Astoria council pauses vote on proposed civil exclusion zones after lengthy debate

The Astoria City Council on April 7 declined to adopt a proposed civil exclusion ordinance that would give police the authority to bar people from specified downtown areas and city property after repeated violations. Instead, councilors agreed to send the measure to a work session for more study and public comment.

City Manager Paul Spence introduced the ordinance as a tool modeled on an ordinance used in Medford, Oregon, saying the proposal was in response to “concerns from the downtown business community and residents citing negative behaviors that are impacting community standards” (City Manager Paul Spence). Chief Kelly of the Astoria Police Department outlined how the proposal would work, emphasizing the department’s stated goal of using the ordinance to secure compliance with existing law rather than to criminalize homelessness.

Chief Kelly said the draft would allow a chief or designee to issue written exclusions, after probable cause that a listed offense had occurred. Notices, Kelly said, would define the restricted area and length of exclusion, list the alleged offense and consequences for noncompliance, and describe an appeals route to the municipal court. He said some behaviors — for example, camping and storing property — would require three citations within 90 days before an exclusion could be issued, and that some routine exemptions would allow a person to enter excluded areas to pass through, seek services, attend court, or obtain work (Chief Kelly).

Supporters who testified at the council meeting included downtown businesses and long-term residents who described repeated incidents — public urination, open drug use, threats and sanitation problems — that they said deter customers and damage storefronts. “These aren’t rare events,” said business owner Roger Nickinen. “They aren’t things any of us should have to accept as normal in our public spaces.” Doc Holliday, commander of the American Legion, told the council he has seen property damage and threats near the legion and said current enforcement offers “not enough repercussions.”

Service providers, housing advocates and several residents opposed the proposal or urged more study. Lifeboat Services and other social-service speakers warned the ordinance could displace people to other neighborhoods, make it harder for people to access services located downtown, and generate additional policing costs. Lifeboat’s interim director said the city should invest in shelter capacity and daytime services instead of relying on exclusion as a primary response. Several speakers, including attorneys and advocates, said exclusionary approaches have drawn litigation and mixed results elsewhere.

Council questions and staff comments focused on how the ordinance would be applied in practice. Chief Kelly and deputies said officers would continue attempts to connect people with services before resorting to exclusion and that enforcement would be discretionary, aimed at repeat and serious offenders. The chief told councilors that Lifeboat had recently averaged roughly two vacancies per night and that Clatsop Community Action (CCA) was at capacity, but added that outreach partners have sometimes been able to arrange shelter placements outside Astoria when needed.

After more than two hours of questions and testimony, councilors discussed next steps. Councilor Davis said the proposal required additional work and public input; Councilor Adams reminded attendees that ordinance passage normally requires two readings and that tonight’s hearing was a first reading and public testimony. The council agreed not to adopt the ordinance at the meeting and instead directed staff to return the draft for further discussion at a work session and to accept additional public comment in the intervening period.

The council closed the public hearing on the ordinance for the night; the matter will return for further consideration and a possible second reading after additional review and outreach.