07/09/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ken Wullschleger, 3415 Saint Street, said he agreed with the comments of e Councilor Holmer as stated in the July 9 Register-Guard article. He said the past policies of Eugene and Lane County had established an anti-growth and anti-business reputation; he felt the document would establish an anti-patriotic reputation by not allowing nuclear defense industries to locate in the area. With regard to homosexual rights, he said the City had previously voted down a proposal addressing that issue. He suggested that the document should either be voted on by the entire community or be disregarded. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, recommended that the City Council should adopt the document and recognize the suggested actions. He felt that the document included sins of both omission and commission but that it also represented a collective wisdom of the community through a democratic process. He felt the document would provide guidance to the City if it were adopted. While he recognized that the document included some conflicts, he felt it would be an insult to the citizens if the document were not adopted. Elizabeth F. Fox, 340 North Adams Street, stated that the City had numerous plans and that the Community Goals and Policies document contained both good and bad proposals. She said the City should not tie its hands with too-specific policies. She felt that the community was always in a turmoil because of some conflict over one plan or another. She said the plan for the downtown should be for the best of the entire community, adding that the downtown should be opened up. While she did not want to alienate the conference delegates, she commented that any plan adopted would be difficult to change. She felt the City would prosper better with less stringent rules. e Robert R. Bennett, 85334 South Willamette Street, stating that he was a self- employed engineering and management consultant, stated that any rules restricting manufacturing would be inappropriate for the City, and might develop another Cone-Breeden situation with its lawsuits and dissention in the community. He stated that high-technology components were not necessarily good or bad; he questioned why only nuclear weapons should be restricted and not all weapons. He felt that Eugene was sending the signal that it was hostile to business. He felt that it was also inappropriate for the City to restrict any opportunity based on politically controversial issues. He said the document included community attitudes rather than goals and policies. Tonie Nathan, 1350 Charnel ton Street #14, referring to the Cone-Breeden situation, stated that Data General was unable to locate in Eugene because of lawsuits against rezoning the involved property. She stated that this situation and others had created the image of Oregon being against business. She felt that the document contained specific policies that would hinder Eugene1s economic development efforts. She stated that the Dunn and Bradstreet Report had described Eugene as the fourth fastest-shrinking city in the country. She said she liked the goals and appreciated the work of the Planning Commission in its review of the document. She recommended that the council only needed the goals listed on Page 1 of the document for sufficient guidance. Laura Stockford, 308 West 20th Avenue, felt the document was good but had not included enough citizen involvement. She questioned why so many people were threatened by the document since it was only a guide and not a law. She urged the council to adopt the document after additional public hearings were e held. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 4