01/14/1987 Meeting (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e extensively and is considered legally defensible. She said many people think it is a model nuclear-free zone ordinance. Ms. Pierce said there are fewer findings in the Lane County ordinance than in the Eugene ordinance and there are additional economic-related findings in the Chicago ordinance. She said the Chicago ordinance specifically excludes the Federal government from the scope of the ordinance. She said the Eugene ordinance prohibits public and private entities from intentionally or knowi ngly doi ng speci fi c thi ngs in Eugene. She revi ewed the prohi bited activities. She said the design, development, testing, launching, producing, maintenance, or storage of certain products in Eugene is prohibited under certain circumstances and planning or prosecuting a nuclear war in Eugene is prohibited. She said the prohibition against planning or prosecuting a nuclear war is difficult to interpret. She discussed the application of the ordinance to specific activities and products. She said products must be very specialized to be prohibited. She compared the activities excluded in the Eugene ordinance to those excluded in the Lane County ordinance and the Chicago ordinance. Ms. Pierce said the City Attorney.s Office found significant legal problems with four of the provisions in the Eugene ordinance. The provisions are: 1) the prohibition on producing nuclear power; 2) the prohibition on transporting nuclear wastes; 3) the prohibition on storing and disposing of nuclear wastes; and 4) the enforcement section. She discussed the governing authority of local communities and said it must not conflict with Federal or State laws. However,' there is a presumption in Oregon that local police power is valid unless there is clear intent to the contrary. Discussing the ban on nuclear weapons activities in the ordinance, Ms. Pierce said the City Attorney's Office recommends that the ordinance specifically exempt the Federal government from the provisions of the ordinance, that the nuclear safety concerns and critiques of foreign military policy be deleted from the findings in the ordinance, and that the economic concerns in the ordinance be strengthened. She said the prohibition on planning or prosecut i ng nucl ear war may present some due-process probl ems because citizens may not know what the prohibition means. Ms. Pierce said the prohibitions on the production of nuclear power, the transportation of nuclear wastes, and the storage and disposal of nuclear wastes in the Eugene ordinance are preempted by Federal and/or State laws. Discussing the enforcement section of the ordinance, Ms. Pierce said the Eugene Municipal Court may not have jurisdiction to hear legal cases resulting from the ordinance. If so, only State courts could hear the cases and the City of Eugene cannot enlarge the power of State courts. She said cities may not have the power to authorize citizen suits in situations that would result from the prohibitions in the ordinance. Discussing the Nuclear Free Zone Board, Ms. Pierce said the section giving the board the right to develop administrative procedures may give the board the right to make policy; however the City Charter grants policy-making authority exclusively to the City Manager and the City Council. Also, there is a MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 14, 1987 Page 2