05/12/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

liMy concern for this amendment is found in several areas. The taxpayers ... of Eugene has been talking to me this past week. They indicate that ~ the overwhelming majority does not support this amendment. They have indicated to me by phone, letters, and in person that they want less government control, not more government control, and intervention into their daily lives. We have seen a steady erosion of personal and private rights of people by government. liMy strong support of Free Speech on public facilities is not the issue here. This ordinance, if approved, is actually attempting to upstage what the State of Oregon and the US Supreme Court have ruled on earlier. In these cases referred to the Supreme Court, the issue of Free Speech in private malls has been ruled unconstitutional and I assume that would be the legal case ruling on this ordinance. Our City Attorney was quoted last Monday, lIt will be challenged.' I think the Register-Guard said it very well in their editorial--'This is an ingenious bit of blackmail. It winks at the Supreme Court decisions by not requiring shopping centers to allow political activity on the premises, but threatens them with deprivation of legal protection from trespass if they refuse to allow such activity.1 lilt will cost the City thousands of dollars to defend this position. I see this as an empty political statement and/or exercise. The State law will stand and it will prevail. This amendment does not preserve First Amendment rights. It will do nothing for anyone. "In days when we are combatting an erosion of Home Rule decisions, I 4It find it unbelievable that some members of this council are willing to give away their own local control by moving the prosecution to district courts. We have control--we set the priorities. We set the restraint levels. Why should we give that away? I am sure that because of our policies, we have operated with more restraint than we could expect with control in district court. liThe cost factor is important and should be kept in perspective. Small costs of prosecution and maintaining control are incidental when compared to the costs of a long legal battle. It has been mentioned that this case could cost the taxpayers of Eugene up to $100,000. That threat is not of ultimate concern to me because we have looked that in the face many times, i.e., field burning and protecting the elderly with our condominium conversion proposal. There is a big difference here, however--we had something to win--we had a chance to accomplish some goal. We win absolutely nothing here. In my opinion, the cost of legal battles as mentioned by our attorney is not really what Eugene taxpayers are saying today. They would prefer to spend the money for Sunday Library openings, swimming pools remaining open all year long, or community school support. e 5/12/80--2