New Search
1 " <br /> HAMMITT Bob <br /> From: BRETT Tom A <br /> To: HAMMITT Bob; ANDERSEN Chris F; LYLE Les A <br /> Cc: NORRIS Linda H; WEILER Phil J; MORGAN Dick A; WHITLOW Dave A; HILL Jim R; <br /> COOKE Leonard G <br /> Subject: RE: Scobert Park <br /> Date: Wednesday, August 14, 1996 8:10AM <br /> Les and company, It would be my preference that the closure is based PRIMARILY on <br /> revitalization /neighborhood request. The characterization that, due to obvious staffing constraints there is <br /> an interruption in the ability of PS to provide fully- effective enforcement should be a tangential /contributing <br /> issue (not a direct cause of the closure). As a sector commander, I have steadfastly maintained that I was <br /> opposed to closure based solely upon the perceived inability to respond to every call for service in the park <br /> and stated in the first meeting of the WCC that I would not support a closure structured solely on <br /> dissatisfaction with enforcement efforts . Our statistics will show that this area of Eugene, coupled with <br /> the West University district receives the majority of police service as it is now. <br /> When closure occurs, PS will give due attention to enforcement of the closure such as was done in West <br /> University Park. It is anticipated that after an initial enforcement effort, the associated trespassing <br /> problems will taper off as they did in WU Park Thanx, Lt. Brett <br /> From: LYLE Les A <br /> To: HAMMITT Bob; ANDERSEN Chris F <br /> Cc: NORRIS Linda H; WEILER Phil J; MORGAN Dick A; WHITLOW Dave A; BRETT Tom A <br /> Subject: RE: Scobert Park <br /> Date: Tuesday, August 13, 1996 8:41 AM <br /> Bob, I will try to attend if I can but not sure if another <br /> meeting I have at that time will be canceled or not. In case <br /> I can't make it here are some things that I believe we <br /> concluded from the meeting we held last week with most of the <br /> players you have on your list. If anyone has a different <br /> impression, please edit this note. Hope this helps. <br /> 1. PS is ok with proceeding as long as this is not <br /> characterized as strictly a PS issue. There was agreement <br /> that if we also used the revitalization of the park as <br /> additional justification, then it was ok with PS. Both Dick <br /> and Tom would prefer not closing the Park because they are not <br /> anticipating much success from the effort but are willing to <br /> give it a try. I was agreed active enforcement would need to <br /> be coupled with a closure. <br /> 2. I think everyone agreed that a temporary closure of 2 to 3 <br /> months was not adequate to really accomplish anything <br /> meaningful. 6 months would be preferred and longer if <br /> possible. Clearly, the property owners in the area want some <br /> sort of end date since they don't want to run the risk of the <br /> park not opening up again. They are looking at University <br /> Park and the fact that the admin. order does not address <br /> reopening. <br /> 3. The concept of doing a park planning effort was included <br /> in the petition submitted by WCC. Conducting this planning <br /> effort in parallel with the closure may also be additional <br /> justification for closure. It likely would not be completed <br /> within the 3 month closure period or even 6 months but at <br /> least it could be started and would help shape the future of <br /> the park use. One of the issues that would need to be <br /> addressed in the planning effort is the use of fencing since <br /> some of the neighbors would like the park fenced for security <br /> reasons. <br /> Page 1 <br />