Laserfiche WebLink
quarries were being built next to residences whose occupants did not want to live next to a rock quarry. Mr. <br />Zako averred that people who voted for Ballot Measure 37 did not know what they were voting for and then <br />wondered why a development was happening next to them. He suggested the reason the ballot measure was <br />in litigation was because it was poorly written, and thought it unfortunate the measure did not provide for a <br />compensation fund and the legislature had been able to resolve the problems with the measure. He <br />acknowledged Ballot Measure 37 as the law and maintained that if Oregon residents supported Ballot <br />Measure 37 and the payment of compensation to property owners from a government action that reduced a <br />property’s value, “it was inescapable logic” that they supported paying the government for increases in their <br />property value from a result of government actions. <br /> <br />Mr. Zako asserted that the measure’s ballot title contained information stating that the measure would cost <br />the State billions, and people voted for it knowing that the government would have to pay those costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Zako believed the ordinance was a reasonable approach given the existence of Ballot Measure 37, and <br />1000 Friends of Oregon commended City staff for coming up with a carefully written and workable <br />proposal. <br /> <br />Lisa Warnes <br />, 5020 Nectar Way, said the ordinance seemed fair and reasonable to her as a solution to the <br />serious problem brought on the state by the passage of Ballot Measure 37. It seemed fair that property <br />owners who sought actions that benefited the value of their property should pay more. She agreed with the <br />request to keep the record open. <br /> <br />Zachary Vishanoff <br />, Patterson Street, provided the council with a packet of materials and asked the council <br />to consider the information. He believed that the council was enhancing the tools for zoning enforcement by <br />the government and he did not think that citizens had a grip on the tools the City already had at its disposal <br />to change their neighborhoods without their consent. He said that streamlining the City’s ability to go full <br />speed ahead with “smart growth” was not in the public’s interest. He thought that smart growth in Eugene <br />was already out-of-control. Mr. Vishanoff said that the idea that density was good for the community was a <br />false premise given the increase in air pollution levels that would occur. He said that density also promoted <br />flooding and was used as a premise for the redevelopment of riverfronts in ways communities could not <br />afford. Those riverfronts were often “hijacked” by the research industry for “weird” research that did not <br />benefit the public. Mr. Vishanoff suggested that the council supported density because it perceived the <br />government “pork” for such projects as a sustainable prop for the economy, which he considered a mistake. <br /> <br />Charles Biggs <br />, 540 Antelope Way, favored the ordinance because when the Planning Commission had a <br />member with a Ballot Measure 37 claim it was “time to level the playing field.” He asked that the ordinance <br />be amended to disqualify those with a value-added charge from seeking other City subsidies. <br /> <br />William Sellers <br />, 6071 Mondavi Lane, said that he was working with a group of attorneys to block any taxes <br />the City of Eugene attempted to put forth. He said that he was working to arrange a full, seven-year audit of <br />the City to identify waste and fraud. He was amazed by the City’s wasteful spending. Road taxes had <br />increased and it appeared the council wanted to be everything to everybody and that required more taxes. <br />He said that excessive taxation needed to come to an end. The council should not be working to spend <br />money so it could tax people the fastest way. <br /> <br />Majeska Seese Green <br />, PO Box 1214, Eugene, clarified that she was not speaking on behalf of the <br />Whiteaker Community Council (WCC), but favored the ordinance as an individual and hoped the council <br />would proceed with its adoption. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 16, 2006 Page 3 <br /> Public Hearing <br /> <br />