Transcript
Automatically generated transcript. It may contain errors and includes testimony in languages other than English that is not individually marked up for assistive technology.
Unidentified speaker
Test, test, captions test.
Good afternoon.
I am calling to order this, the, the Wednesday, April 29th afternoon meeting of the Portland City Council.
Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Good afternoon.
Kanal?
Pirtle-Guiney?
Ryan?
Keelan McClymont
Koyama Lane?
Unidentified speaker
Morillo?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Novick.
Dan Ryan
Here.
Keelan McClymont
Clark.
Steve Novick
Here.
Unidentified speaker
Green.
Zimmerman.
Avalos.
Present.
Smith.
Here.
Lundby.
Here.
And can we please have the attorney read the rules of decorum?
Good afternoon.
Welcome to the Portland City Council.
To testify before council in person or virtually, you must sign up in advance on the council agenda at www.portland.gov/council/agenda.
Information on engaging with council can be found on the council clerk's webpage.
Individuals may testify for 3 minutes unless the presiding officer states otherwise.
Your microphone will be muted when your time is over.
The presiding officer preserves order.
Disruptive conduct such as shouting, refusing to conclude your testimony when your time is up, or interrupting others' testimony or council deliberations will not be allowed.
If you cause a disruption, a warning will be given.
Further disruption will result in ejection from the meeting.
Nancy Thorington
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Anyone who fails to leave once ejected is subject to arrest for trespass.
Additionally, council may take a short recess and reconvene virtually.
Your testimony should address the matter being considered.
When testifying, state your name for the record.
Your address is not necessary.
If you're a lobbyist, identify the organization you represent.
Virtual testifiers should unmute themselves when the council clerk calls your name.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, our first item is agenda approval.
Are there any requests to amend the agenda, to reorder items, or reschedule an item for a future meeting date?
Seeing no one, do I have unanimous consent to approve the agenda?
Lots of nods.
It looks like the agenda is approved.
Please move to public communications.
First item, public communications.
First up, we have Rebecca Wise Barton.
Welcome.
Oh, please feel free to introduce yourself.
You're welcome to share your pronouns, and you have 3 minutes.
Hi, my name is Rebecca Wise Barton.
So I know we are in budget world right now, but I just wanted to call attention back to something that's going on here.
So esteemed councilors, when was your last civics test?
I've got a pop quiz for you.
What was the name of the document that was the predecessor to and was used as the framework for our country's Oh, Councilor Smith, I think that's right.
The Articles of Confederation.
All right, extra credit.
How many amendments have been made to the US Constitution?
Uh, Councilor Green, right again, 27.
I'm here today to talk about this council's goal to amend City Code Chapter 3.02, or as I like to call it, Portland's Articles of Confederation.
Maybe a misnomer considering emergency ordinance number 19-2021 would technically be the equivalent of the original articles, but I wanted to make a joke and Councilor Novick says all jokes need context, so here we are.
Jokes aside, this new form of government— this is a new form of government.
Portlanders voted for this.
This council in this format represents the will of the people.
There's so much great success to be had.
This council's inability to amend Chapter 3.02 and the continuation of governance based on an emergency ordinance that is over a year old is a disappointment.
A disappointment, not a failure.
Okay, I'm gonna speak directly to my district councilors now, so the rest of you don't eavesdrop.
Councilors Kanal, Pirtle-Guiney, and Ryan.
You have got to work together to get this done.
Councilor Kanal, I know you want the language to be as precise as possible.
The word I just used just now, precise, I looked it up in a thesaurus with the prompt word clear.
So I'm gonna waste a little bit more of my precious allotted 3 minutes to drive home a point that has already been made clear.
You're voting no on a lot of proposed amendments.
The first time I gave testimony before this council, I told you I was in support of this item.
I just wanted to see it go through the democratic process.
I'm still in support of this item.
Please listen to and collaborate with your peers.
No ordinance is perfect, you know that.
But with the input from these 11 dedicated, passionate individuals, it could be quite good.
Thank you.
Better than the original proposal even.
Teach them, be the bridge between experience and passion and precision.
You've seen the way it used to work.
You have the opportunity to forge a new path towards the way it will work.
Councilors, this is just the beginning.
We don't know what the future holds, but just like 39 Americans before you who strove to more— to form a more perfect union, ordain and establish this Constitution of Portland.
Thank you.
Thank you so much for being here today.
Next up, we have Talia Giardini online.
Um, hi, my name is Talia Giardini.
Um, I'm here to testify on, um, absolutely opposing the TUF, um, as does 76% of those with writ that did written testimony.
This fee goes against the will of the voters.
It seems every week there's a new article or a tax or fee.
We shouldn't instead cut the overpaid bureaucrats that were supposed to be temporary middle managers.
It's insane that you want to charge more money and no sacrifice on your end or the nonprofits.
Clean up your house first and reform department spending before asking for more money.
If the TUF does pass, every single penny should go to maintenance and sidewalks, not Vision Zero.
Traffic fatalities have gone down recently, but it's dishonest to say it was due to Vision Zero, which was adopted in 2016, while traffic deaths continue to rise.
Thank you.
Despite millions spent, deaths only began trending down in 2023 when traffic and camping enforcement started, something we should be investing more in.
Maybe that 12.5% could go to police since no amount of road designs will stop drunk drivers or people from walking into the street high on drugs.
The last Vision Zero audit showed there's been zero studies to measure effectiveness on the streets where it was implemented.
The signage is confusing and inconsistent.
Which goes directly against the National Research Board on Traffic Safety recommendations, which conclude consistency and enforcement are key to reducing accidents and traffic deaths.
Most Portlanders would prefer the Vision Zero team be cut altogether instead of charging us more money that we can guarantee will go up yearly.
Another issue, issue with Vision Zero is it impedes emergency vehicles.
I'm a nurse and I travel all around town to see my patients.
I need safe roads and to know emergency will be there when I call.
Thank you.
PBOT argues Vision Zero doesn't impact emergency vehicles, but they're not the ones driving them or rushing to save lives.
They're bureaucrats, bureaucrats who rely on studies with a clear conflict of interest.
Every single minute counts in an emergency.
Why are we basing our roads around the Netherlands instead of what emergency teams tell us right here in Portland?
This very unpopular fee should not go to nice-to-haves for some and aggravating for others.
I don't remodel my kitchen when I'm broke.
Neither should you.
But instead, we get the same old excuses instead of addressing disorganization, overspending, and neglect.
Lastly, Councilor Avalos, I really liked what you said the other week, calling out that this is a tax and acknowledging how much your constituents are suffering.
Are you going to vote with them?
Are you going to vote with the block?
I strongly oppose this fee, and I'm even more opposed to any of that money going to Vision Zero.
We already pay enough and deserve Basic road maintenance, potholes filled, and sidewalks for our kids.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Joe Condon.
Hi there, my name is Joe Condon.
Thanks for the opportunity to appear today.
I'm here about the Portland Metro Levy System project and its impact on Heron Lakes Golf Course.
For nearly a year now, a map has been posted in the clubhouse at Heron Lakes showing that this project will significantly reduce the property footprint and require a redesign of the Great Blue Course.
Portland's best city golf course.
There has been no further communication of the city that I'm aware of, so I and other golfers who call Heron Lakes home are left to speculate.
Is the course downsizing?
Will the integrity of the design be preserved?
Will there be funding if a major redesign is necessary?
These are questions that I have as a golfer who enjoys Heron Lakes, and I hope the city will communicate more proactively as plans develop.
Emails to the Parks Department have not received a response.
Thank you.
As a resident of Portland, I also have larger questions about this project.
The levee along Columbia Slough was originally built to protect the residential community of Vanport.
After the Vanport flood, the golf course was built in its place.
The use of this area has changed, changed significantly since the levee was originally designed, and my understanding is that the city is funding 35% of the levee rebuild.
Why are we spending millions of dollars rebuilding a section of levee that now protects a golf course and a raceway?
Councilmember Smith, I think you're muted.
Golf courses handle flooding pretty well, as far as I know.
Would it not be better to focus our limited public funds on the upstream levees that protect major residential areas and Portland Airport?
I understand that it would be easy for a non-golfer to look at this project and say, hey, there are 2 courses at Heron Lakes, what's the big deal?
But these 2 courses are not equal.
Great Blue is a difficult championship-level course capable of hosting major events.
Greenback is a parkland course designed for beginners, comparable to other city courses.
The area of public impact shown on the map is the 2nd 9 of Great Blue, the stretch that makes that course interesting, challenging, and one of the best values for public golf in the state.
The only other courses at this level in the area are private country clubs that I can't afford.
It would be hard, if not impossible, to maintain that quality in a smaller footprint, and any meaningful loss in quality affects every golfer who relies on public facilities, including youth programs and school teams.
I'll close with an alternative vision for Heron Lakes.
The Pacific Northwest has not hosted a PGA-level men's tournament in 10 years, since the 2015 U.S. Open at Chambers Bay, a course built by the same designer as Great Blue.
Given its location on the I-5 corridor adjacent to the Expo Center and Raceway, with the length and difficulty required for high-level events, some investment could position Heron Lakes as a viable host for future professional tournaments.
I hope the council will find a way to preserve this community resource and improve public visibility of this project moving forward.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Mike Lazito.
Welcome.
My name is Michael Ozito.
I am a Portland early childhood educator.
I am here today because childcare is infrastructure.
Just like roads, transit, and housing, childcare is essential to keeping this city functioning.
When childcare is unstable, parents miss work, businesses lose employees, families fall behind, and educators leave the field.
I spent over a decade working in early childhood education, including Preschool for All funded classrooms here in Multnomah County and Portland.
I support Preschool for All.
I believe in the vision of making childcare accessible and affordable for families.
But access alone is not enough.
A childcare system is only as strong as the workforce holding it together.
Across multiple preschool programs, I have seen a pattern of experienced educators taking on increasing responsibilities without fair wages, without the respect this work deserves, and sometimes without safe and sustainable working conditions.
Councilmember Teachers deserve fair pay.
Teachers deserve respect.
Teachers deserve safe workplaces.
And families deserve consistency and quality care.
Public funds are flowing into Portland businesses through childcare programs and public investment.
The city may not directly oversee these programs, but the city does have a role in protecting working families and supporting a stable childcare workforce.
I urge the city to formally advocate for stronger oversight and accountability in publicly funded childcare programs operating in Portland.
Thank you.
And I urge the city to convene educators, providers, and families to examine workforce conditions, wage transparency, and solutions to stabilize the childcare workforce.
Because when teachers are underpaid, overworked, and undersupported, they leave.
When teachers leave, classrooms become unstable.
And when classrooms become unstable, working families and employers across Portland feel the impact.
Childcare is not just a family issue.
Thank you.
It is a workforce issue, it is an economic issue, and it is infrastructure.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much.
Next up we have Gavin Gentry.
Look here.
Okay.
Welcome.
Hello.
Thank you for being patient with me while I came down the stairs.
Hello, my name is Gavin.
I am with NextUp.
We are here to empower young people to make sure their voices are heard in government and make sure that their interests are represented.
I wanted to begin by expressing my gratitude towards all the councilors for passing the resolution to accelerate the Inner Eastside planning project.
Thank you.
I'm also here to express some concern for the amendment Councilor Ryan passed.
Anytime we are making impactful changes, we are asked to balance thoroughness with speed.
Councilor Ryan's amendment widens the scope of the report, choosing to be more thorough at a time where we should be prioritizing urgency.
The intention of this resolution was to find a strategy to deliver housing to Portlanders as quickly as possible.
There is already a beautiful report put together by 3 bureaus going over some of the metrics They use to determine whether an area would be appropriate for rezoning.
Determining methodology and metrics the city will use to evaluate affordability, displacement risk, and equity impacts is something that could have been done later in the process after community engagement.
Oh, sorry, I'm a little winded.
Or after new zoning codes have been proposed.
Creating a report that drills down on creating a faster timeline would've been better aligned with the urgency Portlanders deserve.
Thank you.
Young people are not purchasing homes.
The median age of homebuyers is now 40.
Frequently, we are living in higher-density apartment complexes that cannot currently be built in the areas most ready to support them.
We want to live in walkable areas where we can shop, talk to our neighbors, work, and live.
Zoning that supports that vision would bring in young people ready to start businesses and innovate.
Councilors, as we move forward in evaluating what zoning codes would best serve Portlanders, current and yet to be, I request we act more on the side of urgency and less on the side of being thorough.
Councilor Ryan, I am very glad that you are working on this effort.
I'm confident that you will deliver appropriate KPIs and a well-thought-out proposal.
Just be aware, future Portlanders, the young people who will serve Portland, save Portland from this economic crisis with their skills and tax dollars, need places to live sooner rather than later.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Keelan McClymont
That completes communications.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you very much.
Thanks to everybody who came and testified.
Colleagues, next item on our agenda is the council president update.
This week is National Youth Violence Prevention Week.
Mayor Wilson issued a proclamation recognizing this, and the Community and Public Safety Service Area has asked me if I could read that proclamation from the dais.
As a dad and a former youth violence prevention educator in the David Douglas School District, I'm honored to do so.
So with the thanks to Mayor Wilson, the National Youth Violence Prevention Week Proclamation.
Whereas youth violence is a pressing issue that affects individuals, families, and communities, posing significant challenges to the health, safety, and well-being of our young people, and whereas National Youth Violence Prevention Week, observed from April 27th to May 2nd, serves as a critical opportunity to raise awareness, foster community engagement, and promote proactive solutions to prevent violence among youth.
And whereas the City of Portland is committed to creating safe and supportive environments for young people by addressing the root causes of violence and investing in programs that promote education, mentorship, mental health support, and positive youth development.
And whereas preventing youth violence requires a collaborative effort from all sectors of society, including families, educators, law enforcement, community leaders, and youth themselves, to foster a culture of nonviolence, respect, and mutual support.
And whereas the City of Portland encourages all residents to participate in National Youth Violence Prevention Week by supporting local initiatives, engaging with youth, and advocating for policies and resources that promote their safety and well-being.
Now therefore, Keith Wilson, the mayor of the City of Portland, Oregon, the City of Roses, does hereby proclaim April 7th through May 2nd, 2026, to be National Violence Prevention Week in Portland and urges all residents, organizations, and stakeholders to work together in building a safer now we're going to turn over to our city administrator, city, uh, Raymond Lee, to see if there's any updates regarding federal interventions in our city.
Just a reminder for council, uh, on the update I gave a few weeks ago, after appealing the city's decision to the city code hearings officer, The hearings officer dismissed the appeal at the building owner's request.
The building owner then asked the hearing officer to reconsider the dismissal, which the hearing officer granted.
A hearing on the merits of the appeal is still scheduled for May 5th.
While appeals process are ongoing, it is standard practice within the permitting bureau to pause timelines for corrective actions or fees.
Also, under the detention facility fee update, the detention Center Impact Fee Working Group is steady making progress and will be reviewing internal draft of the permanent rule this week.
PP&D is on target to have the permanent rule out for public comment by the end of May.
Thank you.
Thank you, City Administrator.
Can we please call item number 4?
Item number 4 is the consent agenda.
No items have been pulled from the consent agenda.
I'll call the roll.
Sameer Kanal
Sorry, consent agenda?
Unidentified speaker
Consent, yep.
Uh, aye.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
Aye.
The consent agenda is approved with a vote of 12 ayes.
Thank you.
Please call item number 5.
Item 5, document 2026-113, establish a new transportation utility fee to help fund basic maintenance and safety of the city's transportation system, add code chapter 17.20.
Colleagues, this is the second reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
Is there any further discussion?
Seeing no one in the queue, Keelan, can we please call the roll?
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Olivia Clark
No.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Novick?
I am so proud of this council for taking a— an act that has been vitally needed for the past 40 years.
Aye.
Aye.
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Smith.
Loretta Smith
No.
Unidentified speaker
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The ordinance passes with a vote of 9 ayes and 3 nos.
Congratulations, everybody.
Could we please move— call item number 6?
Item 6, document 2026-148.
Ratify a collective bargaining agreement with American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees Local 189 for represented employees within the Auditor's Office for 2025 through 2028.
Colleagues, this is the first reading of an emergency ordinance.
We have with us Sarah Daly, labor relations analyst, and our very own elected City Auditor, Simone Rennie.
Take it away.
Go ahead.
Oh, I'm introducing.
Okay, well, thank you, President Dunphy.
Good afternoon, councilors and fellow Portlanders.
My name is Simone Reddy and I'm Portland City Auditor.
As your elected auditor, I am dedicated to ensuring an open and accountable city government.
While my office is administratively independent, our labor agreement a contract involves the commitment of city funds across multiple fiscal years, which only City Council has the authority to make and relies in part on the Bureau of Human Resources to implement.
So because of these ties, we defined roles and responsibilities for negotiating this contract, as well as the first one, through an interagency agreement with the Bureau of Human Resources.
Keelan McClymont
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
I really appreciate council's consideration of our successor agreement today.
After nearly a year of bargaining, we have drafted a contract that balances the needs of the auditor's office, the city, and auditor's office employees.
The contract outlines employment terms and conditions for 30 represented employees in my office, folks who are in positions that deliver high-quality public services across archives, audit services, council clerk, elections, hearings, and ombudsman.
This contract ensures people are paid fairly and provides them with new protections so that they can stay in those positions for years to come.
Retention of employees in my office helps us serve the public more reliably, which increases trust.
This successor contract, like our first, reflects my office's and the city's core values of transparency, equity, and fiscal responsibility, and continues to respect the independence of the Auditor's Office.
I want to thank AFSCME Local 189 and their bargaining team members Mindan, Mason, Riva, and chief negotiator Carly Edwards.
I appreciate their direct communication about the priorities of their members and their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue.
I also want to thank Bureau of Human Resources, especially Labor Relations team members Kelly Hess and Sarah Daly, for their leadership and professionalism.
And finally, I want to thank my executive team, in particular Chief Deputy Reed Brodersen, who worked closely with Human Resources and sat on our bargaining councillors, I want to thank you again for your consideration.
And with that, I will pass it to Sarah to highlight the details of the agreement.
Thank you, Auditor Reddy.
I do have a slide that I can see, but I'm not sure if you can.
Okay, great.
So this is a basic outline of what was agreed to with the AFSCME team, which I would like to echo the thanks to the AFSCME team who was a great table partner and we were able to reach a negotiated settlement.
So the duration of the contract is from July of last year to the end of 2028, and some of the highlights of the agreement are COLA based on CPI for each year of the CBA, including the 2025 COLA, 1% across the board increases for each year of the contract.
A one-time lump payment of $3,000 that will be coming out of the existing auditor's budget, and so will not have an impact to other funds.
Seniority-based bumping rights, those will be effective in 2027 to allow the auditor's office some time to format what that change will look like for future years.
A 2% longevity premium, as well as a 1% archive stacks premium for the 2 employees that work in the physical archive stacks.
Also, a portion of their professional development fund, which already exists, will be held aside for the purposes of travel to trainings for individuals' professional development.
And then there's also language about the creation of a VIBA for the AFSCME auditors group Uh, that we're eager to get started on.
Um, as far as the total cost for a 3.5-year agreement, there is $1.1 million in budgeted funds, um, for COLA.
There is $145,000 in additional spending that's coming out of the auditor's budget, and then, um, $537,000 in ongoing costs.
And that is the end.
So if there are any questions—.
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, are there any technical or clarifying questions?
Do we have anybody signed up to testify?
We have 2 people signed up.
Okay, first up we have Minden Vuong.
Good afternoon, Councilors, Auditor Reddy, staff.
My name is Mindan Vuong.
I'm an employee of the Auditor's Office, and I'm speaking to you today as a member leader with AFSCME Local 189, representing 30 employees, public servants in the Auditor's Office.
Your vote on this item today will cap off 12 months of bargaining a labor agreement.
My members went into this bargaining seeking fair wages, Layoff protections, and work location guarantees.
My members have spoken up about what is important to them and have been extraordinarily patient throughout this process.
Bargaining means finding common ground between the union and the employer, and we have scaled back many of our initial demands in the interest of achieving long-term security on wages and working conditions.
Of course, the employer side also made some movements, so the agreement before you today is the best mutually agreeable deal between the union and the city.
We bargained especially hard over economics, of course, recognizing the city's fiscal condition.
As you are digesting the mayor's proposed budget, you will see that the budget cuts 2 positions of AFSCME-represented employees in the auditor's office.
My 2 members have already received the layoff notices, and that has turned their world upside down.
Councilor Sameer Kanal.
If you allow these layoffs to go through, you will be kicking skilled employees to the curb.
And if you allow these layoffs to go through, you will have allowed the executive branch to cut the budget of another branch of government that is supposed to hold the executive branch accountable.
We are all hearing, I believe you as well, more calls from community members for more accountability from our City of Portland government.
You have the power with the budget to decide the fate of my members, and I'm asking you respectfully to fully fund the labor agreement, restore our 2 positions, and thereby support accountability and transparency as our community demands.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have Asis Patel.
Okay, I see you signed up for the wrong one.
Do you want to come— can you come down and like, yeah, sign up for the right one?
Um, Okay.
Keelan McClymont
Okay.
All righty.
Unidentified speaker
All right, I got it.
Thanks.
That's good.
Thank you.
Keelan McClymont
That completes testimony.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, colleagues, is there any council discussion of this item?
See— oh, Councilor Knoll.
Yeah, I just want to note before we vote on this that we will be having a, I'm sure, spirited conversation around the item that was mentioned in, in testimony around the budget of the Auditor's Office in general, and I don't want the fact that we're not talking about it here to be conveyed to anybody as we're ignoring it.
It's just not particularly relevant to this exact item right now.
I just wanted to acknowledge that.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Okay, colleagues, this is a first reading of an emergency ordinance.
Requires 9 votes to pass.
Can we please call the roll?
Kanal.
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Koyama Lane.
Uh, Councilor Koyama Lane?
Uh, absent.
Morillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Clark?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Avilos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The ordinance passes with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 absent.
Thank you very much.
Can we please move to item number 7?
Item 7, document 2026-149, add code to prohibit the sale or provision of certain force-fed poultry products, add code chapter 17.110.
Colleagues, this is the first reading of a non-emergency ordinance.
I'm going to turn it over to thank you, Mr.
Council President.
I'll keep my initial sponsor remarks brief because I note that we have 75 people signed up for testimony and this has been allotted 80 minutes.
I just want to briefly say why I think we should do this at this time.
I think that we should adopt this ordinance to ban the sale of force-feeding for certain poultry products because it's the right thing to do.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Force-feeding animals is cruel.
And while I recognize it doesn't end all animal cruelty, it does limit some.
And we should always strive to take some— take measures that are simple and clear to limit harms under our purview.
That's what government's for.
That's what governments at all levels should be trying to do at this time.
So at this moment, I'm going to call forward the panel that's going to talk a little bit about how we developed this policy, unless— I have 3 other co-sponsors.
And, you know, if you guys want to take a minute to—.
I think we should take a minute.
Okay, great.
Um, uh, so at the dais I see Sam with Pro Animal Futures.
Uh, why don't you take us away?
Thanks, Councilor Green.
Good afternoon, my name is Sam Schillinger.
I'm a Portland District 3 resident and the campaign director for Pro Animal Oregon.
Pro Animal Oregon is a movement of volunteers, voters, and donors organizing politically to move Oregon towards a future beyond factory farming.
You have the opportunity to advance legislation that will put Portland on the map as a trailblazer in responsible food, prohibiting the sale of force-fed foie gras.
I want to warn you, there are some graphic images in this presentation that may be difficult to look at.
So what exactly is foie gras?
French for fatty liver, it's the diseased liver of a duck who's been force-fed until their liver swells up to 10 times its normal size.
Marketed as a luxury product at French and upscale restaurants, the hefty price tag reflects the extreme costs of keeping a diseased animal alive.
Why should Portland prohibit the sale of force-fed foie gras?
Ducks raised for foie gras are force-fed 2 to 3 times a day for nearly 2 weeks.
Force-feeding meant to induce liver disease is an extreme form of animal cruelty that doesn't align with Portland's values.
This narrow and focused policy sets Portland apart as a leader in humane food systems.
This bill has broad public support from local business, as 58 Portland restaurants have endorsed it.
In addition to local business support, 32 veterinary professionals have formally endorsed this ordinance, showing this legislation reflects the most current scientific understanding of avian welfare and veterinary standards.
While this policy would set a bold precedent, Portland wouldn't be the first to do it.
The entire state of California banned the sale and production of foie gras.
The sale of foie gras has also been banned in New York City, Pittsburgh, and Brookline, Massachusetts.
These have consistently been upheld.
Several major retailers, including Target, Costco, Whole Foods, and IKEA, have also stopped selling foie gras.
Finally, there's an international legal and ethical trend, as at least 27 countries have banned or phased out foie gras sales, production, or import.
The proposed ordinance prohibits the commercial sale or provision of force-fed poultry products.
This applies to restaurants, retailers, and food services, but does not restrict personal possession, consumption, online sales, or non-force-fed liver.
It's a narrow, focused policy meant to keep products made from force-feeding out of the Portland marketplace.
On top of the standard 30-day implementation period following adoption, we propose an additional 60-day transition period.
To encourage compliance, violators will get a written notice with clear guidance and time to come into compliance before being fined.
Prohibiting foie gras sales would result in no economic harm.
This is because less than 1% of Portland businesses actually sell foie gras in an almost exclusively high-end fine dining context.
We searched local menus to see who this would affect Currently, only 7 restaurants and 1 retailer are selling it.
However, we found 16 restaurants and 2 retailers that have offered foie gras over the past year.
Because it's a seasonal item that often rotates on and off menus, and some places have stopped serving it, we looked at a full year of data to provide the most honest picture of the local marketplace.
This number still represents a fraction of a percent of the 2,500+ food businesses in Portland.
Even so, every serving represents an individual bird subjected to multiple forced feedings a day for many days of their life.
For those businesses who do sell it, it's an insignificant source of revenue, a single niche product that can easily be replaced with a more local, ethical, and sustainable alternative.
As proof of concept of the negligible economic impact, 7 Portland businesses have begun phasing out foie gras with no reported loss in revenue, customer traffic, or jobs.
This shows that a seamless transition away from foie gras is not only feasible for local businesses, but that a local prohibition reinforces an already existing trend.
Many chefs routinely adapt menus.
A recent study from the Colorado State University Animal-Human Policy Center shows that Portlanders overwhelmingly support prohibiting the sale of foie gras.
Among the 250 Portlanders surveyed, weighted results show that 84% support banning the sale of foie gras where force-feeding was used.
This data shows that prohibiting force-fed products in Portland is a market-driven policy that aligns community values and consumer demand.
Force-feeding causes liver disease that results in pre-slaughter mortality rates 9 to 19 times higher than 9 force-fed birds.
This harm is not incidental.
It's the point.
Liver disease is required to create a marketable product.
On the right is a healthy liver, and on the left is a diseased liver of a bird who's been force-fed.
There is no U.S. commercial supply of non-force-fed foie gras.
The photo here was taken from Hudson Valley Foie Gras, where they have a permit to confine up to 100,000 ducks at a time.
This is consistent with what the EPA defines as a large concentrated animal feeding operation, otherwise known as a factory farm.
What's more, by legal definition in the U.S., foie gras must meet a minimum liver weight that's only achievable through forced feeding.
On February 19th, an independent photojournalist went to Hudson Valley Foie Gras where this footage was taken.
Hudson Valley is the largest foie gras factory farm in the country and the primary supplier for Portland businesses.
This footage was captured during a publicly available tour, meaning these conditions aren't a hidden side of the industry.
They represent the best-case scenario that the industry is comfortable showing the public.
They found ducks confined in pens on metal grates covered in their own waste.
Workers were documented using thick, foot-long metal tubes to force-feed the birds, dragging them across the pen to position them for feeding.
Foie gras is destructive to the environment because production is incredibly resource-intensive, and wasteful.
Extreme overfeeding leads to highly concentrated runoff, which has resulted in over 1,100 violations of the Clean Water Act.
Foie gras also poses a serious threat to public health due to the risk of spreading animal-to-human disease, namely bird flu.
Keep in mind, we're talking about diseased liver.
It's often served raw or only partially cooked.
Portland is ready to end force-feeding.
There are no factory farms within city limits, and industrial animal agriculture is primarily regulated at the state and federal levels.
A foie gras sales ban addresses what the city can regulate: the sale of an inherently cruel product.
Portland already regulates what can be sold locally based on ethical, environmental, and public health concerns.
For example, we passed a phased ban on leaf blowers this year to reduce pollution and improve public health.
Prohibiting the sale of force-fed foie gras is a values-based, market-driven consumer protection policy.
It upholds Portland's reputation as a leader in responsible food.
There's no reason we can't pass narrow-focused policy like this while continuing to address important larger issues such as housing affordability and mental health.
With that, I urge you to vote yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much for the presentation.
Thank, thank you, Sam.
And I think we're going to hear briefly from Hannah Truxell at the Human League, which is going to talk through some, I think, some of the finer details of the what the, what the ordinance does.
Okay.
Hi, thanks so much for having me.
Council President Dunphy and members of the City Council, uh, good afternoon.
My name is Hannah Truxell and I'm the Senior Policy Counsel at the Humane League.
My team and I have been supporting Pro-Animal Oregon and Councilman Green's office on this proposal.
I'm here today to discuss how this proposal would work in practice through effective thank you.
This ordinance was intentionally designed to be straightforward and low impact to administer.
First, enforcement is complaint-based, meaning the city is not required to proactively inspect businesses but will respond only to complaints of violations.
Second, outreach is already being conducted with affected businesses.
With a 90-day transition period after passage, impacted businesses will have ample time to use existing inventory, update menus, and come into compliance.
Third, and importantly, implementation does not require new city funding or additional staff.
Current conversations with local agencies under the Community and Economic Development Service Area are proving that enforcement of this proposal fits within existing enforcement frameworks, including discussions around an intergovernmental agreement with Multnomah County's Office of Environmental Health.
And finally, this ordinance emphasizes education first, with compliance as the goal.
Violators of the ordinance will be first given a written warning and an opportunity to correct any violation before penalties apply.
Thank you.
Ensuring a fair and predictable implementation process.
Pro-Animal Oregon is prepared to support the city post-passage by assisting with outreach, guidance materials, and direct business education.
Overall, this policy is practical, easy to implement, and aligns with Portland's values regarding humane treatment of animals and sustainable food systems.
We urge you to support this measured and effective proposal.
Second.
Thank you so much.
Okay, colleagues, uh, couple of process notes for everybody.
There are— first of all, Keelan, how many people are signed up to testify on this?
Uh, we have at this time 81.
Okay, so there are 81 people signed up to testify.
Um, this item took a bit of a, a, uh, Thank you.
This is a bit of an odd path to get to council.
This actually was heard in the former Arts and Economy Committee where it did not receive support but was put on our schedule by letters of— 4 release letters from councilors.
Because this was also a bit of an odd process, I'm also going to be making an extraordinary choice here.
I'm going to be limiting testimony to only 80 minutes.
We worked on this with with the, with the sponsors.
So folks who are going to testify, if you agree with the previous testimony and your testimony is very, very similar, ditto is a great way to just have it, however that might be.
Before we dive into that, are there any technical or clarifying questions from colleagues?
And then also there are 3 invited testimony that I'll call before we move to public testimony.
So, okay.
Thank you, Mayor.
Can we please also hear, uh, as requested by Councilor Green, we have Amber Canavan, a former investigator from PETA, Ryan Koger, a chef from Feral, and Anna Lavallee— I'm certain I screwed that up, I apologize— an organizer with Direct Action Everywhere.
This is invited testimony?
This is an invited, yes.
Yeah.
Whoever wants to start us, go ahead.
Yeah.
Thank you, Council.
My name is Amber Canavan.
I'm a resident of District 3.
I'm also here on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and our over 20,000 members and supporters in the Portland area.
I'm also here as a former cruelty investigator who witnessed firsthand the suffering that ducks I would like to share what I saw and also state that a recent investigation released by Pro-Animal Future confirms that the conditions that these ducks are forced to live in and what is done to them during the violent force-feeding process appear to remain unchanged in any meaningful way since I last visited.
Council member what I saw and discovered was that birds were and still are being kept in wire-bottom pens suspended over a river of their own waste.
The skin and feathers of many of the ducks were and still are crusted from feces from the filthy conditions they're forced to live in.
Many of the ducks had and still have difficulty walking and breathing because of their huge engorged livers.
There is a reason that foie gras is banned by so many companies and governments in the United States and around the world, including just yesterday Brazil voted to ban foie gras.
Portland needs to catch up and do its part by passing this foie gras ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, members of committee.
My name is Anna Lavallee.
I live in District 4, and I'm an organizer with Portland chapter, uh, Direct Action Everywhere, which is an animal rights organization that fights for the total liberation of all animals.
I'm going to keep it simple and ask a question: how can you create change and make a more positive world?
Thank you.
For us at the Portland chapter of Direct Action Everywhere, that means every single week we stand outside restaurants that serve foie gras to show our opposition to this abject cruelty.
Nearly every person that I have stopped and had a conversation with falls into 2 categories of conversation.
They either say, what is foie gras?
Or once I explain what foie gras is, They grimace and look at the restaurant with disdain because it is abject cruelty.
Members of our group and other grassroots animal rights organizations have worked for years to act upon that truth that many people in Portland know to be true.
These years of collective effort have made indelible change.
The current series of protests that Direct Action Everywhere Portland has done has been going on for a little bit less than a year, and even so, 7 restaurants have dropped foie gras, and multiple others are in dialogue with us about doing so right now.
Despite this change, foie gras still has a presence in Portland, and as long as it does, Direct Action Everywhere Portland will continue to show up and speak the truth.
This committee, on the other hand, has power to make a different change than we make, one that aligns with Portland's values of compassion for animals.
Protesting a restaurant may remove it from one menu, but all of you here have the choice to remove it from every single menu in Portland, and that is a large change that you can make.
While this might affect independent business owners, foie gras is not a sole item that sustains any of their menus, nor will it ever be at any restaurant.
And I would argue that it's always worth facing temporary discomfort if it means that you can live in a more kind and compassionate world that aligns with your values.
So let Portland stand and lead in the way of showing compassion for animals, because when historians look back upon the decision made in this room right now, we want to know that the change you made made a more kind and compassionate world.
So please vote yes on this ordinance to ban foie gras.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Do we have Ryan Koger here?
Hi, my name is Ryan Koger.
I'm the chef Owner of Feral in Northeast Portland.
Uh, I support this ban.
Uh, we're a 100% vegan restaurant.
We don't serve any animal products.
Um, we're able to produce rich, delicious pâtés, steaks, roasts, um, using little more than mushrooms, uh, some ferments, um, processed kale, vegetables, um, Early in my career, I was working in restaurants in Cincinnati, Ohio that had pretty extensive butchery and charcuterie programs.
I was a vegan butcher, and as a vegan butcher, my chefs were always trying to justify to me their use of animal products.
And their kind of bottom line was, at least I would never touch foie gras.
Um, they had creative ways of utilizing other animal organ meat, um, offal, and, uh, other animal liver, um, non-force-fed duck liver to emulate the same flavors and textures.
Um, This was 15 years ago.
There's no reason for restaurants to still be using this ingredient.
It's archaic.
It's cruel.
Any chef claiming the success of their restaurant depends on any single product is not only being melodramatic and sensational, they're just a bad chef as far as I'm concerned.
If this isn't a new, a new thing, banning unethical foods, um, if it was, then we would still be serving horse meat, shark fins, turtle soup.
Um, we're not banning books.
This is a group of people trying to do the right thing and, um, stop this incredibly inhumane practice from happening.
Um, it's completely, yeah, inhumane to force-feed an animal to death no matter what.
Morbidly so for a luxury food item that can be easily substituted, as I stated before.
Um, and yeah, my hope today is that as chefs, purveyors, Portlanders, uh, council members, politicians That we're leading the way to protect our humanity in a time that seems pretty ethically bankrupt.
Um, yeah, that's all I really have to say.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay, so because there are so many folks, we are reducing— unfortunately have to reduce the number of— the amount of testimony to 90 seconds apiece.
Uh, Keelan, can you please call up our first panel of testifiers?
And thank you both of thank you.
Before I call the first names, when your name is called, you can come to the testimony table.
Once seated, state your name for the record and begin your testimony.
You'll see the timer displayed on the monitor in front of you.
The timer will sound when you have 30 seconds remaining and again when your time has expired.
And then, yeah, okay, thanks.
I'm gonna call you up in groups of 5.
Thank you.
Okay, first up we have Eva Hamer, Andrew Fortgang, Brave Roberson, Kurt Huffman, Adrian Tortolo.
Welcome, folks.
Introduce yourself for the record in 90 seconds.
Good afternoon, my name is Eva Hamer, resident in District 3, executive director of Pro Animal Oregon.
You may hear today that foie gras is humane or that it should be judged by the best farms and not the worst.
But foie gras production depends on force-feeding ducks until they develop fatty liver disease.
It's not a side effect.
It's not an accident.
It happens just sometimes.
Foie gras is fatty liver disease.
Folks in opposition might say that besides the force-feeding, these farms are actually very nice.
And we are talking about the same farms.
They won't remind you that ducks are built to swim.
Thank you.
And this is one of the natural behaviors that they're denied in the factory farms that produce foie gras.
I'm talking about painful deformities in the legs and sores on the feet caused by too much pressure on weak legs that never get relief from the water.
You might hear that Portland has bigger issues to address, but this ordinance is simple and narrow, and passing this now will be much more efficient than by ballot initiative later.
Thank you.
Finally, you might wish that this ordinance did more to help other animals who suffer in factory farms, like chickens used for meat.
I agree that other animals also need protection, and I look forward to working with you on that.
But some cruelty is not a reason to allow other cruelty to continue.
This is a narrow, practical step against a uniquely indefensible product.
I urge you to vote yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Hello, my name is Andrew Fortgang.
I'm a resident of District 4 and co-owner of Le Pigeon and Canard restaurants in District 3.
The proposed ordinance and supporting documents presented with it are not representative of the foie gras that is actually sold in Portland, which comes from 2 family-owned organic farms in upstate New York.
La Belle Farm is where the foie gras we use comes from, as well as the majority of the foie gras served in Portland, is owned by Salvadoran immigrants.
It is a 40-acre vertically integrated farm, meaning they grow their own corn and soy for feed, and the manure is redistributed to their fields as well as their neighbors for fertilizer.
The ducks are kept in well-ventilated, climate-controlled barns where they have plenty of space to roam within those barns, never in cages.
Not only is the liver used, all of the duck is used and sold.
None goes to waste.
This is exactly the type of farming we should be encouraging.
The supplemental materials used used as the basis for this proposal include, include the false claim that birds raised for foie gras in the United States are under intensive confinement, in many cases hundreds of thousands at a time.
That is simply impossible based on the actual numbers.
Label raises 180 ducks a year.
350 Are grown throughout the United States versus 9 billion chickens.
But that industry is too big to go after.
Proponents of this ban want to have it both ways.
Foie gras is a large factory farming hurting, damaging the environment, but also a small niche luxury product.
It can't be both.
Responsible lawmaking does not ignore all of these contradictions when it considers taking away the citizenry's choice, something that is not to be taken lightly.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much for being here.
Good afternoon.
My name is Adrian Turtolo.
I'm a District 4 resident, and I support the fog raw ban.
I've been following the range of work Councilor Green has been advancing.
Programs like Keep Portland Housed, planning efforts like Inner Eastside for All, and current policy work such as the transportation utility fee and the street damage restoration fee.
That's housing stability, long-term development, and infrastructure funding all moving forward at the same time.
Thank you.
This ordinance is a clear and focused decision within that broader framework.
It addresses a specific practice causing extreme animal suffering, and it does so in a way that aligns with Portland's values.
It fits within the larger picture.
It doesn't take away from it.
Please vote yes on the foie gras sales ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Councilor Dunphy and fellow councilors, my name is Kurt Huffman.
I own a company called Chef Stable.
And since 2008, we've opened over 100 restaurants here in Portland with the mission of giving chefs the opportunity to own their own restaurants.
I'm not here today to debate foie gras.
I'm here to call out a process that should alarm anyone who cares about how this city governs.
2 Days ago, in a conversation with Councilor Novick, I learned this proposal has been in development for nearly a year.
A year.
And during that entire time, neither Councilor Green nor Councilor Dunphy made any meaningful effort to engage the industry this policy would impact.
My company operates more than 30 restaurants here in Portland.
I sit on the board of the Oregon Restaurant Lodging Association.
I'm the current chairman of the Board of Travel Portland.
Collectively, those organizations represent a huge share of the city's hospitality economy.
And not one call until just prior to the Arts and Economy hearing several weeks ago Not one meeting, not one attempt at serious dialogue.
Instead, the only engagement we've seen came from the proponents of this ban targeting our restaurant, St. Jack, reserving a table, waiting for the dining room to fill, and then standing up to shout invectives at staff and guests.
That's not public process.
That's intimidation.
And it filled the vacuum left by a complete absence of leadership.
Councilmember let's be clear about what's happening here.
And I'm going to run out of time, but I'll just say that it's deplorable how this has come to a vote without engaging an industry like ours that has done more for the city's reputation and tourism than any other industry by tenfold.
So it's just regrettable.
Thank you.
Thank you all.
Brave is joining us online.
Hello, Council.
My name is Brave.
I'm from District 3, and Portland's future is of compassion and justice, and this foie gras ban would further represent what we all would want to see in our world, and I greatly support those ban.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have Adriana Voss-Andrie, Annalise Day, Nicole Corrado, Juliet Dunn, Naomi McKusick.
Welcome folks, come on up.
Introduce yourself for the record.
Feel free to share your pronouns and you have 90 seconds.
My name is Juliet Dunn.
I'm from District 4 and I am supporting the foie gras ban.
When I have had personal exchange— I have had a personal exchange with a chef who formerly served foie gras.
I have also had conversations with other ones and I find that what they believe believe in private is very different from what they say in public.
I had a conversation with the chef who sent me footage of LaBelle, and when I pointed out the very clear welfare issues, he said he agrees, but unfortunately, due to the nature of force-feeding, there can't be any higher welfare provided.
The ducks have to be confined in pens to force-feed them.
They will never swim.
That's just how it is.
And I would say that that is proof enough that if best of the industry cannot provide a semblance of a happy life for these animals, then why should it exist?
Keelan McClymont
Ban foie gras.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Naomi McKusick.
I'm a resident of District 4, and I fully support this ban, and I'm going to share a little personal story with you.
So I recently lost my aunt to a very long battle with breast cancer, and during the end of her life, Her tumors metastasized and spread to her liver, which caused it to massively expand.
I witnessed firsthand how much torture this was to her.
She was constantly bloated, she could barely move, and she had no appetite.
And because of this, she had to be forcefully tube-fed, which she did not want.
And it was one of the biggest factors in making the end of her life so miserable.
Now I want you to imagine that, but without the freedom and familial support a cancer patient receives.
This is what happens to thousands of ducks daily in the foie gras industry.
Thank you.
Ducks are deeply intelligent creatures and they experience and conceptualize pain just like us.
Banning foie gras in Portland ensures that another chunk can be taken out of an industry that tortures these beautiful birds.
And that's why I support this ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Adriana Vos-Andre.
I'm a voter in District 3 and also have a small business in District 4.
I just want to express That I urge you to listen to your constituents, listen to the preponderance of people who are constituents, not only who showed up today, but also who represented in the poll.
And we know the vast majority of your constituents want this ban to happen.
So I urge you to vote yes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Calling Annalise Day.
Nicole Corrado.
Hillary Tifer.
Gabriel Rucker.
Sean Rice.
Connor Rucker.
Alderman Ordel.
Welcome, folks.
Come on up.
Introduce yourself for the record.
Hi, I'm Gabriel Rucker.
I'm the chef-owner of Le Pigeon here in Portland, Oregon.
Thank you for my time.
When I think of Portland, I don't think of it as my city.
I think of it as our city.
When I think about Portland, I don't think about what's wrong with it, but I think about what is right with it and what do we have going for ourselves.
How can we be better?
Our restaurants are the lifeblood of the city, the city that makes the heart beat.
When people are in need, we feed them.
We organize fundraisers.
When our schools can't get enough funding, we donate our own funds.
Order.
Funds that we barely have any excess of.
People come to Portland to eat.
People come for our restaurants.
They spend money on shopping, hotels.
They come for my foie gras profiteroles.
I can't think of any time that someone has not come to visit Portland because a restaurant serves foie gras.
I think that we are missing the forest for the trees here, and that going after us and the farms that produce foie gras is performative at best.
It doesn't tackle the real issues around food that we face.
I also think that we all share a lot more in common in this room than we have differences.
We want what is good for our city, the people that live here, and the planet.
I propose that instead of making laws that tell people what they can eat, we put our differences aside and figure out how to educate people on what is good to eat for their health and for our Mother Earth.
Let's not just be the city that works, but the city that works together.
Let's pay—.
Make Portland look good, because when you're in the news for making it legal to smoke crack on our sidewalks, you might want to think twice about making duck liver illegal.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm Hannah Rucker.
I oppose this ban.
I think that Pro-Animal Oregon doesn't represent the majority of Portland.
They're just the loudest, and they're going after low-hanging fruit in order to gain attention.
They're choosing the easiest route, and that choice will affect independently owned businesses that are a vibrant part of the Portland community.
Food tourism is a balance to the rampant drug use happening on our streets, lack of school funding, and houseless crisis.
Everybody that's an adult has a choice of what they want to eat, and there's lots of restaurants for people to eat in that offer a variety of different foods.
The people that don't have a choice on what they eat are the students in the Portland Public School System, and I just want to read a little bit of the menu that we're serving them.
For lunch every day?
Well, first breakfast: Cinnamon Toast Crunch, vanilla cream breadsticks, French toast sticks, Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Liege waffle, apple cinnamon muffin, mini pancakes.
For lunch, we have crackers and chicken jerky, we have chicken fried waffles, we have— I just want to say that this chicken is coming from Goldkist Farms, which is a huge production farm.
They kill 8 million chickens a day and serve them to our children in the public school systems, which desperately need funding.
And we are sitting here wasting taxpayers' time and money.
And I don't think that pro-animal Oregon should be involved in the government decisions of what's happening for independent businesses that pay taxes and contribute to the community that we live in.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Aldrin Ordell.
I'm from Northwest I'm a small business owner, and I support this ban on foie gras because consumer choice should not dictate public policy.
Law, legal precedent, and the morals and ethics of your constituents should be primary concerns.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hello, I'm Sean Rice, District 3 voter resident, and, uh, I support this ban.
I hope that you do too because it's pretty simple.
Go Ducks!
Thank you.
Uh, Hillary Tifer.
Next up we have Sophie Surlick-Rittenbaum, Ashley Hall, Rox Zeta, Matt Hall, Welcome, folks.
Come on up.
Good afternoon, Council.
My name is Rox Zada.
I am a District 4 resident.
I'm here to support the foie gras ban, but I also want to recognize Councilor Green's work.
It is varied, and, um, from his ban on predatory AI rent-setting algorithms and the resolution to investigate Zenith Energy To his amazing program, Keep Portland Housed, which has helped thousands of down-on-the-luck Portlanders avoid eviction and stay in their homes.
This work is already happening, it's ongoing, and it's making a big difference.
And at the same time, we have a clear decision in front of us here today.
Foie gras production involves force-feeding animals in a way that causes severe suffering.
This policy addresses our support of that directly.
Thank you.
For me, these aren't separate conversations.
They come from the same place— reducing harm where we can and making thoughtful choices about what we allow in our city.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Matt Hall.
I am in District 4 and a voter, and I oppose this ban.
I feel based on the numbers, you know, to conflate factory farms, which I think everyone agrees with is a bad thing—.
Over 9 billion chickens are killed a year in the United States for food Food processing, foie gras production makes up roughly 0.0005% of all animals that are killed for food.
I feel that the city owes it to its residents as adults, as people that can make our own decisions, to choose what we are okay and not okay with.
And I find it particularly rich coming from the city saying we know things are bad and we shouldn't do it when the 3rd largest revenue-producing thing we have in our state is video lottery, an addictive thing that we all willingly sell, willingly go with.
Councilmember and are okay with because it inflates our pockets, not the pockets of small business owners, not the pockets of people that come in here for tourism, not the people that employ hundreds of employees in the food restaurant paying taxes, paying a living wage to their employees and taking care of them.
We are all adults.
We can all make our own decision.
If you don't like it, I agree with your decision 1 million percent.
You are entitled to it.
However, my stomach, my choice.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Ashley Hall, District 4 voter.
I am against the ban.
I believe that the heart of our city is in our restaurants and our culinary, what we've done.
Restaurants like Le Pigeon have been around for almost 20 years, and they are institutions by the awards they've won, putting Portland on the map.
And the fact that we would want to harm businesses that are not moving out of Multnomah County but staying here when we have a 32% commercial issue with, um, vacancy in our city, I think is just— this is not where we need to put our time and our efforts.
You can choose to eat if you want to with your pocketbook.
Let that be how it goes.
But we should not be the ones telling anyone.
It is our choice.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
John Vandenberg, and I've worked in the city for 37 years.
I'd say our firm's probably brought in hundreds of millions of dollars over our time in the city.
I support this ordinance, and I thank all of you for your service and for your empathy.
Thank you very much.
Hillary is joining us online.
All right, let's move to Sophie and we'll check on Hillary.
Go ahead, Sophie.
Hi, my name is Sophie Chirlik-Rittenbaum.
I use she/her/they pronouns and I'm here to testify in support of the ban.
I will try and keep this short because I have seen so many written comments online about how this is a waste of council's time and they could be focusing on more important things.
And yet some of those people also chose to show up here today, and I assume are also waiting to testify to take more of council time to tell you off for using council time to pass this.
I have seen the sponsor of this bill say that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I couldn't agree more.
As others have pointed out, he's already sponsored legislation around surrounding housing and our economy.
This clearly isn't taking some huge chunk of council time away from issues that we might think are more important.
It's here in front of us now.
It is easy to vote yes on now.
There is no reason not to at this point.
Foie gras is cruel.
There is no reason to keep using it.
As others have pointed out, it is the lowest of the low for animal cruelty.
I am also confused by opponents of this ban saying that, well, what about all the other animal cruelty?
That's not a reason to not pass this.
It's a reason to come back with more legislation later that addresses that animal cruelty.
It is not a reason to keep I'm really grateful for the people who brought this forward, both in council and for Pro-Animal Oregon and other sponsors and other organizers who made this happen.
Thank you for your time, and I hope you vote yes on this ban.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Ryan Mead, Kimiko Matsuda, Joshua Porter, Ted Baskin, Peter Hurd.
Welcome, folks.
Come on down.
You're welcome to go first since you're here.
Are you Ryan?
No, I'm Ted.
Okay, great.
Um, hello, I'm Kimiko Matsuda.
I work across Portland small business, culinary, and cultural communities focused on economic recovery, tourism, and long-term investment in this I respect the values behind the proposal.
My perspective is less about Mardi Gras and is about stewardship and how we lead in this moment.
Portland's recovery remains fragile.
Our culinary community is one of our strongest economic and cultural assets.
They create jobs, drive tourism, and shape Portland's identity at a national and global level.
Support from their perspective is stability, partnership, and meaningful engagement in decisions that affect their industry.
Decisions are not experienced in isolation.
They accumulate over time.
They shape how it feels to operate a business in Portland and whether people choose to invest, expand, or build here in the future.
There is a real risk of investment fatigue.
The people driving this city's recovery have continued to show up and reinvest, and we want to make sure that we do not impact that erosion or momentum.
This is a moment that calls for discipline.
Our policies should strengthen, not strain, the people building the future.
I ask you to vote no on this ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm Ted.
I live in District 3, and I support the ban on foie gras.
Thank you very much.
I'm Josh Porter, District 4, Navy vet, PSU student.
While some argue that we should focus on the broader issues of factory farming, which is awesome, we shouldn't let the pursuit of a perfect solution stop us from taking meaningful action now.
Force feeding causes undeniable suffering, and the city has the power to end it today.
So please vote aye.
Thank you very much.
My name is Peter Hurd.
I'm a District 2 voter.
We have heard from restaurants in the area who are concerned at how this will affect them, the handful of restaurants that actually do serve foie gras.
I say that we help them out by giving everyone an equal footing under this regulation.
By enacting a restaurant ban on serving foie gras.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Ryan Mead.
I'm here to discuss the proposed ban on foie gras.
Obviously, I spent over 20 years working with the restaurant industry here in Portland.
I've dedicated my career to it.
I'm not just here as an individual, but someone who has worked alongside chefs and restaurants.
I want to start with a simple idea.
And that's consumer free choice.
At its core, that means adults have the right to eat where they would like to eat, buy what they want to buy, and decide where they'd like to spend their money.
You don't have to like foie gras.
You don't have to agree with it.
You don't have to order it.
But the choice to do so should remain at the individual level, and that idea is tied directly to a free market.
And a free market works because it lets consumers decide what succeeds and what doesn't.
If people don't want to eat foie gras, they don't have to order it, and restaurants will stop serving it.
And that brings me to restaurants.
Small independent restaurants in Portland are already under immense pressure.
Rising costs, increased regulation, and declining traffic have made it harder than ever to survive.
Adding yet another restriction doesn't just limit a single ingredient, it limits creativity.
My argument is simple.
Whether you personally agree with, agree with FOIA or not, this is about where we draw the line.
Local government stepping in to dictate what restaurants can and cannot serve is a precedent that everyone in this room should be concerned about.
At the end of the day, this doesn't stop consumption, it pushes it somewhere else.
Let chefs create, let restaurants cook, let consumers choose, and let the market decide.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Thank you all.
Thanks for being here.
Next up, next up we have Stephen Freitag, Olga Ilyuk, Tien Tran, Jessica Lang, Molly Flanagan.
Welcome, folks.
Whoever wants to go first.
Um, hi, I'm Jessica Lang, a constituent of District 2, and I support the ban on Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Tien Tran.
I'm from District 1.
I support this ban.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Hi, good afternoon, Council.
My name is Olga Ilyuk.
I live in District 1 in Portland, and I support the foie gras ban.
I wanted to just say that there has been a discussion— multiple people mentioned that, um, We should be talking about animals that are being mistreated on the larger scale, such as chickens, for example.
And I agree that those are important issues, and there definitely should be discussion about this.
However, today what we have in front of us, it is a very specific and focused policy, the policy about foie gras production that involves mistreatment of animals, force-feeding of animals that causes extreme And well-documented suffering.
And it is a distinct practice that the city does have the authority to regulate.
And if we wait until we can address all the issues with farmed animals all at once, we will never be able to move forward and take any steps forward.
So right now we are in this place where the harm is clear, the policy is focused, and the city has the ability to act.
So we can have larger conversations about farmed animals and our food systems, and we also can make this decision today.
So I urge you to support this foie gras ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm Stephen Freitag, District 4, and I support the ban.
Thank you very much, guys.
I'm Molly Flanagan, District 3, and I support this ban.
Thank you so much for hearing us.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Kelsey Glasser, York Hayes, Valerie Tabita, Amina Butterfly, Heather Robertson.
Welcome, come on down.
Thank you.
Hello, my name is Kelsey Glasser.
I'm an independent restaurant owner and I oppose this motion.
Caring about animal welfare is something I take very seriously.
I myself grew up on a farm in the Willamette Valley and have seen firsthand what ethical farming should look like.
Restaurants like mine don't source from factory-farmed industrial meat systems.
We work with small farmers because we know this choice is better for our planet, our guests, and most importantly, the animals themselves.
That's why this proposal feels so misdirected.
I know it comes from a place of concern for animal welfare, but focusing on one highly visible ingredient raised on a very small scale while overlooking the much larger impacts of industrial agriculture does not create meaningful change.
Foie gras production is extremely limited in the U.S., and by contrast, conventional poultry production slaughters over 9 billion chickens each year, where animals have markedly worse living conditions and shorter lifespan.
If the goal is to reduce harm, industrial factory farming is where the true issue lies.
Instead, this policy places additional pressure on small businesses like mine trying to operate thoughtfully and keep the lights on.
Portland's economy still has not recovered, and we are navigating rising costs and ongoing challenges.
Now it feels like our character is being questioned by a city government that claims it wants to support small business but has not consistently backed those claims up.
If we truly want to move the needle, we should focus our energy on the systems that have the greatest impact and the policies that could actually make a difference.
Thank you.
Thank you very Good afternoon, council members.
My name is York Hayes.
I'm a business owner, a resident of District 4.
I'm here to support the ban.
I want to speak briefly about the idea we've heard a ton today about, uh, taking away personal choice.
Cities make decisions all the time about what can and cannot be sold in the marketplace.
That's part of how we set standards, whether it's for safety, for health, or basic levels of harm that we're willing to accept.
This policy operates in that same space.
It doesn't tell people what they can eat.
It, it has the city determine what is allowed to be sold based on those standards.
Passing this ban is a decision about standards, not personal diets.
People still have choices.
What changes is that our marketplace reflects a baseline that excludes this level of harm.
For me, that's a reasonable and appropriate role for the local government.
Please vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Council.
My name is Valerie Tabita, and I'm a District 4 resident.
I'm here in support of the ban on force-fed foie gras, and I also want to recognize the work that Councilor Mitch Green has been doing on the transportation utility fee, which is looking at how we create stable, reliable funding for our streets and transportation system.
This is the kind of policy that affects daily life, whether people can get to work safely, whether streets are maintained, whether our system is actually sustainable long-term.
And I believe that supporting this ban on force-fed foie gras takes This is something small and easy that we can get past that will give people something to feel good about while the city continues to work on much bigger priorities.
And I think this ordinance aligns with Portland's values.
I strongly urge members of the council to vote yes on the ban of force-fed foie gras.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'm Heather Robertson from District 1.
Force-fed foie gras is an inhumane practice, and I support a ban.
Thank you.
Awesome, thank you very much.
Amina.
My name is Amina Butterfly.
I live in District 1.
Pleasure and business should not, um, come at the cost of exploitation of those who cannot defend themselves.
Please vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Amy Meyer.
Cheyenne Hollowell, Joby Bailey, Beth Redwood, Danny Rookin.
Welcome.
My name is Cheyenne, and I'm here to voice my support for the ban on FALCRA.
Thank you very much.
My name is Joby Bailey, and I am in opposition of the ban on foie gras.
I'm a longtime resident of the Portland area and a 25-year veteran of our local restaurant industry.
I've had the privilege of watching Portland grow into one of the most celebrated food cities in the country.
I've also seen how difficult it has been for our industry to recover from the pandemic, especially as our city continues to work through broader economic and reputational challenges.
While this proposal directly impacts restaurants, I believe the broader issue before you is one of personal choice.
Portland has long prided itself on being a place where individuals are trusted to make their own decisions, where diversity is— diversity of thought, lifestyle, and expression are not only accepted but protected.
That principle extends beyond social identity.
It applies to everyday decisions, including the people that choose to eat or what people choose to eat.
Restricting that choice, particularly when it affects small number of producers and a narrow segment of the dining public, raises important questions about where we draw the line on personal freedoms.
For many of our community, that line matters.
I'd also ask the council to consider our priorities.
Our city is facing significant challenges—budget constraints, public safety concerns, infrastructure needs, and the access—and access to essential services like education and mental health.
At a time when resources are stretched thin, allocating attention and enforcement toward the issue may not reflect the most urgent needs of our residents.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Danny Ruken.
Good afternoon, Council.
I live in Portland District 1, and I'm here to support the foie gras ban.
I've been following the work happening at City Hall.
I want to acknowledge that there's a lot moving forward right now, and I'm very proud of the work that's being done.
Including work led by Councilor Green, programs like Keep Portland Housed, Inner City— Inner East Side for All, and the transportation utility fee and the street damage restoration fee.
They're in process.
Thank you so much.
That's a lot, and it matters.
As a resident, what I see is a city trying to take care of people in real, tangible ways.
This policy fits into that same pattern.
It's a smaller decision, but it's a councilmember Herbold.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
The issue before us is a simple and clear one.
It's about whether we allow a practice that causes extreme animal suffering when we don't have to.
For me, this comes down to what kind of community we are across the board.
While we're doing the work on housing, on infrastructure, on long-term planning, we have an opportunity to reduce harm.
New York City has been the most recent city to finally pass the, uh, a ban on foie gras.
And if they can do it with their nonstop full plate of critical issues, so can we.
It's not a zero-sum game.
We can walk and chew gum.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Amy Meyer.
I am a resident and voter in District 3, and ditto, I support the ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Beth.
My name is Beth Redwood.
I've lived in District 2 for 12 years, and I support the foie gras ban.
To me, it's simply a matter of conscience.
Do we prioritize the palate pleasure of a few people who could easily choose to eat something else, or the obvious, well-documented pain and torture inflicted on the animals whose enlarged, diseased fatty livers are the product?
I believe in good conscience that when Portlanders have an opportunity to stop supporting egregious suffering and cruelty to living beings, that we will take the ethical, humane stand.
Please support the ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Uh, next up we have Linda Liu, Jacqueline Reingens, Ryan Co— oh no, sorry, Ryan already testified.
John Gramstad.
Shannon Leahy.
Hi, my name is Jacqueline Reingans.
I live in Washington County.
This cruelty is unacceptable.
I support this ban.
Please vote yes.
Thank you very much.
Uh, let me make sure we don't have any folks online.
Oh, go ahead, Linda.
Um, hello, my name is Linda Liu.
I am a District 4 voter.
I support the ban on force-fed foie gras and beg that you do too.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much.
Okay, um, John Gramstad.
Shannon Leahy.
Sean Christine.
Marissa Croes.
Dylan DeLowe.
Hamish Bradley.
Avery Lang.
I'm gonna pause for a minute in case Anybody else here?
Go ahead.
I'm Avery Lang from District 3, and I support the foie gras ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Welcome.
Hey there, thanks for being patient.
My name is Dylan DeLowe.
Uh, I live across the river in Camas, Washington, uh, frequenter of Portland restaurants and someone who earned an agriculture degree here in the state of Oregon.
I just want to voice my support for the Flock Rock Band.
Thank you very much.
Uh, my name is Hamish.
I'm a nursing assistant in District 3, and I support the ban.
Hi, my name is Sean Christian.
I'm a District 3 resident and voter, and I support the Mardi Gras ban.
Thank you all so much for being here.
I don't think my video is working.
Can you hear me?
Keelan McClymont
Yep, we can hear you.
Unidentified speaker
My name is Marissa Cruz.
I live in District 3.
I'm a chef and local bakery owner here in Portland.
I support this ban because Portland is a city that prides itself on compassion, progress, and supporting our community.
I don't believe foie gras represents these values.
I believe supporting this ban is the right thing to do for people, for animals, and for the planet.
Over 99% of restaurants, chefs, and food shops in the city do not serve or sell foie gras.
There's a reason for that.
If Portland chefs believed in this product and believed the people of Portland wanted to eat it, there would be more than 8 places that currently sell it.
The people and chefs of Portland overwhelmingly do not want foie gras.
A chef here today made the argument at the last hearing that we should be focusing on factory farming and ending that and not foie gras.
And I agree, as a society, factory farming should end.
I don't support factory farming with my dollars, but you don't decide not to change anything because you can't change everything.
Social change is a collection of small acts of individuals, of communities and cities.
And I don't think anyone here today believes that we shouldn't make any changes because we can't change everything.
Or believes that we shouldn't end some harm to animals because we can't end all harm.
Foie gras will end in this country.
It's just a matter of time.
It's already declining significantly across Europe and the United States, and I hope Portland, city that I love and call home, is on the right side of history today and supports this ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead.
Oh no, sorry.
Uh, Shannon?
Hi, yes, my name is Shannon Leahy.
I'm a Portland resident.
I live in District 4.
Like the majority of the citizens polled, I strongly support this ban.
I'm deeply moved by the testimony being given today.
Portland can lead as a forward-thinking city, and I believe it is in our best interest to embrace We should embrace every opportunity to adapt and invest in positive changes that support our communities, not to uphold broken, destructive systems that benefit only a few.
We should unequivocally stand up against cruelty and prioritize important issues like this ban that cost us nothing as a community to champion.
Thank you.
Okay, next up we have Matt Russo, Sarah Barham, Pranav Merchant, Finn Spoor, Nicole Funskeindl.
Hey, I'm Finn Spoor and I'm from District 4 and I support the ban.
Thank you very much.
Pranav.
Hi, so sorry.
Hi, sorry, uh, I wanted to thank the council and the city of Portland first of all for allowing people from out of the city to testify because I, uh, I don't live in Portland but I visit often because I have family there.
I just wanted to say I think all the arguments about personal choice and culture and business vitality are all great, but I don't think any of that should be found— should be based on unnecessary cruelty and violence towards animals.
And I think morals come first before any of the other—.
Any of those other considerations.
So I hope you guys pass the ban and, you know, keep Portland—.
I think, what was it, ahead of the curve?
Portland, Oregon.
Thank you so much.
I'm Nicole Von Schindle.
I'm a worker in the food service industry in District 1, and I support this ban because my right to choose does not give me a right to abuse animals.
Thank you.
Thank you.
My name is Sarah Barham.
I'm born and raised in Portland, and I currently live in District 2, and I support this ban.
Thank you very much.
Hi, I'm Nat Russo.
I live in Fairview, just a few streets out of Portland, and I frequent restaurants in the Portland area quite often.
I support this ban.
I want you to picture yourself having a tube down your throat force-feeding you for 2 weeks and how much that suffering causes, and try to have some empathy for those animals and really think about the power you have today to to stop that, stop some of the amount of suffering that this world has, and be on the right side of, of it all.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Uh, next up we have Johnny Lieberman, Matthew King, Peter Missona, Alex Vitor, Tammy Dunn.
Uh, I see Matthew online.
Go ahead.
Yeah, can you hear me okay?
Keelan McClymont
We can hear you.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Hello, my name is Matthew King and I represent the Christian Animal Rights Association.
The Bible condemns animal cruelty in Proverbs 12:10.
Based on Proverbs 12:10, our ministry supports the ban on force-fed products like foie gras in Portland because it is incredibly cruel to animals, and even to the biblical writers it would not be acceptable.
Force-fed products like foie gras have no place in a civilized society.
Other compassionate cities like Pittsburgh, Brookline, Massachusetts, New York City, and the entire state of California have banned foie gras.
Someone earlier defended LaBelle Farms, yet that producer has faced significant ongoing accusations of animal cruelty because of their force-feeding methods.
And it's interesting how a lot of the arguments don't address the animal cruelty issue.
They talked about other issues like crack, school funding, free and personal choice, budget, public safety, the lottery, investment in factory farming, which doesn't involve force-feeding, to function as a distraction to the issue.
This is a menu item that no one needs and is very much a luxury item.
Again, our ministry supports the ban on force-fed products like foie gras in Portland because it is incredibly cruel to animals.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
Uh, thanks, council members.
My name is Peter Misona, uh, live in District 3, small business owner.
Um, I'm here to ban the proposal.
Portland should think very clearly, carefully before it rushes into a foie gras ban because it risks feeling good while doing almost nothing to actually help animals.
The truth is foie gras is a tiny niche product.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of animal suffering comes from factory farming where Banning a single luxury item— menu item might make for a strong headline, but it does not make meaningful change in the system.
What it does do is put yet another burden on a small handful of restaurants and shops.
Councilmember Herbold.
While the real engine of cruelty in our food system continues untouched.
Portland is a thoughtful, values-driven city.
We should be leading on policies that actually reduce suffering at scale, supporting higher welfare standards, rewarding humane farms, and pushing back on the worst factory farming practices.
If this council wants to stand up for animals, let's be honest about where the harm really is.
Thank you.
Let's not settle for a symbolic ban that targets an easy, visible villain while ignoring the everyday realities of industrial farming.
We can do better than feel-good legislation.
We owe it to both animals and small businesses to pursue reforms that are serious, effective, and truly compassionate.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Johnny.
I'm Johnny Lieberman, District 1 in Portland.
Thank you very much.
Next up we have Alex— uh, oh, uh, let's check, see if Alex Vittore is here, or Tammy Dunn.
My name is Tammy Dunn.
I live in the Portland metro area.
I can't imagine opposition to this ban when the harm to sentient beings is so clear.
Sentient beings is so grave, and the product it produces is insignificant to the well-being of any person or business.
These are the same sweet animals we take our kids to the park to see.
I support the ban.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Next up, we have, uh, Soph Parnock, Michelle Casey, Jeremy Beckham, Go ahead, Michelle.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Michelle Casey.
I live in District 2, and I fully support the foie gras ban.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Uh, Nicholas Selby.
I live in District 2.
And I'm here to support the ban on force-fed foie gras.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Jolene Rutherford.
This issue comes down to personal choice.
Portland has always trusted its residents to make informed decisions about what they eat, even when those choices differ.
If we start deciding what people are allowed to eat, we lose something bigger.
We lose trust in our community.
Please don't replace that trust with a ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hi, my name is Jeremy Beckham.
I'm a student here at Lewis Clark Law School.
I'm a member of the I think the images that everyone saw today of how foie gras is produced kind of speak for themselves.
It's a form of animal torture, and I'm here to support the ban.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Soph Parnock, Eleanor Roberts Caudill, Jesse Caldwell, Marika Diaz, Sierra Barnes, Victoria Castillo.
Welcome.
Hello, I'm Jesse Caldwell from Portland District 3, and I'm here to express my full support for the ban.
I'd also just like to say that with any issue of rights, be it civil rights or labor rights, It always is organized at the community level first before large sweeping changes can be enacted.
And so I think it's important that we do that here, and it's more than just performative.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Sierra is joining us online.
Keelan McClymont
Sierra.
Unidentified speaker
Oh, can you hear me?
We can hear you now.
Okay, great.
My name is Sierra Barnes.
I'm a constituent in District 4.
I would like to testify in support of the foie gras ban.
Um, I think we've heard a lot about how this is potentially a waste of time, but I'd like to point out that even with, uh, 0.0005% With billions of animals being killed for food, that's still a big number of individuals, and this is a real chance to make a large impact for animals.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Marika Diaz, and I live in District 3.
I support this ban, and I'm urging you to also support it because of the life and well-being of sentient animals.
The life and well-being of a sentient being should always take priority over somebody's choice to use another's body for sensory pleasure or profit.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
My name is Victoria Castillo, and I'm a member of Vegan Scouts, a local community organization that also supports this ban.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
It's not a waste of time or money to fight for what's right.
Saying this ban is not meaningful because bigger problems exist just avoids the question.
Small changes still reduce harm.
Former arguments bringing up chicken consumption distracts from actual policy questions.
The fact that chicken farming is larger doesn't mean smaller issues shouldn't be addressed.
Scale alone does not determine whether something is worth regulating.
The arguments pertaining to personal choice are not very strong if the issue involves harm to others, public health, animal welfare.
Environmental impact or regulation just skips over those competing concerns.
It's an oversimplification.
Some may argue that banning foie gras limits choice or impacts businesses, but we routinely draw lines around what is acceptable in the marketplace.
We do not permit products that are produced through unnecessary suffering when humane alternatives exist.
This is an opportunity for Portland to lead, not follow.
Other cities have already taken steps in this direction, and your action today can reinforce a broader movement Consider what it means to allow practice that depends on the prolonged suffering of animals for luxury consumption, and consider the message it sends about who we are as a city.
Please act with compassion and integrity.
Ban foie gras.
Thank you very much.
Next up, we have Tous Henry.
Tina Ciccarello, Brian Peace, Nicholas Burgantine, Daniel Redwood.
Good afternoon, members of the Portland City Council.
My name is Tuce Henry, and I'm a proud Oregonian and resident of Portland's Hollywood District 2.
I'm here today to urge this council to ban the sale of foie gras In Multnomah County, not as a radical act, but as a natural expression of who we are as a city and who we choose to be as a culture.
Portland has long stood apart in a national climate increasingly defined by indifference to each other, to animals, and to the planet.
The city has chosen to lead with compassion.
We believe that how we treat the most vulnerable among us defines our character, and that belief extends beyond our species and into the greater web of life that sustains us all.
Thank you.
What we spend money on shapes the world we live in.
Every dollar spent on a product rooted in deliberate cruelty is a small vote for a crueler world.
And every time a city chooses to remove that option from its local economy, it sends a different signal— that here we choose kindness and compassion over the deliberate production of pain for the selfish sake of profit or personal preference.
This ban asks very little of Portland.
Foie gras is a luxury item with a minimum footprint in our local food economy.
Councilmember no jobs are lost, no communities disrupted, and what we stand to gain is much more valuable: an alignment of values that sets our city apart and joins it with some of the most socially advanced cities and nations in the world.
That matters more now than it ever has.
When cruelty is normalized at scale, local acts of conscience are not small things.
They are the building blocks of a culture rooted in cooperative intention.
Portland has always understood that.
Thank you.
Thank you, council members, for taking this up.
My name is Brian Pease.
I'm a civil rights and environmental attorney in San Diego, California, where I've been for the past 20 years.
In the early 2000s, I co-founded a group called Animal Protection and Rescue League, and we visited these foie gras farms and exposed the cruelty there, which helped get the California ban passed.
And the idea that Labelle Farms, for instance, is a smaller farm— it's not.
It's massive, just like Hudson Valley Foie Gras.
These are massive factory farms.
When you're in these sheds, as far as the eye can see, you just see rows and rows of these pens, the forced feeding pens with the ducks.
The reason that there's a lot more chickens killed is because there are a lot more farms.
But here we have 2 farms They're supplying the entire United States supply of foie gras.
Labelle and Hudson Valley have also been under fire for exploiting their migrant workers.
There have been class action lawsuits about that.
In California, we passed other bans after the foie gras ban, including by voters.
We have cage-free eggs only in California.
So New York City did the same thing.
They passed it as a package of animal welfare laws.
It wasn't just foie gras.
So this is an important piece.
But the idea that restaurants will stop serving if consumers stop eating it is simply Not true.
In fact, it's the opposite.
The reason that the restaurants have to serve it, if some restaurants are going to turn a blind eye to the cruelty, is that then they figure, well, we might lose business to the few consumers who don't care about the cruelty, and we're going to offer it as long as it's legal.
We need to set some standards.
If somebody wanted to walk down the street kicking their dog in the head, we wouldn't allow that either.
So choice here is not— this is what government is for, is to level the playing field and create humane standards for all the businesses.
Thank you very much.
Tina.
Hello, my name is Tina Ciccarello.
Empathy matters.
These force-fed ducks are babies.
They're typically only 10 to 12 weeks old.
A duck's lifespan is typically 5 to 15 years.
If people aren't okay with showing the force-feeding footage of ducks to their kids or grandkids, then they already know how cruel it is.
I wouldn't want someone I love to be treated like these birds.
I hear quite a bit of people mention the word choice.
These birds aren't given one.
When we know better, we have the opportunity to make kinder choices.
So why don't we?
I support the ban.
Thank you very much.
Go ahead.
All right, my name is Nick Burgantine, and it's nice to see everyone.
You have multiplied since the last time I was here.
Um, I support the ban, just I wouldn't want that to happen to me.
Very Very basically.
I am a little bit jealous of the other individuals here though because I can't really prepare stuff.
It's also my weakness as a substitute teacher.
If you give me a script, I'm not great with it.
But it's like reasons like this.
I took the bus here and I overheard this gem of someone talking about how their friend eats pizza 22 days of the month and a sandwich the other 8 days of the month.
That's not true.
Folgrado is not one of the days.
The truth is people don't overwhelmingly care about this.
As a sub, I'm really worried about next year's school year.
I think people do probably want to vote on this, and the numbers are actually really clear, uh, that people don't like that.
People don't really eat it too much, and it just seems Very very cruel.
I also like really bad analogies, so I apologize.
But the WNBA season—we have a team that's really really exciting.
I can't wait.
Sunday preseason.
In basketball, good passes are ahead of the person.
This is not trending towards oh there's more and more foie gras everywhere.
It's going one way.
People like oh this is a cruel practice.
I have 5 seconds, but there's been 2 times this is overturned.
Once was a clerical error and the other was some dude from Chicago.
People, man.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Uh, Daniel.
I'm Daniel Redwood.
I am a resident of District 2.
I strongly support the ban and urge the council to pass it.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Uh, next up we have Asis Patel, Michael Thielen, Drew McCormick, Andrew Esposito, Leslie Burke.
Go ahead.
Me?
Yeah.
Hey everyone, Mike Thielen, District 3, Sunnyside, where I've lived most of my adult life.
I think we all agree everyone cares.
That's why they're here.
I think what really compelled me to show up today, it just bothered me to hear from Kurt and from Kelsey and from others that, you know, they had reached out to the backers of this van and they haven't felt engaged.
They hadn't felt heard.
I've had the luxury and the pleasure and the privilege of working with the culinary community in Portland for 20 years.
I started Feast Portland among some other projects, and this community represents the very best of what this city does in terms of sourcing, in terms of sustainability, stewardship, regeneration, in terms of keeping the neighborhoods alive, in terms of creating jobs, tax revenue, all that.
I would ask before we make decisions, we do a better job to engage with this community and respect what they do before we blanket bans.
And, you know, really as leaders, find ways for all of us to work together to address larger issues related to animal cruelty.
I oppose this ordinance.
Hi, my name is Ases Patel.
I'm a visitor from out of state, and I support the ban.
Thank you very much.
Hello, everyone.
My name is Andrew Esposito.
I'm a voter in District 2.
I strongly oppose this ban.
I'm here today in my 90 seconds to talk to the group of people behind me and the group of people ahead of me.
I'm a parent of 2 children.
The group of people behind me have vocally protested at restaurants over the last couple of weeks.
Real-life anguish has happened to employees at these businesses that are dealing with these protesters in a way that they shouldn't have to.
They're employees of this business.
They aren't making decisions, and instead they're dealing with very loud, disruptive protests in front of their business.
I ask the group in front of me, have we done anything to contact the police department to work with them Knowing that some of this could be coming to light, knowing that there are vocal disruptions and protests happening.
And I ask the people behind me to please show up better.
I understand that you're very passionate about this and you feel a certain way about it, but you are disrupting the business in this city that has helped put this city on the map.
This avenue right here is the correct way to spread your message, not showing up and forcing the cops to be called on you as you harass guests.
Please keep your fellow city council members in check.
Please.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
My name is Leslie Burke.
I live in District 3, and I support the ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Keelan McClymont
Uh, Drew?
Unidentified speaker
Hello, can you hear me?
We can hear you.
Okay.
Hi, I'm Drew McCormick.
Thank you for taking the time to listen.
I'm here to strongly support this ban on foie gras.
Um, we talked about chickens and factory farming.
As far as I know, chickens are not force-fed.
Also, two wrongs do not make a right.
We talked about free choice, but the government regulates and restricts what enters the market all the time.
We talked about whether this was meaningful change.
I absolutely think this is meaningful change.
You can stop foie gras, and you saw the images, you saw the videos.
The common technique to make foie gras is to restrain the bird by hand or machine with its neck extended.
A tube is pushed down its throat.
Thank you.
And the food is forced down the throat either manually or mechanically.
These birds are sentient.
They feel pain.
Some ducks even die from suffocating on the food.
Foie gras is inhumane and incredibly hurtful.
Please support the ban.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Uh, next up we have Gert Arts, followed by Violet Russell.
I'm gonna also run through the names that I've called just to make sure nobody has shown up.
Annalise Day, Nicole Corrado, Hillary Tefer, John Gramstad, Alex Vitor, Soph Parnock, Eleanor Roberts Caudle.
Hi, I'm Gert Arts, a Portland homeowner.
Can you imagine in your own home Your cat or dog having a tube stuffed down its throat until it became sick or diseased, you wouldn't stand for it.
It's very easy for you not to stand for that for ducks either by just saying yes on this ordinance.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Um, hi, I'm Violet Russell from District 2, and I support this ban.
Thank you very much.
My name is Eleanor Roberts Caudle, and I support this ban.
Please.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Keelan McClymont
That completes testimony.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, colleagues, we are at almost exactly the time limit that I set for this.
We are going to continue this item to a future hearing.
We're going to have a second first reading so we can have council discussion, but we are out of time for today to discuss this.
I need to move on to the next item.
So we will— more action on this next soon.
Can we please move to item number 8?
Thank you all for being here today.
Item 8, document 2026-039, amend chronic nuisance property code to address human trafficking, gun violence, and administrative challenges.
Thank you.
So colleagues, this matter was previously considered on March 13th, upon which, uh, Councilor Kanal moved to divide Councilor Novick's motion to consider a bundle of amendments.
Under our code, councilors may divide questions by right without debate or a vote.
The original introducer may designate the order in which the elements will be voted on.
Councilor Novick, do you have a preferred order?
I think simply doing them in numerical order is fine.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
And I also want to note that we do have an additional proposed amendment, uh, Koyama Lane, Novick 1, which addresses a suggestion by the Multnomah County Health Department, which submitted testimony in favor of the ordinance, but they also suggested the inclusion of requirement for annual public reporting in the implementation.
Thank you.
Councilor Kanal.
I want to just quickly, for the sake of time, withdraw and substitute that motion okay.
To divide, uh, instead of dividing it into 5 categories, I would like to divide it into 2, which I think would save us all a little bit of time.
And I'm just checking my notes.
Sorry, I didn't remember that this was pending when we got there.
Um, so 3— sorry, Novick 3, Novick 4, Um, and there's one more.
Novick 6 would be in one category, Novick 5 would be in the other, and I'm trying to remember where— yeah, Novick 3, 4, and 6 in one category, Novick 5 and Pirtle-Guiney 3 in the other okay.
Councilor Novick, do you have an opinion on which of these we would move on first?
I'd like to do 3, 4, and 6.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
6 Actually I think is the most significant.
So Novick 3 relates to what activities are defined as nuisance activities, and the purpose of Novick 3 is to yes.
Novick 3 is to hone in on defining— with regards to human trafficking, to delete a reference to prostitution or related offenses and to add human trafficking or related offenses so that— to make it clear that we're focusing on the traffickers and the buyers rather than on the sex workers.
Novick 4 Is, um, uh, actually I'm going to talk about Novick 6 first.
I think that actually kind of makes more sense.
Um, Novick 6, um, it would— this is actually based on a suggestion by Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Um, the, um, what the original ordinance did was, um, take the— the current law says that You can— the city can invoke the chronic nuisance property law if there is 3 documented instances of nuisance crime activity within 30 days.
And my proposal was to change that to 3 in— to 2 in 90 days.
At Councilor Pirtle-Guiney's suggestion, this would switch that to 3 in 90 days.
And That would apply to both.
Yeah.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is also a part of Novick 6, also relates to a concern that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney expressed.
Currently, the law refers to 3 instances documented in police reports, but it doesn't say what the police report has to be based on exactly.
So we want to clarify that it's 3 or more police reports or other official documentation That a police officer has determined that probable cause exists to believe the nuisance activity has occurred, as opposed to, for example, a grumpy neighbor made a complaint that wasn't verified.
I don't think it was ever applied that way, but I thought it was worth, um, um, it was worth clarifying that at Councilor Burger-Gilley's suggestion.
Um, that's Novick 6.
Yeah.
Um, so that— and again, I said Novick 3, as I noted Okay.
The first one, as I mentioned before, was about what fits into the definition of nuisance crime.
Then consistent with Novick 6 adjustment to the timeline, Novick 4 would adjust a different timeline.
Currently, as my original proposal read, it said that if the person in charge responds and agrees to abate the nuisance activities giving rise to the violation, The city administrator may postpone referring the matter to the city attorney.
If no agreement concerning abatement is reached within— we had 30 days, this would change that to 60 days.
Or if no agreed-upon course of action does not result in the abatement, the actual abatement within— we had 60 days, that extends to 90 days.
So that's a timeline issue.
And okay, I think that concludes— Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
5 Is out.
What?
5 will be a separate— No, 5 is part of a separate package as per Councilor Kanal's motion.
So the first division is focusing on Novick 3, 4, and 6.
The second division, second separate vote will be Novick 5 and Pirtle-Guiney 3, which we'll discuss in a second.
Colleagues, is there any discussion on Novicks 3, 4, and 6?
Councilor Knoll, are you still in the queue?
Okay.
Sorry, Legacy.
Just point of information previously, just because, yeah, a lot happened there.
So 3, 5, and 6, we are voting on— I'm sorry, 3, 4, and 6, we are voting on as one package right now?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
That's the goal?
Yes.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Uh, I can support 3 and 6.
I won't support 4.
Can we treat that as a further motion to divide, Councilor Zimmerman?
Certainly.
I'm not really sure why you've grouped so many things together.
I'm usually, you know, we do an amendment, do an amendment, do amendments.
So I certainly would prefer it that way because I think amendments should stand on their own because these are not just like a bunch of technical changes.
These are a bunch of substantive changes.
So I'm not sure what the thought was when the council president read off all the things from the last meeting.
Frankly, I was like trying to catch up to what the divide was about, but I just wanted to signal for you where I was at.
Well, in that case, if— hey, let's see.
I think the only way for you to do that is to further divide.
So I'll move myself.
Can I move to further divide let's say 3 and 6 from 4.
Point of information.
Well, I'm in the queue and I was gonna share—.
I was gonna divide the question, so maybe I could.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Great.
Unidentified speaker
Are you dividing all of them?
Because I think we just need to divide all of them.
Um, I was— since Councilor Zimmerman said his issue was with 4, which was part of a package with 3 and 6, I was just separating out 4.
Um, if we— if we— if it's— if it's simp— if it's actually simpler to vote on all of them individually, then I think it would be.
That would be my preference.
Sameer Kanal
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
Um, do I need to move that, or—.
I think that's what Councilor Novick is dividing the question.
Steve Novick
Okay, so I'll move that.
Unidentified speaker
There we go.
We will vote on each of the amendments sequentially, so we will start, okay, with Novick 3.
And is there further discussion on Novick 3?
I mean, just because we are coming back after many weeks, it would be helpful if you could just, at the beginning of each amendment, just give us a quick rationale, Councilor Novick, before we vote?
Sure.
I thought I tried to do that earlier, but I'll emphasize.
There's a list of crimes that are defined as nuisance activities.
And in our original proposal, or maybe it was the original law, it included loitering to solicit prostitution and prostitution-related offenses.
After listening to public testimony, we realized that that could be construed as we're targeting sex workers, which is not the intent.
So we removed those 2 from the list of nuisance activities but added human trafficking-related offenses as defined in ORS.
So that those are crimes where the focus is on the traffickers and the buyers.
So that's just a matter of thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Avalos, further question?
Okay.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Novick, just speaking to Novick 3, I'm supporting this amendment.
I think it deals with one of my biggest pieces of heartache, which was the ordinance that was passed in 2018 that You know, sort of anti-sex worker language here.
I think this is an improvement on that.
And so for that reason, I'm prepared to support Novick 3.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Thank you, Council President.
Councilor Novick, I just want to thank you for working through the language on this piece of it, hearing the feedback that was given, and making sure that we are putting something in place that really does target Human trafficking and the offenses that we are concerned with and does not inadvertently catch up people who are doing work.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue, can we please call the roll on Novick 3?
Our mics aren't working.
They are now.
Okay.
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan.
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Koyama Lane, absent.
Morillo.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Novick.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Clark.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Green.
Mitch Green
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Zimmerman.
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy.
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Oh, sorry.
Keelan McClymont
Nope.
Unidentified speaker
My order is a little bit out of order.
Sorry.
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Absent.
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Thanks.
The amendment is approved with a vote of 10 aye votes and 2 absent.
Thank you.
Councilor Novick, could you give us another just brief one sentence on Novick 4?
It might take a little more than one sentence.
So Novick 4 relates to the timeline after the city has notified somebody that their property there's a timeline for reaching an agreement for what steps the owner will take to mitigate the nuisance, or— and then when the nuisance is actually abated.
So basically it says— the amendment says that if no agreement concerning abatement is reached within 60 days— it was 30— or if an agreed-upon course of action does not result in the abatement of the nuisance activities within 90 days, the city will issue a notice of the city administrator, the designees may refer the matter to the city attorney.
So it's lengthening the timelines for that negotiation and for the actual abatement of the nuisance.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Um, it all sounds good.
I'd encourage you to put yourself in the position of a person who lives next to a nuisance property.
You've already gone through a 90-day period and you're about to add another 90 days to it.
So, uh, in that case, a half a year where people can drag their feet, allow bad behavior, have screaming, have nuisance, have whatever activity happening.
So I would encourage you to just think about what that means in all of your constituent relations as you're trying to work through a problem, and that we are not quick to determine if a property is a nuisance to then give another longer period.
I think we are being nice at this, at the Portland polite level of extremism.
And this is an area where once you've been identified as a nuisance property in this type of behavior, we're not a city who applies these standards loosely.
In fact, watching this occur is very— it's not used often.
And so we're using it in cases where I think extreme situations have occurred.
I think that's a good point.
So I wouldn't ask your neighbors— I'm not going to ask my neighbors to then give another 90 days to somebody who is not working with us to put a solution together.
So that's why I'm going to vote no, and I'd encourage you to do the same.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Seeing no one else in the queue, Keelan, could we please call the roll on Novick 4?
And I would like to clarify really quickly or confirm that The motions for all of these were moved by Councilor Novick and seconded by Councilor Ryan.
Is that correct?
No.
The original motion, uh, not the motion to divide, but the original motion to move the amendments was seconded by you back in March.
Is that still— That does seem like a long time ago.
Um, so what's my question?
Am I good with this?
I just need to confirm for the record that we have a second.
Second on this particular—.
Jamie Dunphy
On all of the amendments.
Unidentified speaker
Sure, it'll save time.
So Ryan, if you have cold feet on any of them, I will replace your second, but let's get to that after we move forward here.
The timeline one has me questioning.
Okay, I'll offer a second on this one.
Okay, okay, thank you.
How friendly was that?
Very.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Uh, Kanal.
On Novick 4.
For 4.
Aye.
Sameer Kanal
Wait, where are we?
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan.
Jamie Dunphy
I'm sorry.
Unidentified speaker
Oh, sorry.
Is there—.
We're on 5.
We're on 4.
Keelan McClymont
4.
Unidentified speaker
Still on 4.
We voted on 3.
Eric Zimmerman
To the no on 4.
Unidentified speaker
And I didn't say anything earlier, so I will just say Very quickly, we had something similar to this in permitting work.
And so I understood Eric's comments.
I vote no.
Koyama Lane?
Absent.
Murillo?
Sorry, I know that we're like going through this quickly and I'm trying to process the language changes and all of the amendments as we're voting.
Keelan McClymont
Apologies.
Unidentified speaker
No, it's okay.
I think I will vote yes on the amendment because I think it improves it, but I think maybe I have a question for the underlying ordinance after that.
As far as, is a property designated a chronic nuisance based on 2 incidents in 90 days?
So that doesn't have to be convictions, arrests, or charges.
Is that correct?
We're actually proposing to change 2 in 90 to 3 in 90, and it would It's based on documentation in the police report, which states that the police officer has found probable cause to believe that this activity exists.
But so probable cause, my understanding, is not a very high bar because it's enough for arrest, not for adjudication.
So we're like, anyone could call the cops on anyone.
Well, but officers are used to dealing with the concept of probable cause.
It is a real standard.
But it is true that if you want to have a conviction for a nuisance activity as a basis for designation nuisance activity, this does not do that.
Yeah.
And colleagues, we are in a vote.
I just want to make sure.
I apologize, Councilor.
Okay, sure.
I'm a yes on the amendment, and then I will have that question coming for when we discuss it further.
We will discuss the underlying for sure.
Thank you.
Okay, sorry.
Uh, so Morillo, how— what was the vote?
Angelita Morillo
That was a yes.
Unidentified speaker
Okay, thank you.
Sorry.
Uh, Novick?
Aye.
Clark?
No.
Green?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Olivia Clark
No.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Absent.
Keelan McClymont
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes We move to Novick 5, please.
Councilor Novick.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Novick 5 makes some edits to the section on abatement measures.
One is that the court, in determining whether to order somebody to take abatement measures, is supposed to take a variety of factors into account, including the sort of financial impact and so we decided that, that the same standard should apply to the city administrator or designee in determining what abatement measures should be included in an agreement.
The city administrator should consider the same factors that the court has to consider.
And then we also, as a potential abatement activity, and we, I think we did have sex trafficking in mind when we had this in, One abatement activity designated to something that you could do is work with peer-led groups, including on-property visits, to increase availability of resources, services, and support, and communicate information about resources for victims, including support groups, advocate information, and the National Human Trafficking Hotline.
So we're adding that to the list of abatement activities as sort of a menu of possibilities.
So we're adding that to the list of possibilities.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Colleagues, discussion of Novick 5?
Councilor Murillo?
I don't have anything on this.
I think these are good improvements.
Great.
Councilor Zimmerman?
Okay.
Councilor— pausing for more dramatic effect because I feel bad cutting off Councilor Murillo earlier.
Okay, can we please move to a vote on Novick 5?
No.
Aye.
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Absent.
Are we moving through these too quickly?
Because I'm hearing nos and then I'm not understanding the logic, and I would love to hear people's answers as to why.
I just, uh, like, this is— to be honest, these are a lot of amendments that we are going through in a, in a reading at full council, so I'm trying to understand.
All right, are we just pushing along?
Because it— Councilor Kanal, can you say why?
Can I?
Yeah, I'm happy to give Councilor—.
Let Councilor Kanal do this, but also I'm trying to move us forward when no one was in the queue, so I, I—.
Yeah, please.
A question.
Yeah, as a presiding officer, yeah, we're, we're normally allowing 1 or 2 sentences, you know, sure, as part of explaining the vote.
Sure.
So may I revise?
Absolutely.
Okay, given that context, because I do not believe we should be adding more and more abatement measures and making it hard applying the same standard of the court, which I think will ultimately lead to more— I think that this amendment maximizes the, the impact on the, uh, the people who are 199 feet away from a nuisance activity.
And for that reason, I'm voting no.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Okay, I think we're back in the vote.
Unless— are other people going to say something else?
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Sameer Kanal
Okay, I'm an aye.
Unidentified speaker
Thank you.
Sorry, just to confirm, that was aye?
Yes, thank you.
Uh, Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Clark?
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
No.
Unidentified speaker
Smith?
Absent.
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved with a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nos, and 2 absent.
Thank you.
Novick 6.
Councilor Novick.
Uh, thank you, Mr. President.
Novick 6 again, um, moves the standard for chronic nuisance property from 2 nuisance activities in 90 days to 3 in 90 days.
And again, It says that rather than just simply saying that the city administrator can act to designate a nuisance property based on police reports, quote unquote, it has to be reports that a police officer has determined that probable cause exists to believe that a nuisance activity has occurred.
So this actually adds a strong— I mean, strengthens the standard from what it was before because it didn't actually say what the police report had to say.
Thank you.
So it's not a matter of— it's not a matter of previously the nuisance law said that it could only be— invocation could only be based on a conviction.
It's never been that.
So it's sort of— it's, you know, in a way, the intention is to sort of tighten it up.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Colleagues, discussion to Novick 6?
Councilor Zimmerman.
So there's some comments earlier about what constitutes, you know, an offense in this case.
And I just— I think that when you're dealing with properties, and I do think we've been going through these too fast, and this probably should have just been scheduled immediately thereafter in the following meeting, because I think we have moved through some stuff with a little bit of loss.
I mean, a lot of weeks have gone by, and I think that's a fair thing to, like, remember the entire conversation.
Councilor Smith.
But in property code, in property nuisance issues, we're really not talking about did it go to a court of law and then get proven at a court of law that a thing happened.
That's not what nuisance is.
Nuisance is largely based on code compliance officers and officers' ability to observe a thing.
And so I think that largely this has gotten thrown into the category Because of the way it was free— it was prefaced during the committee brief about being along the reins of, of prostitution, human trafficking.
But frankly, most all of this could have been written without ever mentioning those words or without ever really focusing on those, those activities, because what this is really about is some of the stuff that comes with it that is certainly a nuisance in the neighborhood.
Thank you.
A nuisance on the block, and that that part of it is not about it.
That's not about the sex work.
That's not about a buyer.
Those those parts of our code are not changing.
We have all those.
So I think we've gotten a little bit cross-eyed just in terms of there's a lot of reaction to a a changing topic in our community, and one that I think government is getting better about targeting the right part of a chronic issue.
Thank you.
But, but on this, um, you know, moving to 3 in a 90-day, that makes sense to me.
I'll be supportive of it.
But I am speaking to it because applying, applying the same standard of you have to go to court to get proven for things, that's just not how this will go.
And so I just wanted to raise that given how we use property nuisance codes across the city, and you could talk about it for It could be somebody who, you know, has something going on in their lawn that is just— it's not safe for the general public to go around.
We would apply very similar types of nuisance abatement issues, and I think that that's important to keep in mind here.
And that's more of what this underlying ordinance is about than some of the other stuff.
So I think 6 is a fine change.
Thank you.
Councilmember Herbold.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Maria.
Thanks for that, Councilor Zimmerman.
I mean, I think that is actually what concerns me, though, is that this is being painted as something that addresses human trafficking, and you have, I think, stated more plainly that it actually doesn't.
Because, again, if the requirement is that it's a chronic nuisance based on 2 or more you know, three or multiple incidents within 90 days, and it's a police report with probable cause.
And we know that police officers can say almost anything is probable cause to arrest somebody, and that there tends to be racial profiling in how they do all of that, and who they tend to target, what businesses they tend to target.
I have a hard time understanding how this is going to be helping in that.
Because under nuisance code, if an officer believes that someone took a substantial step toward disorderly conduct, that's one of your incidents, even if the person had a lawful reason to be there, even if no crime was actually committed.
So that's kind of where I'm struggling with this.
Keelan McClymont
Councilor Smith.
Unidentified speaker
And association by location.
Like, if our neighborhoods are pretty dense, so I'm just struggling with like, if it's 200 feet away from a property, if you're at a bus stop and something is happening near your property, you're going to be held liable for things that you're not directly responsible for.
I just have a lot of questions about this as a whole.
Mr. President, could I respond to that?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
So I'll actually take up your second issue first, Councilor Morillo.
This only applies when a person associated with the property has committed a nuisance offense.
And a person associated with the property means a person who, on the occasion of a nuisance activity, has entered, patronized, Or a person present on the property, including without limitation any officer, director, customer, agent, employee, or any independent contractor of a property, person in charge, or owner of a property.
So it's not just the activity occurred within 200 feet of the business, it's the activity was done by somebody who had this association with the property.
So that's one thing.
Can I ask a follow-up on that?
Sure.
Okay, that's helpful.
Does that mean that okay, if I'm a hotel owner and someone stayed at my hotel and then later they did human trafficking at a bus stop or something, does that mean because they stayed at my hotel that they had association with me?
It says on the occasion of a nuisance activity.
So it's basically to get at you're sort of using the property as a base for the nuisance activity.
And what I will note is this is another instance where we have actually tightened up the preexisting law, 'cause the preexisting law, and this we did in amendments approved in committee, the preexisting law said that it also applied if a person attempted to visit the property.
We decided that was too broad.
You shouldn't hold a property owner responsible for the activities of somebody who didn't actually visit, but just attempted to visit.
Okay.
And the other thing I just wanted to mention on the, the issue of the probable cause issue is that the city can't itself on its own force a property owner to undertake mitigation activities.
The city instigates a negotiation with the property owner, but only a court can force the property owner to do something.
So ultimately, the city would have to go to court and the court would have to make that determination.
Thank you.
Okay, that makes sense.
I think maybe the tension here is the inherent trust or distrust of our criminal justice system and how it will be applied to these different people and property owners.
Because I think you're right, there is going to be a court process.
Whether that due process to force the sale of someone's property based on police reports exactly the question that this ordinance is going to be litigated over at the city's expense.
So, Councilor, I just have to say that instances where property is forced to be sold are going to be exceedingly rare.
Normally would be the court would order the property owner to take certain mitigation measures.
Yeah.
And so, and then we'll be asking council members to vote on the ordinance.
Okay, sure.
Okay, thank you, Councilor Murillo.
Councilor Knoll.
Thanks.
First, I, I wanna say I agree with the assessment that Councilor Zimmerman gave, and I also agree with Councilor Murillo's point that that is in fact the concern.
For— we're— because we're, we're still, I believe, technically on Novick 6.
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
I, I wanna, I think the changes from 2 to 3 are all good.
And so there's 4 things in this, 3 of them are changing 2 to 3.
And that's why I think I'll probably be voting yes on this.
I also agree that there's— it does narrow the scope to say that there— to say probable cause versus not.
I think part of the challenge is, in my opinion, and I think each person's assessment of this are gonna be a little different, These are small changes that don't necessarily address the underlying big picture concern with the ordinance.
So I'll be voting for this amendment.
I think there's a broader conversation on the underlying to have that we should do.
The one thing I did want to mention, because it was brought up in the debate, I don't know that it is— Councilor Novick, I want to just question one piece of the assessment definition of persons associated with, because what it says in here is persons associated with means any person who on the occasion of a nuisance activity has entered, patronized, or visited a property or person present on the property, including without limitation any officer, director, customer, agent, employee, or any independent contractor of a property, person in charge, or owner of a property.
And it is factual to say that the text or attempted to enter, patronize, or visit, or waited to enter, patronize, or visit And that, I think, that is an improvement.
But I don't know that I would go as far as to say that that means it has to have been used as a base.
I think that is not as narrow as this text reads.
And I want to just bring that up in the context of maybe that's an underlying conversation, but I wanted to mention it since it was brought up here.
I appreciate that.
I also want to note that I think that many of the objections here are to the existing law, not to the amendments I'm bringing, because actually in many cases we're trying to sort of tighten up the pre-existing law.
So I think that, I mean, what we are trying to do, the big thing is extend 3 and 30 days to 3 and 90 days, and then a few other things.
I think that the primary objections that we've heard are to the underlying law, not to thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Green.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
That actually just gets right to my questions, and partly is because I'm not as informed about this as you are.
So Novick 6, is Novick 6 in procedure sub A, is that just adjusting your also innovation, or is it adjusting something that already exists in law?
Can you clarify that?
Can you help me understand?
There's probably 2 moving pieces there that I need to understand.
So Novick 6, the 2 to 3, originally we started off with the existing law as 3 instances within 30 days.
Out of committee, we passed 2 instances in 90 days.
So now that we'll be changing that to 3 in 90 days, and the rest of it is currently, the city administrator can tell a person their property's been determined to be nuisance property based on 3 or more police reports without clarification.
And we're saying police reports that an officer has determined probable cause, blah, blah, blah.
So that's on top of currently existing law?
That's on top of currently existing law.
The 2 to 3 thingamabob, the currently existing law is 3 and 30.
We've been committee, we had it at 2 and 90, now we're having it as 3 and 90.
Got it.
I can support Novick 6.
I think it improves currently existing law and what has already been discussed.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Green.
Councilor Knoll, is that a legacy?
Okay.
Colleagues, any further discussion of Councilor Novick's, I guess Novick 6?
Could we please move to a roll call vote?
Kanal?
Sameer Kanal
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
Absent.
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Novick?
Steve Novick
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Smith?
Loretta Smith
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment is approved with a vote of 11 ayes and 1 absent.
Thank you.
Councilor Pirtle-Guiney, are you able to discuss Pirtle-Guiney 3?
I will try if you can hear me all right.
Jamie Dunphy
Yes, we can.
Unidentified speaker
Perfect.
And I'm sorry I had to leave, colleagues.
I need to be somewhere by 5.
So Pirtle-Guiney 3 is admittedly confusing looking because we were trying to note how it changed from the originally submitted Pirtle-Guiney 2 when we were first looking at this and that amendment had been submitted early.
So I would ask you, when you look at Pirtle-Guiney 3, to— the, the parts that are being proposed as changes are in the The first paragraph, the addition of the words of delivery of the notice, and then the entirety of the new sub-5 that is listed here.
Um, please ignore the highlights and other notations.
This is an amendment to an amendment to an amended version.
Um, what Pirtle-Guiney 3 does is attempts in 2 ways When I first read Councilor Novick's ordinance, I was concerned that a property owner could have action taken against them when they hadn't in fact received the notice because somebody else had either knowingly or unknowingly intercepted the notice.
Councilor Novick, accepted it.
So this clarifies when that clock begins.
It's 14 days— within 14, or it is at 14 days of delivery of the notice, not just when the city has, has processed it, but it may take a while to get to, to delivery.
And then it has new language for number 5, which is attempting to raise the bar slightly thank you, Councilor Pirtle-Guiney.
Councilors, discussion of Pirtle-Guiney 3?
Councilor Kanal.
Thank you, Council President.
So I, I support the first part of this, which is the clarification of adding of delivery of the notice.
I think it's important that we have that clarification.
I don't think it's necessary, but I think it helps.
But because I oppose the second half of it, I'll be voting no on it.
And I think this provides the opportunity to hold someone who is a person in charge accountable if an employee does not actually comply or pass on the notice.
And so that's why I think it's a challenge here.
And I recognize that there's some issues with this that I think relate to I think that's what Councilor Novick was bringing up earlier, that a lot of when we talk about the amendment, sometimes we're talking about the underlying, but I'm looking at net benefit here.
And that's my assessment.
I don't think this is necessarily like attempting to create a problem.
That's just how I assess it.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Thanks.
You know, I'm going to vote no on this too.
I think this is just an example of like we woke up and decided we had to figure out a government policy for the first time in 100 years.
150 Years.
I'm pretty sure we know how to deliver a notice.
And so I think this is just making it messy.
And frankly, we have an entire section of employees, a codebook that's this thick.
We have a bureau full of 880-some-odd people.
I don't know, and no one has ever brought to me, that we somehow had to rewrite how to deliver an official notice.
And so this continued need to pare down and rewrite and put councilor Smith.
Eric Zimmerman
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Unidentified speaker
I think that the way that we're trying to shoehorn ourselves into prescription every possible thing, I think, is making this a mess.
And so I don't know that the changes are terribly impactful other than the fact that it is not making it as clear as it could be.
And I think it's an example of trying to shoehorn ourselves into something that I'm really not sure what it's about.
I know that this government has successfully delivered official notifications to hundreds, thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of people over the course of its existence.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Knoll, are you still in the queue?
Okay, okay, all good.
Seeing no one else in the queue, can we please Vote on Pirtle Guinea 3.
Canal?
No.
Pirtle Guinea?
Aye.
Ryan?
No.
Koyama Lane?
Absent.
Murillo?
No.
Novick?
Aye.
Clark?
Aye.
Green?
No.
Zimmerman?
No.
Avalos?
No.
Smith?
No.
Olivia Clark
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment fails with a vote of 4 ayes, 7 nos, and 1 absent.
Okay.
Councilor Novick, are you able to speak to Novick/Koyama Lane 1?
Yes, because it's very short.
It simply says the city administrator or their designee will, for 3 years following implementation of updates to Chapter 14B60, report annually on implementation.
Reporting will summarize data pertaining to the use of the code, including how often it is used, outcomes from implementation, and any implementation challenges.
Reporting will address any unintended consequences or equity impacts due to implementation of the code updates.
Reports will be made available to the public.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Uh, Councilor Novick, are you moving this amendment?
This is a new— sorry, yes, I move great.
And is there a second on this amendment?
Olivia Clark
Second.
Unidentified speaker
Councilor Clark seconds to the amendment.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Nothing that Multnomah County Health Department loves more than a report about not much.
So I would encourage you to really consider your source here, um, particularly in the last couple of years.
And the Multnomah County Public Health Department or this division bringing this forward was inappropriate.
And frankly, you know, this is probably a nothing burger, right?
Because I imagine they're going to use this like one time, maybe 2 times in the 3-year period, and they're going to say probably in a sticky note, Councilor Novick, we used it 2 times, thank you very much, right?
That's about the extent of it.
But there's this idea that everything we do, we then have to put an Report requirement into the ordinance.
And some stuff doesn't have to always be reported on, right?
We can— it doesn't mean we don't find out about it.
It doesn't mean we don't go in and say, hey, can you run that for me, if we find some malfeasance or we're having a sense that there could be.
But we're starting to lean toward this idea that we have to put this type of clause at the back end of everything.
And I think this was to scratch an itch for a friend at a health department, and I don't get it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Kanal.
Thanks.
Um, I, I would prefer that we don't have the equity impacts instead that we, uh, instead of reporting on them.
I think that's, uh, the, the broad concern I have about this one.
I'll also note that the use of the word unintended, um, legislative intent's been established that this is designed to help this code be used more frequently.
Um, that's, that's the intent of the ordinance.
That's been brought up in committee.
I don't think there's any— I think that's a neutral way of framing it.
Um, I also would note that the, uh, last sentence of the community impacts says that we— there is an understanding that there will be opposition.
And I, I don't know if that's intended or not, but that there's at least acknowledged impact on owners of motels in this.
So I don't know that unintended captures that particular impact at all.
So for those reasons, I'm, I'm against Mr.
President, may I direct respond?
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
I actually, um, upon reflection, I think that reference— I obviously haven't had an opportunity to consult with Councilor Koyama Lane on this, but yeah, I think references to unintended outcomes are inherently confusing because who intended what?
So I would actually remove this proposal simply saying reporting will address any equity impacts and get rid of unintended okay.
Sameer Kanal
Wait, what are you doing?
Unidentified speaker
I'm moving to amend my own amendment.
Okay.
Councilor Novick's moved to change the language to remove the last part of it there.
Okay.
Not to remove the— just to remove some words.
A couple of words.
Reporting will address, um, any— and stay— cross out any unintended outcomes okay.
That's removing it.
Okay.
Councilor Zimmerman, Kanal— oh, Smith.
Thank you, Council President.
All I have to say is Councilor Zimmerman's remarks, he was thinking the same thing I was thinking.
Ditto, ditto, ditto.
This is— we're getting a little bit out of bounds in the reporting.
And I know in the, in the, in the charter, it gives us that option of having the city administrator do a report, and it's, it's not really necessary.
We have so much work to do.
And, you know, I, I said it the other, other day, none of these things came up When it was going through committee.
None of these issues with all of these, um, amendments, they never came up.
And people had some of the same questions, but they wait to the BIC Council to drop all these amendments to something.
And it's, it's his amendment, it's his, it's his original underlying, and he probably forgot something.
But, and I, and I, I support that.
Do you want to— I can let you talk.
Thank you, Councilor.
Um, so ditto, ditto, ditto, Councilor Zimmerman.
Um, I won't be in support of this at all.
Thank you, Councilor Smith.
Colleagues, seeing no one else in the queue— oh, just to clarify, Okay, you had seconded for the purposes of the board.
Did you second the second?
Sure, I'll second that removal.
It may be easier to withdraw, uh, Novick Koyama Lane 1 and reintroduce with a second.
I should have remembered that.
Thank you.
Um, I hereby withdraw the original and move it as previously edited.
Okay, we'll call this Novick 7.
And Councilor Clark, are you okay to second that?
Sameer Kanal
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Okay.
Colleagues, any further discussion?
Can we please move to a roll call vote?
Kanal?
Elana Pirtle-Guiney
No.
Unidentified speaker
Pirtle-Guiney?
Dan Ryan
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Ryan?
No.
Koyama Lane?
Absent.
Keelan McClymont
Morillo?
Unidentified speaker
No.
Aye.
Steve Novick
No.
Unidentified speaker
Aye.
Olivia Clark
No.
Unidentified speaker
No.
Smith?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
Dunphy?
Candace Avalos
No.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment fails with a vote of 3 ayes, 8 nos, 1 absent.
Okay, colleagues, are there any other amendments I don't have note of them.
Councilor Kanal.
Yeah, I filed it on February 24th.
I haven't had a chance to do it yet.
So I'm going to move Kanal 1.
And just to speak to it, in 14B-6010 and 14B-60030, A2 in the first case, B in the second case, it says on or within 200 feet of a property.
And my amendment would remove or within 200 feet of and hold property owners accountable for what occurs on their property, but not what occurs 199 feet away from it.
Second.
Councilor Kanal moves Kanal 1.
Councilor Green moves or seconds.
Councilor Kanal, can I just clarify the red line?
I assume this is a scrivener's error, but with the red line of on paragraph A2, it reads property on which which.
Yeah, that is a scrivener's error.
Thank you.
On which any person— there's not supposed to be the word which twice.
Yes.
Thank you.
And I'll note that this was written, if you'll notice the below, later in the file, it shows a red line from the version as it was then.
But these upper 2 places, I think, where it shows the actual amendment itself indicates clearly what it is.
It is removing or within 200 feet.
Okay.
To the, uh, Canal 1, uh, Councilor Zimmerman.
Thanks.
Um, so I, I'd like you to think about what it is I— that Councilor Novick has brought this overall for.
And what we're really talking about are properties that serve as centers of gravity for other types of stuff that happens in the direct proximity of them.
200 feet is a and so when you think about the nature of the issues we're talking about, if the property isn't of itself the center of gravity and a person steps off that property but is directly, as we talked about, directly connected to, directly using it as a home base, that's what this gets to.
And so by removing the 200-foot piece here.
It does a couple of things that I hope you will not support this amendment because we can write laws all single— all day long that, um, and, and, and they'll be on the, if this occurs at this time, therefore it's illegal.
Most nuisance property laws, because nuisance property is so darn hard to, to really tie to how does it fit, it takes a holistic and encompassing look at what is— whom is the center of gravity.
And so the 200 feet serves as a flexible measure for the people we're asking to deal with a very hard job when it comes to interpreting what they're observing on a street, on a neighborhood block face, in an area.
That work is not easy when— anytime, and it's certainly not easy if If the only standard for an act that considers itself to be illegal or it's an act that is a nuisance is that you must have a foot on a given property.
So if you were standing on one property and something happens, but then half an hour later or 30 days later, you were doing that on the sidewalk instead of on the driveway, for the neighborhood who's going through the nuisance, there's no meaningful difference.
I think that's a good point.
And I'll just, to get to the larger point, and I think that Councilor Kanal, you're probably proposing this so that we don't over-enforce against property owners who are not participating in the activity.
And I think that that's a fair thing, but it's also how nuisance code is written is so that they can take a look at, is it all about, is the activity all about centering on this place?
Steve Novick
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Agreeably, against their will, etc.
And I, and I'll use this example.
I am sure that in any one of our hotels downtown that a person has engaged in purchasing of sex.
That, of course, has occurred.
The question is, is that hotel centering its business model on being the place where they know they can do that and get away with it?
Angelita Morillo
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
Are they encouraging or being the place where the same group of people hang out on the sidewalk or in the street adjacent waiting for the business opportunity to come?
But the difference here is that a thing occurring in a hotel room— and to Councilor Murillo kind of was saying— is like, just because you stayed a place, does that make it a crime because you then went to that place and engaged in a thing at the bus stop.
I think that's, that's a really good example because this is about, is a certain place serving as a center of gravity for that activity?
And in the case that Councilor Murillo brought up, I don't, I don't think that would be an enforceable situation.
So I, I think I understand the intent here, but I do think it really— it allows us to write a law to Councilor Novick's overall and overarching ordinance, pat ourselves on the back, and be completely unenforceable.
Sameer Kanal
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
So if we do this 200-foot— we excise the 200-foot piece from here, I think the likelihood that any sort of nuisance property will be used to abate some of the places that we heard about from the testimony near the high school and others really will almost be zeroed out with this.
Because what we heard from the school principal is not because their students walked onto the property that is the problem.
It's that as their students walked along 89th Street, right.
Second, they were at multiple points along the area faced with some pretty nuisance property type of activities, knowing that there are a couple of bases, centers of gravity.
And so for that, I just would encourage you to really think through that.
For this one, I'll vote no, and I certainly appreciate the debate.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Murillo.
Thank you, Council President.
To be honest, that rationale is making me less and less willing to support this for a few reasons.
For one thing, like, let's, let's go through the sequence of events here.
The threshold under this ordinance is that a property can be designated a chronic nuisance based on a few incidents, however many we've amended, in 90 days.
Again, it's not convictions, it's not arrests, it's just incidents.
And that's the threshold?
It's not charges.
It's police reports with probable cause, which is not a high bar.
I want to emphasize that again.
It is not a high bar for a police officer to write a report.
Then those incidents don't even need to be completed crimes under ORS 161.405.
An attempt is going to be defined as a substantial step that doesn't even need to be unique to criminal conduct.
It counts as a nuisance activity.
If an officer believes that someone took a substantial step toward disorderly conduct, that's one of your incidents.
Even if the person had a lawful reason to be there, even if no crime was actually committed, impossibility is not a defense under Oregon's attempted statute.
And then, then we move into the 200-foot radius issue.
Those attempted offenses don't need to happen on the property.
They can happen within 200 feet.
And I think the fact that you're saying that it's about the center of gravity of where potential, like, sex work is happening.
To me, that indicates that, again, this policy is not— first, we're saying it's not really addressing trafficking, it's addressing nuisance.
Then we're saying this is about the center of gravity for where sex work could be happening, which to me, it's like we're revealing that we're calling this a trafficking policy, obviously, because it looks really bad for anyone who votes down on it.
Councilmember Loretta Smith.
You know, but it's not actually addressing the underlying issue that we're really concerned about.
But it is a very emotional and intense thing to say that it is addressing when it is not.
And in our neighborhoods that are so dense, I don't see how 200 feet from a property boundary, which includes sidewalks, transit stops, parks, and neighboring buildings, could not possibly impact other people who are, who are in the vicinity.
And the association requirement is really broad.
On the property itself, quote, under Section A1, there is no requirement that the person committing the nuisance activity have any connection to the property or its owner.
Within the 200-foot radius, Section A2 requires that a person be associated with the property, but that's also defined to include anyone who has entered, patronized, or visited For a motel or a business, that's literally every customer.
The property owner doesn't need to have any involvement in the activity whatsoever to be held liable.
So the consequence of this is that the city administrator or their undefined designee can demand abatement measures including surveillance cameras, ID verification of all visitors, visitor logs, and trespass agreements giving police enforcement authority on private property.
If the owner doesn't comply, or if compliance doesn't satisfy the designee, the city can go to court for $1,000 per day in civil penalties, closure of the property for up to a year, for sale, or demolition.
So under this ordinance, if a police officer writes a few police reports within 90 days saying that the customer or visitor at or near your property appears to attempt a misdemeanor, and you don't install surveillance cameras and hand your visitor logs to police, the city can seek to take your building, and no crime needs to be completed on your part.
No one needs to be arrested.
You don't have to have done anything wrong.
So I'm concerned about the way that our own surveillance state is being used for people who are being accused of things because of proximity, and, and that it is not actually going to address human trafficking, which I I do think that it's a real issue.
I do support sex workers, and human trafficking is distinctly different from sex work.
But I, I don't see how this is accomplishing any of that.
So I will be supporting Councilor Kanal's amendment.
But I, I wanted to walk through that rationale of why that $200,000 Foot distance is really critical, and I have to like analyze this as a whole to explain that.
So thanks for giving me some time.
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Councilor Novick.
First of all, I just want to note that as I understand it, Councilor Kanal's saying on the property, right?
Not on the property itself.
That's what would be remaining, yes.
So that to me means that if you're a sex trafficker is standing 2 feet in front of a property saying, um, if you come in here, there's a 12-year-old girl ready to have sex with you, Then that's— then that doesn't, that doesn't count.
And I also want to say that if Councilor Knoll's amendment passes, I will vote against my own ordinance.
We've talked with law enforcement about it, and they say that if you have it just be on the property, then it's less, it's less useful.
I mean, that outweighs the 3 in 30 versus 3 in 90.
So if we pass this amendment, that's a death knell for the ordinance itself.
Steve Novick
Thank you.
Unidentified speaker
Also, I was a little confused by Councilor Morillo talking about there just has to be a step towards a crime.
That sounds like the definition of conspiracy law or something.
But what it says, the police officer has determined that probable cause exists to believe that a nuisance activity has occurred, that a crime has actually occurred, not that a step towards a crime has occurred.
So anyway, that said.
Jamie Dunphy
Councilor Herbold.
Unidentified speaker
I think that's, that's enough.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor.
Councilor Knell.
Thank you.
And I respect that disagreement.
I agree with Councilor Zimmerman's point that this is a debate worth having.
The way I would frame this is about guilt by association in the primary sense is, are you responsible for what happens 199 feet away from you?
And is it possible for that determination of your responsibility right now in the current code, as well, and this is not something Councilor Novick created, this is the underlying code, and I want to fully acknowledge that, that right now that is allowed.
And this code is not currently used that frequently.
I think I brought this up earlier that part of the reason for this is to make it more possible for it to be used.
And my concern is that this weakness in the underlying code that allows for that guilt by association is not being used.
Thank you.
Then becomes more often used.
I want to point to a person who testified about something that was even happening on their property in the meeting back in March, where they were going to be, in their view, and I think it's fair to say even in the current version, held accountable for something that they called police to try to get help for and were not given support.
And so, and I bring that up to say, because there was a conversation around, um, you know, that we wouldn't be holding someone accountable for something happens happening on the sidewalk outside of their building, you know, down a few feet.
That's accurate because it wouldn't be something that is their fault.
The, the problem that we're facing with human trafficking, we brought this up in the committee pretty clearly the human trafficking unit does not have the resources to address this.
They do not have any overtime.
They did 2 years ago.
That's their own accounting in committee.
And they currently do not have overtime dollars despite the fact that this council adopted a budget note to move overtime dollars into a suite of programs within the police bureau that includes human trafficking.
And the idea that we can't do what is already authorized, but instead have to find some other way, and we have found that the property owner is available and doesn't have that, that, uh, the resource to, to combat this and have put the responsibility on them.
And, and again, that's not Councilor Novick, that's not this proposal, that predates, um, this entire conversation.
And I think in order to be able to talk about how we would utilize this code more, it would be really important to me to see that guilt by association is removed from this, this conversation.
And I, I just want to preempt one other conversation, say I did file this back in February.
This is something I raised as a concern back in the committee as well.
Thanks.
Thank you, Councilor Kanal.
Colleagues, I will note it is currently 5 o'clock.
We are not going to be able to get to the general discussion of this today, but we will We'll continue this item at the top of the agenda tomorrow afternoon, but we're not— I'm not closing out.
I want to limit debate in the—.
Sameer Kanal
Point of order on that.
Jamie Dunphy
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
2 Things.
One is this is the last amendment.
Jamie Dunphy
Yes.
Unidentified speaker
If we were to vote on this, we could conclude our first reading on this today.
Good.
Yes.
And the second piece of it is I would strongly request that it not be at the top of the agenda if it is Okay, well, let's see if we can get through—.
Let's get through the 3 in the queue and then go to a vote and call it a night.
Councilor Zimmerman.
Thank you.
This is a good— this is a good part of the conversation.
It's an important— where I think some of the confusion has happened.
So I'm going to talk about this city's enforcement of nuisance types of codes against a property.
And how it could have gone to anybody within 200 feet, but it didn't.
And so I'm going to talk about 4th and Washington in my district.
And within 20 feet is Kelly's Olympian.
Another 20 feet is Casa Nightclub.
On the other side, we've got the, the, the new food carts.
We've got the Royal Sonesta Hotel.
My point in bringing that up is that code compliance, Portland Police, Portland Fire, PBOT, Myself, when I worked in the mayor's office, we went to the target.
We went to the center of gravity.
We talked about the issues that were going on at that one property.
And if we saw things that happened to be in front of Kelly's Olympian that we knew to be related to 4th and Washington, we didn't extend that to Kelly's Olympian as being a contributing factor.
At the same time, and during this, this era, We were having some pretty serious conversations with our club owners in town about the prevalence of their clubs being used as kind of the place everybody got amped up and then had a gunfight in Old Town.
So we had conversations with, with Casa Nightclub and other places.
And you know what, at the same time, even though we had a nuisance property at 4th and Washington, we kept that part of the conversation confined to Casa, which was across the street, well within 200 feet.
Angelita Morillo
Okay.
Unidentified speaker
The reason I say that is in my entire time in government, I've never had anybody come and say, I'm being accused of participating in an— or convening or having or promoting a nuisance property with something I am not involved in.
That's just never happened.
I think that it's easy to think of the boogeyman.
But also, I think our systems have largely got a lot of crosschecks to make sure that we attribute a nuisance only to those who are involved.
And frankly, the, the standard has been in Portland that we're quite careful not to apply nuisance to those, even in rough areas, even on, on streets that are really struggling, to those that are not participating.
And frankly, in Old Town, that's a daily occurrence for us in terms of some folks are really trying to contribute positively.
They're right next door to some folks who are not, and we have split that out.
And so I have faith that if we got a whiff of it being used inappropriately, that we have the tools to correct that quickly, but also that the systems would have a cross-check.
But in my entire career, I've never had somebody say, I'm being accused of a nuisance property issue, and I wasn't participating.
I don't know where they got this accusation.
It, it just hasn't been the case.
So I just want to offer that up, uh, and I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Zimmerman.
Councilor Novick.
Um, thank you, Mr. President.
I just wanted to note that, um, Taran Patel of the Asian American Hotel Owners Association came to us the first hearing on this, um, in committee and said, I want to be sure that when one of my folks calls up to report a crime and that's not held against them as a nuisance act, as a nuisance instance.
So we passed an amendment to address that.
And I also want to say that we don't have businesses coming in front of us saying this is a big threat to them.
And it's actually somewhat ironic to me that the councilors who occasionally get accused of being anti-business are standing up for— seeming to stand up for business when the businesses themselves don't think they need to be standing up.
Councilor finally, this is not just about human trafficking.
It also can be used in cases where properties are being used for gunplay or for drug dealing.
But I will note that Safety Compass, which survivors of sex trafficking who advocate for victims of sex trafficking, was supportive of the proposal.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Novick.
Councilor Murillo.
Yeah, thank you for that.
I know, I do think it is a little bit funny because, you know, we had Apano and other organizations who represent a lot of Asian American businesses on 82nd Avenue actually have a lot of issues with this.
So I don't think that's necessarily true.
And they came and spoke to us and sent us a lot of emails.
I'm sure you saw them all as well.
The argument that if, you know, Councilor Novick again is painting a very councilor Smith.
So the argument that's being made is a very, I think, emotional story of, okay, there's a little girl getting sold on the sidewalk right outside of a hotel, and if we remove the 200 feet, that's going to prevent us from stopping human trafficking.
That's just not true because human trafficking is illegal right now.
So if a little girl is getting sold on the sidewalk right outside of the hotel, theoretically the police would be able to stop them right now.
The reason they're not doing that is because they can't be everywhere all at once.
We don't, and we police are frankly not the tool to actually address human trafficking if that's what this is truly about.
There is not a single published study that connects chronic nuisance property ordinances to reductions in human trafficking.
The Polaris Project, the organization that operates the National Human Trafficking Hotline, does not recommend most of the measures in this ordinance's abatement menu.
Polaris recommends staff training, visible hotline information in guest rooms, which we did approve, and I.
All of the academic research found that nuisance abatement against trafficking venues was rarely used, and when it was, it displaced operations to neighboring jurisdictions rather than ending them.
So if the issue is truly with the underlying policy, then to me that means that this actually— what we need to do is truly address the underlying policy and the gaps that exist within it.
I think that's a great point.
And not to pretend that this is going to actually address big harms in our community like human trafficking, which deserve real consideration.
So I assume with the makeup of who's sitting up here, this amendment is going to fail, and I look forward to having further discussions.
But I will say, I will leave it on this because in the following days we're going to have complicated policies coming forward.
Most of the amendments brought here today were by the sponsor themselves.
That's not being held against him.
And last-minute amendments keep getting brought up, so I don't want to hear anything later when we have other complicated policies coming up this week about who can and cannot do that.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councilor Morillo.
Colleagues, I'd like to move to a roll call vote on Canal 1, please.
Aye.
Aye.
Absent.
Ryan?
Dan Ryan
No.
Unidentified speaker
Koyama Lane?
Tiffany Koyama Lane
Absent.
Unidentified speaker
Murillo?
Angelita Morillo
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Novick?
Steve Novick
No.
Unidentified speaker
Clark?
Olivia Clark
No.
Unidentified speaker
Green?
Mitch Green
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Zimmerman?
Eric Zimmerman
No.
Unidentified speaker
Avalos?
Candace Avalos
Aye.
Unidentified speaker
Smith?
Loretta Smith
No.
Unidentified speaker
Dunphy?
Jamie Dunphy
No.
Unidentified speaker
The amendment It fails with a vote of 4 ayes, 6 nos, and 2 absent.
Okay, colleagues, we are over time.
We have no more pending amendments.
This item now moves to second reading, and we are recessed until tomorrow at 2 o'clock.