11/16/1987 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

title. The second problem is in the question where a double negative gives the impression the measure is denying elector approval. He said the use of a e double negative is confusing to voters. The third problem is the use of language such as "limiting, prevent, and prohibit" which connote a bias to the voters. He reminded the council that the State has a superceding clause that requires ballot questions to plainly state the purpose of the measure. Richard Gold, 1486 E. 25th Avenue, Apt. B, said use of the word "limiting" in the measure caption without qualification misrepresents the breadth of the proposed legislation. Because the caption fails to indicate which specific limitation is proposed by the legislation, the caption fails to fairly state the measure's purpose. Mr. Gold suggested the wording be changed to state the charter amendment "conditions" implementation of certain urban renewal plans. He submitted written testimony from Steve Andresen, 2640 University, also asking the council to revise the ballot measure. Torn Lester, 235 E. 2nd, Apt. 1, said he has concerns about the clarity of the question. The average citizen would have difficulty understanding in particular the sentence that starts with "Shall Eugene's charter..., II he said. Mr. Lester suggested the phrase "without electoral approval" be changed to "upon electoral approva 1" to gi ve the correct intent of the measure. In addition, the word "prevent" in the first sentence gives the wrong impression the legislation is designed to prohibit urban renewal plans. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing and asked the City Attorney to respond. Mr. Arnold said the issue is fairness to voters. Reiterating comments he made before the council October 21, Mr. Arnold said State statutes authorize the e City to implement urban renewal plans without a vote. He said the purpose of the initiative is to limit that authority, which is why the word "limit" appears in the ballot title. Mr. Arnold said State law and the Ci ty code a 1 ready a 11 ow, through the referendum process, voter approval of ordinances that adopt urban renewal plans. He said the appellants are attempting to characterize only half of the initiative's purpose as subjected to voter approval. The existing ballot title attempts to give the public all of the information about the intent of the ballot title, he said. Mr. Arnold disputed the claim of a double negative in the ballot title. He acknowl edged the 1 anguage may be interpreted as ambiguous and suggested inserting a comma in the question between the words "areas" and "without" to make it clear the phrase "without voter approval" applies to all the words that precede it. He said the words "prohibit, prevent, and limit" are not biased but intended to describe the effect of the initiative with regard to existing laws. He added the words are common in ballot titles and have been used several times before in City ballot measures. Mayor Obie asked the appellants for rebuttal. Mr. Stotter pointed out that although "limit" is a legal term of art, State law requires a plain statement of the purpose of the measure and asked the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 15 ~~