdated requirement for city employees to live in the city, as state law already bans; and allows for resident provision for appointments to commissions to be waived by the mayor with approval of council.
McNally said the latter part isn’t needed. Councilman Mike Ray, D-4th, questioned if a charter amendment for the non-enforced residency requirement is needed as it’s already not enforceable.