12/07/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bennett said he supported Proposal B, which he thought many task force members would agree attempted to make the ordinance clearer and more e enforceable. He said he strongly felt that Proposal B was in the best interests of the community. He said attorneys could not agree on the interpretation of the existing ordinance or the MRV, and that sent the wrong signals, making it very difficult for the average citizen to understand what was covered by the ordinance. He said part of the narrowing of the scope presented in Proposal B was a serious effort to create an ordinance that avoided those difficulties in understanding and interpretation. Mr. Bennett said the ordinances were very similar in areas other than scope, and he thought the portions of Proposal B other than scope reflected many of the compromises that had occurred on the task force over a long time. He said he did not think it would make sense for the council to try to redraft the ordinance, because the task force had made a serious contribution in that regard. He said he thought that contribution should be respected, adding that minor amendments or adjustments to either proposal were acceptable. Mr. Bennett said he thought a major issue was scope, and he favored the council's taking a position in favor of one approach to scope. He said he thought if the council failed to take a position, it would not respect the efforts of the task force to address a livery di ffi cul t" issue. Mr. Rutan said he and other councilors had spent a lot of time learning about nuclear free zone ordinances. He said the complex nature of the issue was the reason for the task force's involvement. He said the legislation that had been passed by voters, according to City Attorneys and others, had serious constitutional and 1 ega 1 flaws and a number of areas that were extremely unclear. He sa i d the council had appoi nted a task force to deve lop an ordinance that could in good conscience be adopted and enforced. Mr. Rutan e said he did not find that Proposal A, the MRV, addressed many of the original legal issues and flaws. He said Proposal A differed from the rest of the laws in the City of Eugene, and based on evidence he had seen, was substantially and substantively different than nuclear free zone ordinances across America. He said an attempt was being made to IIblaze new ground, II which he did not think was needed. Mr. Rutan said he thought the council could live up to the intent of the voters with Proposal B. He said he thought Proposal A was clearly ambiguous in a number of areas, was clearly anti-business, and would send out that signal "loud and clear." Mr. Rutan said he did not favor repeating the work of the task force, but he was willing to redraft the ordinance if necessary to make it enforceable, consistent with other City ordinances, and reflective of the voters' intent. He said he favored submitting two proposals to voters rather than attempting to readdress the issue of scope. He said he supported Proposal B as reflective of voters' intent and the most enforceable of the proposa 1 s. Ms. Wooten said it was instructive to hear how others viewed the report from the task force. She agreed with Mr. Bennett about the amount of work by the task force in learning about very technical information. Because of that, she said she highly recommended that the council not try to mix proposals. She said some minor adjustments might be made, but she strongly recommended against delving into the substance of either proposal. She said she thought the task force had examined thoroughly almost every aspect of every question imaginable as it pertained to these and many other versions. Ms. Wooten sa i d e MINUTES--Eugene City Council work session December 7, 1987 Page 8