Council rejects motion to fast-track public hearing on vehicle-to-sidewalk transfer ban, 3-5

The Eugene City Council on April 28, 2025 voted 3-5 against a motion to direct the city manager to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance prohibiting transfers of goods or money from drivers or passengers in travel lanes to people on the sidewalk or in the street.

Councilor Clark moved to send the ordinance to a public hearing immediately, saying it would save council and staff time by advancing the next logical step in a matter that has already had work sessions and earlier hearings. "We've already passed a motion to have this ordinance brought back to council, but we've had a work session on this, at least a couple of them, and it's been to a public hearing already," Clark said. "Having the public hearing first then allows us to have yet another work session, but it saves us the 1 work session and we have a lot of stuff to do."

Opponents said the measure crossed constitutional lines and deserved fuller deliberation. Councilor Zelenka said he had previously opposed the ordinance because "it's well established Oregon law that anti panhandling laws are unconstitutional in Oregon," and argued the draft was a thinly veiled anti-panhandling measure. "There's a reason Springfield has had 0 citations because they know if they bring this to court it will be declared unconstitutional as anti panhandling," Zelenka said.

Councilor Groves defended the proposal as a safety measure, saying drivers stopping in travel lanes to hand items to people on sidewalks creates hazards. Groves cited data from Portland and the police chief's prior comments and said the goal was behavioral change rather than punitive enforcement. "It's not about being punitive. It's about changing dangerous behaviors. And that's what we're trying to accomplish with this," Groves said.

Councilor Keating said she was inclined to support the underlying ordinance but opposed Clark's motion because it short-circuited the process for council members who had not previously participated in earlier discussions. "I could be swung either way, but I'm gonna be very clear right now that I would be likely to support said ordinance. I want to follow the process, so I will be voting no on the motion made tonight," Keating said.

After a brief procedural confusion over electronic voting, the mayor announced the final count: three in favor, five opposed, and the motion failed. Because the motion specifically asked the city manager to schedule a public hearing, the vote means no immediate hearing will be scheduled under that direction; the council may consider the ordinance again through the council's regular work-session and public-notice process.

The discussion referenced prior work sessions and differing interpretations of legal risk: supporters cited the city attorney's prior guidance that the draft was not unconstitutional, while opponents warned state case law on panhandling could invalidate enforcement. No ordinance adoption or new enforcement policy was approved at the meeting.