Could it be that, after years of unabashed Giuliani-ism, Portland’s
lawmakers are finally set to embark on a public safety policy that actually makes some sense?
Hold off on jerking your knee just yet, liberal, but there’s a
strong chance that the city’s Drug-Free Zones (DFZ) will be on
their way to extinction by September’s end [“Twilight Zones,” News,
August 30]. After years of upholding the policy—despite any solid
evidence that it works, and plenty of evidence that it targets minority
communities—a majority of commissioners may now be ready to move
on and try something else.
And that something else? Why, it just might be a program that’s
already proven to work, addresses the roots of drug and prostitution
problems, and displays at least a modicum of compassion: Project
57.
Under the Project 57 program, the city rents 57 jail beds from
Multnomah County to keep reserved for repeat offenders, who’d otherwise
be returned to the streets due to a lack of jail space and resources.
Commissioner Randy Leonard wants to expand that program, and
give drug offenders a choice—stay in jail and be processed
through the justice system, or go to rehab.
The project has already reportedly proven successful at reducing
recidivism rates since it—duh!—attempts to reduce demand by
helping (okay, forcing) addicts to kick their habits.
Compare the logical simplicity of a program like that to the DFZs,
in which offenders are simply banned from being in certain
neighborhoods. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happens
under that kind of policy.
“If you exclude a prostitute or drug offender from Park Rose, you
can’t tell me that they’re going to stop being a prostitute or a drug
offender,” says Leonard. “They’re simply going to move to another
neighborhood.”
But here’s a funny rhetorical question: Why do meaningful reforms to
public safety laws have to come from three commissioners, and not the
mayor’s office, which is responsible for law enforcement?
Clarification: In last week’s story “The Waiting Game,” I
quoted transportation activist (and potential city council candidate)
Chris Smith as saying of Mayor Tom Potter, “He’s not fit for this form
of government.”
Unfortunately, one key letter was missing from that last sentence.
It should have read, “He’s not a fit for this form of
government.”
As in “he’s mismatched for the commissioner government,” not “he’s
unfit to serve in office.”
“I think Mayor Potter is fit as a fiddle,” Smith adds, “even if we
disagree about Portland’s form of government.”