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

Home Browse Search

council to consider the voters ability to understand the measure. Regarding Mr. Arnold's contention the petitioners are presenting only half the issue, e Mr. Stotter said petitioners intentionally used language adverse to their position to present a balanced perspective. He asked the council again to disassociate themselves from the content of the measure and vote on the fairness of the ballot title. Mayor Obie asked the council for questions. In response to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Arnold said the term "ballot title" refers to the title itself, the question, and the explanation. Mayor Obie asked for comments from the council. Ms. Ehrman said looking individually at the title, the question, and the explanation, it is possible to see a bias. However, reading the three sections as one measure, she said it is clear what the intent of the petition is. Ms. Wooten said she is in agreement with Ms. Ehrman, although she does have some concerns about the clarity of the measure. She said she would like additional recommendations from Mr. Arnold on ways to improve the wording of the measure. Ms. Bascom told the appellants City voters deserve more credit than they are being given and will be able to understand the intent of the measure. Mr. Rutan said he agrees with the appellants in that the title and the e question are not well phrased. He said he did not understand the measure after a first reading and said the question in particular should be re-worded to make it more understandable. Mr. Rutan said he would like to refer the question back to the City Attorney for more clarification and have the title changed for content. Mr. Holmer said he is in agreement with all that has been stated and suggested the question be reworded. However, he said he plans to vote to deny the appeal on the basis that voters will be able to understand the broad intent of the measure. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Gleason if the petition would impact development of the Riverfront project into the downtown area. Mr. Gleason said staff is not sure, although certain urban renewal plans and bonds will be affected. Mr. Arnold said the high number of ambiguities contained in the petition means a 1 i ke 1 y outcome is litigation, which would impede development of the Riverfront project. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the City Council deny the appeal. Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:2 with Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Bascom, Bennett, Miller, and Schue, voting aye and Councilors Wooten and Rutan vot i ng nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 16 -