Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Mr. Stotter said it was unclear whether the words "to allocate" in the <br /> quest i on were modi fyi ng the verb "prevent" or the object. He said the <br /> e description ei ther was inaccurate or grammat i ca lly incorrect and should <br /> describe a condition for urban renewal projects by using the word "which." <br /> Mr. Stotter said the City Attorney had claimed that approval of urban renewal <br /> plans was not clear in the measure. He said Section 1 of the measure stated <br /> clearly that "the City of Eugene shall not approve an urban renewal plan. . . <br /> if such plan provides for the allocation of ad valorem taxes. . . " , so clearly <br /> voters would be approving or disapproving an urban renewal plan. He said that <br /> statement was very clear and should be represented in the ballot title. <br /> Mr. Stotter said he thought the wordi ng of "City" or "Ci ty Council" authori ty <br /> easily could be misunderstood by the public, who would perceive that the City, <br /> rather than the City Council, was being limited. <br /> Mr. Stotter said the terms in the title, "limit development," were inaccurate <br /> because the measure would ensure a type of responsible development through <br /> elector approval, and rather than actually limiting development, i t wo u 1 d <br /> leave development up to the voters. <br /> Mr. Stotter said he agreed with the City Attorney that the phrase "shall not <br /> approve" was a phrase of limitation, but he did not agree that it was <br /> synonymous with the word "limit." He said appellants felt the phrase was <br /> better paraphrased as a shi ft or a change from the Ci ty Counci 1 to the <br /> electors, rather than as a true limit upon the City. <br /> Mr. Stotter said he thought the City Attorneys' statement that the measure <br /> e "prevents the City from operati ng in its current mode" was an extreme and <br /> biased way of stating that the measure changed or modified the status quo. <br /> Mr. Stotter said appellants claimed that the explanation's use of the phrase <br /> "prohibit approval of urban renewal plans" was misleading and not impartial. <br /> He said it was evidence of bias because it sounded as if urban renewal plans <br /> were bei ng prohibited. Furthermore, he sa i d , the Ci ty Attorneys' phrase <br /> "which provide for development" was not concise and added nothing but a bias <br /> that made the measure sound anti-development. He added that the measure was <br /> not anti-development but was in favor of responsible development. <br /> Mr. Stotter said the Springfield measure, which the City Attorney had called <br /> "irrelevant," had been submitted not as a format to follow but as evidence of <br /> bias because it described the measure without using words like "prohibit" and <br /> "limit." <br /> Mr. Stotter said the term "elector approval," which was the essence and most <br /> important aspect of the measure, was not mentioned in the caption and was <br /> "buri ed" in the the 1 ast two words of the question. <br /> Mr. Stotter sa i d the Ci ty Attorneys I response to the appeal contained <br /> statements such as that the measure did not "fit into Eugene1s form of <br /> government," and that it was "hopelessly circular and technically flawed." He <br /> said those statements addressed the merits of the measure. He also said no <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 6 <br />