Obstacle: The Constitution

On Thursday, when the City Council’s legislative committee took up the subject of loitering outside City Centre Cinemas 16, it was Deputy City Attorney Marci Arredondo on hand to pitch an ordinance prohibiting the obstruction of public places.

She put up a slide titled, “Problem: Unwanted Traffic,” beneath which was an equation: Large crowds + nuisance (arguments, fighting and profanity) = unpleasant shopping and dining experience.

The problem defined, Arredondo flipped to a second slide, in which she identified a concern about its solution: “An obstacle that we see here is the United States Constitution,” she said.

Arredondo said, “We can’t interfere with the First Amendment.”

The proposed ordinance, she and City Attorney Ren Nosky said, does not. Yet the conversation that followed included the kind of comments one would not be surprised to see transcribed some day and in court.

Councilwoman Leslie Baranco Martin, a lawyer, talked about the crowds of young people that sometimes assemble outside the cinema. However, she said she has sometimes been a part of groups of a dozen people who meet in the plaza there. “You may see us standing out there, because somebody wants to get some ice cream,” Martin said.

Councilman Elbert Holman Jr. said it is an “enforcement issue” and that police can distinguish between people who are blocking doors (It is prohibiting blocking actions, not assembly, that is the stated intent of the ordinance) and people who are waiting for ice cream.

Councilwoman Susan Eggman followed. She said, “We all want it (the ordinance) not to mean us. We want it to mean them.” Eggman said, “Who we’re talking about is young people of color.”

Nosky, who was standing by the wall, interjected then that the ordinance was not about age or ethnicity.

Not ethnicity, anyway, developer Anthony Barkett said. Barkett, an owner of the cinema building, said, “It’s more of a kid problem.” There is a similar problem at the movies in Lodi, he said.

Nosky said again, “This is a group neutral ordinance.” He said, “I’m sorry to be the lawyer here,” but the subject, he said, is “very touchy.”