10/21/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

law was technically perfect and such statements were not pertinent to the duty of the City Attorney for drafting an impartial ballot title. He said the City e Attorneys had ri ghtfully noted that the statements were not their responsibility for preparation of the ballot title, and he asked why the arguments had been presented in the packet, except for a bias against the measure. Tom Lester 235 East 2nd Avenue, responded to questions from Mr. Stotter. He said he was an appellant and had read the City Attorneys' proposed ballot title. Mr. Lester said he thought the proposed ballot title sounded as if it would limit or prohibit the City's ability to use urban renewal as a tool to direct development. He said that differed from his understanding of Measure #51, which was intended not to limit or prevent the City's ability to use urban renewal as a tool for development, but rather to shift the decision to use urban renewal from the City Council to the electorate. Mr. Stotter asked Mr. Lester how his educational background compared to that of the average Eugene voter. Mr. Lester said he was a senior at the University of Oregon. Richard Gold, 1486 East 25th Avenue, also responded to questions from Mr. Stotter. He said he was one of the drafters of Measure #51, and he did not believe the City Attorney's caption, question, and explanation accurately described the measure. Mr. Gold said the words "limiting, preventing, and prohibiting" were biased and did not reflect any of the language used in the measure. He also noted that the word "development" did not appear anywhere in the measure. Mr. Gold said the wording of his measure was not intended to, and actually would not, limit, prevent, or prohibit urban renewal or economic development, e as implied by the City Attorney's ballot title. Mr. Stotter asked whether Mr. Gold was aware of any reasons for the bias or di fference in the City Attorneys · title. Mr. Gold said the measure would shift authority from the City Council, where it currently was held, to the voters, and he suggested that it would be in the interest of City government to protect its authority. Steve Andresen, 2640 University, distributed written statements, dated October 20, 1987. He said he had lived in Eugene since 1970, and he read the statement, describing why he believed the ballot title mischaracterized the intent and language of the measure. He also said he thought the Eugene code gave the council the power to change the ballot title and approve another one without referring the title to the City Attorney. C. City Attorneys' Response Mr. Arnold said the code provided a process allowing challenges for bias or conflict within 48 hours unless good cause was shown. He said the procedure required a hearing within three days. He also said appellants could challenge a councilor for bias or prejudice in this matter, but no challenge had been made. Mr. Arnold said the language of the initiative proposal, and not the motives and intent of the appellants, were the issue of this hearing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 21, 1987 Page 7