04/26/1954 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r52 e THERE IS A GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A POULTRY SLAUGHTER HOUSE AND A RETAIL BUTCHER WHO KI LLS A FEW HENS 'fOR SALE OVER HI S OWN COUNTER. ACTUAL PROCESS I NG or fURS, fEATHERS AND BONES IS QUITE'DlfFERENT THAN USING PROCESSED FEATHERS TO ASSEMBLE A BOW AND ARROW OR TO PUT THE TRIM ON A LADY'S HAT. REFUSE MATERIAL IS NOt Eij~~ Mi~i~o~ED IN M-2, AND Of COURSE wOUlD BE PROHIBITED IN THIS-ZONE, AS THE'O~~'~ANCE ~As6RAWN t~REfULLY TO EXCLUDE EVERY NUISANCE USE FROM AN M-2; LI'GHT- J'NDUSTRUL DI STRI CT~ ":WE tANNOT ESCAPE THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE FALSlfICATIONS.WERE:MADE: D€L~BERAtELy,FOR THE PURPOSE Of :STIRRING UP PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE HAD NO INTEREST. I (C) THE NEWSPAPER HAS STATED (EDITORI~L 3/~0, WHICH IS A REPETITI~N OF SIMILAR STATEMENTS IN EDITORIAL Of 2/8 AND OTHER PLACES); "ONCE MORE, THE COUNCIL HAS OVER- RIDDEN THE CAREFULLY STUDIED RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITS PLANNING'CO~~I'SS~~N"; It' IS OUR POSITION THAT WE CANNOT, AND THAT THE CITIZENS OF EUGENE WOULD NOT WANT US TO~AUTO- " ." " MATICALLY ADOPT, WITHOUT INDEPENDENT STUDY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, OR ANY OTHER NON-ELECTED BODY. U~DER OUR LAWS THE COUNCIL CANNOT DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LEGISLATION TO ANY OTHER BODY. THE COUNCIL IS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE AND IS REQUIRED TO EXERC\'SE rilis BEST INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. e IN THE BYERS' CASE, TO WHICH THE PAPER HAS REPEATEDLY REFERRE~, TH~ COiJ~CIL DID AGREE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IN SPITE Of THIS; EVE'N THE REGI-ST'ER':GUARD URGED THE REJECTION OF THE ZONING. THE TWO CASES HAVE LITTLE SlMILAR~T~~-OU~-ONLY POINT IS THAT THE ptANNING COMMISSION, EVEN AFTER CAREfUL STUDY, CAN ~~KE A RECOMMENDATION WITH WHICH EITHER THE NEWSPAPER OR THE COUNCIL CAN DISAGREE. THAT'S THE wAy IT SHOULD BE. (D) SOME OF THE OFfiCIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE UNivERSIT~-O~ 'O~EGON HAVE BEEN UNDULY AROUSED IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONING BY STATEMENTS suc~AsfHISliDITORIAL 3/10): "THIS IS AN AREA VIRTUALLY IN THE UNIVERSITY Of" OREGON FRONT YARD". I THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THE EUGENE COUNCIL HAS CONSISTENTL~ BEEN FRIENDLY TO, AND COOPERATED WITH, THE UNIVERSITY. CAREfUL, ON-THE-SPOT EXAMINATI'ON Of-THE AREA CONVINCES US THAT THERE WOULD BE NO DAMAGE TO THE CAMPUS. PRESENT STATUTES ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE CI TY AND THE UNI VERSI TY fROM NUl SANCES SUCH AS SMOKE, ODOR, GAS;' NOI SE AND V I BRATI ON fROM THE AREA PROPOSED fOR M-3. THE TYPES Of" INDUSTRY PERMdTED UNDER M-2 ARE ALL NON-NU I SANCE I N CHARACTER. THEY WI LL NOT BE DETR I MENTAL TOTHE'UNI VERS I T~. MOST OF THIS AREA CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE tAMPUS, 'EXCEPT'fROMTHEUN'I'VERS'iTY'SHEATlNG PLANT AND WAREHOUSE, WHICH IS AN M-3 TYPE Of STRUCTURE. HAVING PUT 'AN M-3 TYPE BUILD- ING IN THE AREA" THE UNIVERSITY, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT JUSTifiED IN OB~ECTING TO THE SAME USE, OR MORE RESTRICTED USES, BY OWNERS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJOINING, UNLESS IT CAN SHOW VERY SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. '. (E) THE FUTURE Of THE MILLRACE HAS BEEN DRAGGED INTO THIS 'CONTROVERSY TO AROUSE MANY CITIZENS WHO HAVE NO DIRECT INTEREST IN THE ZONING. (EDITORIALS 2/8 AND 3/10) THE RESTORATION Of THE MILLRACE IS IN NO WAY AFfECTED BY THIS ZONING. M-2 WOULD BE AS APPROPRIATE AS M~I SINCE THE BANKS OF THE MILLRACE ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY, PROTECTED BY LAW FROM TESPASSERS. ONLY THE CHANNEL IS ,OPEN TO LEGAL USE BY THE PUBLIC. .............. I To SUM UP: ATTACKS ON TRADITIONAL METHODS Of ARRIVING AT CITY COU~CI.L DECISIONS; MISLEADING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP Of THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMIS- SION; fALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT M-2 ZONING PERMITS; UNWARRANTED CONCLUSIONS THAT THE UNIVERSITY WOULD BE INJURED; AND INJECTION Of AN UNRELATED MILLRACE PROBLEM INTO " , A ZONING QUESTION--ALL THESE HAVE BEEN USED DELIBERATELY TO BECLOUD THE TRUE ISSUE, TO CONFUSE THE CITIZENS OF EUGENE, AND TO DI,SCREDIT THE CITY COUNCIL, fOR THE PURPOSE Of PROMOTING A REfERENDUM. PART II e Now, WITH THE SIDE ISSUES CLEARED UP, IT IS OUR DUTY TO REVIEW THE REASONS WHY THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO ZONE THE AREA AS IT DID. THE COUNCIL ACTED UNDER THE MANDATE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE BASIS Of ZONING SHALL BE "To ENCOURAGE THE MOST APPROPRIATE USE Of THE LAND" TO THE BEST INTEREST Of THE CITY OF EUGENE. THE COUNCIL'S DECISION WAS NOT HASTY OR ARBITRARY. IT STUDIED THE PROBLEM fOR MANY WEEKS. THE COUNCILMEN MADE NUMEROUS TRIPS OVER THE AREA, SINGLY AND IN COMMITTEE. ONE JOINT fiELD TRIP WAS MADE WITH MEMBERS Of THE PLANNI NG COMMI SSI ON. THE COUNCI L HELD HEARl NGS. I T' TOOK INTO ACCOUNT EVERY ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY OPPONENTS AND PROPONENTS. IT STUDIED THE REPORT or iHE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT CHECKED WITH RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS WHO HAD NO PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE MATTER. IT HAD DEfiNITE AND POSITIVE REASONS fOR THE CO~CLUSIONS REACHED: I e ~