June 12, 2003
Leonard Seeking To Give Neighborhoods Some Liquor Authority
Tuesday evening, at a public hearing intended to discuss proposed changes to City Code Chapter 3.96 (the contolling legal authority for the Office of Neighborhood Involvement), Commissioner Randy Leonard revealed that his office is working on an ordinance to give neighborhoods a type of increased authority over establishments serving liquor.
According to Leonard, the draft ordinance would give the City, through the Office of Neighborhood Involvement and the Police Bureau, authority to restrict the hours of liquor-bearing establishments, based upon complaints about neighborhood disruptions, such as those related to noise or unruly clientelle.
For example, under this ordinance, an establishment which receives repeated complaints of disruptions ocurring after 9:00 PM could have it's hours restricted -- if the establishment is normally open until 2:30 AM, they could be forced to close at 9:00 PM instead.
Currently, the ordinance is being vetted by the City Attorney. "The reason this is taking so long," Leonard explained, "is that we're writing it in a way that is Constitutional, in a way that respects due process."
Responding to someone present at the hearing, Leonard said that he believes the ordinance is being drafted in such a way that would prevent a single, vocal resident (say, someone with an ulterior motive against a business) from shutting down an establishment based solely on their own complaints. "Usually," the Commisioner said, "these places are known for behavior problems."
What they are working on right now, Leonard added, is the actual processes by which complaints will be registered, coming up with a number of tools, including perhaps some form of neighborhood-based log of complaints. "We're writing the rules that will deal with burden of proof."
In one possible scenario, the "nuisance abatement process" would be triggered by three nuisance violations within a 30-day period, and the business owner in question would be asked to enter into a nuisance abatement plan with the neighborhood.
It was stressed that this draft ordinance is intended to empower neighborhoods to respond to what is "a very, very small minority of liquor-licensed businesses."
While the careful vetting of the proposal's language makes it difficult to know just when it will become available, Leonard suggested at the hearing that it could be ready in the next couple of weeks, and a City Hall staffer familiar with the proposal indicated later that Leonard's office intends to go before the City Council with it by the beginning of August.
Comments (8)
JACK PEEK on 13 Jun 2003
Hey Randy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This proposal has merit, but where is the license procedures I asked for early in our conversation that would provide neighborhoods a sense of protection for the placement of dangerous high risk grouphomes that were vividly and in detail at your request explained to you.
Granted, we locked horns because I REFUSED to accept 6 more months of meetings when you had all you needed to do your first job of providing protection to the people of Portland.
Perhaps you need to research a state rep. in WASHINGTON who recently retired(IDA BALLISHOTES) from Mercer Island who had a daughter killed by such a client in a community placement.
From that came the "state of WASHINGTON COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT.
Do we wait?
Just because I REFUSED to allow another stall job, "been there done that" does not relieve you of the first job you have. .
The One True b!X on 13 Jun 2003
So you're beef with Leonard is that he didn't jump up and right away, without hesitation, institute a policy which would obviously require a public involvement process?
Whether you believe such a policy needs to be instituted or not, the last thing we want are Commissioners who act by fiat.
JACK PEEK on 14 Jun 2003
Sorry! BEEN TO TOO MANY POLICY DISCUSSIONS OVER TOO MANY YRS WITH TOO MANY ELECTEDS AND THEIR STAFF TO SIT THROUGH ANOTHER STALL TACTIC!
"TRUE" .......You look this ladies name up! You look at this law I mentioned! And before you defend the indefenseable.......this is a no brainer with the saturation of these places in neighborhoods.
I came along way from wanting them out to understanding there need to be there ,but that doesn't change the FACT......there is too much history all over the country that without oversight and accountability, their "bombs" waiting to go off!
The city was given reams of information on other states, counties, cities and what they had done.
And to an issue, it was after the fact, that someone was hurt,BEFORE idiots like RANDY AND VERA DID WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE......that being protection of neighborhoods that elected them.
The hell with 6 more months of meetings.There are to many of these places operating without laws to protect the neighborhoods their in.
So, get and idea why I WANT VERA RECALLED.........She promised me this would happen, then just dropped us after 5 yrs of meetings.
You defend this one.........you defend rapist, murderers, pedophiles, that have the freedoom to walk past grade schools with little kids in it each day. it is a done deal, and has been for sometime.
Dont give me crap about "it's not my issue!" YOU LIVE HERE, YOU SEEM TO CARE ABOUT LIVING HERE! So for once, do something!
The One True b!X on 14 Jun 2003
Picking issues is not "crap." Everything you see being covered on this site, by me, is being done on my own time, with no resources, and as money begins to trickle down to the point where I'll soon have to go back to "real" (meaning for-pay) work of some kind. So I focus on some issues and not on others, because at some point, I'll have significantly less time to focus on very many of them at all.
Jack, if it's that critical and some sort of imminent perpetual danger, then start your own damned site to rant about it. Because berating me, and accusing me of defending "rapist [sic], murderers, pedophiles" is simply an idiotic tactic if what you're trying to do is rally people to your never-ending cause.
Jack Peek on 14 Jun 2003
And that is just the problem... your very well written blog is and should be a leverage for positive change.
Your not some radical,ready to overthrow the goverment........you comment on these things because you seem to care!My point, is if you dont see what I HAVE RANTED ABOUT(and I have) Then we have a bigger problem!
People with your skills are needed, you can force change by your exposing an issue that really could hurt someone and make a positive difference.
If you can't see this, with the intelligence you show here......then God help us, because we have quit caring for each other as human beings.
What the hell am I ASKING FOR.. only that people are not hurt by a social engineering "test" run by people who really dont care if you and your family are impacted or not.
The One True b!X on 14 Jun 2003
And my point is, and has always been in this conversation, that (1) I have no one's word or opinion but yours to go on; and (2) everytime you send me information it's about some other state; and (3) because I have to choose my issues, I just don't have the time to go research this particular issue if I want to continue to pay attention to other things.
You may, of course, be entirely right. But I'm not going to drop everything else I'm doing in order to find out.
Everyone is free to make of that what they will.
JACK PEEK on 14 Jun 2003
This is a fair response, you have my email, if you have a different email you might want this reference mtl. sent too,be happy to send it to you.
REMEMBER.. you will see this entails not only violent mentally ill but the Sun.gonian will highlight possible early release of measure 11 types to community corrections/halfway houses...... that my friend will be the last mile to the first train wreck!
jack peek on 14 Jun 2003
"Your"comment about it's always the other states, and what they have done.
Of course it is.......nothing like the WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT has been done here.
The reason is we havent got two little girls killed by released nut cases.