05/11/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e . association. Mr. Lindberg felt that all residents in the near downtown area need to be represented on issues such as increased housing density, the reloca- tion of the Washington-Jefferson couplet, and the expansion of the ERA bounda- ries. Mr. Lindberg reiterated that neighborhood groups do not have any veto power. As a councilor, he recognized that neighborhood organizations are not always right and felt that the City Council would always consider all input on an issue, not just neighborhood testimony. Councilor Smith said that she had gone on record in the past as supporting neighborhood associations and the opportunities that they provide for citizens in the community. Ms. Smith explained, however, that she intended to oppose the expansion of the boundary because she felt that while there is a need for citizens to be represented, there is also a possibility for over-representation. She did not want to create too many layers of government for citizens to deal with. She felt that all citizens have direct access to the council and that no one should be forced to belong to a neighborhood groups if he/she does not want to. Ms. Smith added that she also felt any action to expand WNQP should be postponed until the ERA boundaries are reviewed. Councilor Schue responded to the notion which had been expressed that people could be forced to be part of a neighborhood groups who did not wish to be. She said that each citizen could determine whether to become involved in a neighbor- hood group and that no one was forced to be active. She also responded to the point which had been made by those testifying who felt that they did not need a neighborhood group because they could speak directly to the City Council. She felt that while it is true that everyone in the city has access to the council, it is also true that the council has a limited amount of time and follows structured agendas dealing for the most part with the larger, more pressing issues in the community. For this reason, issues of local interest often cannot come before the council. She gave the example of the Willamette Street "gut" issue which had been given some attention by the council, but a great deal more attention through the area's neighborhood group in conjunction with City staff. She felt sure that there were local issues in the area in question which would benefit from similar treatment on a localized basis. Ms. Schue noted that it had been eight years since the citizens in the area proposed for annexation had tried to work as an organization. She urged them to try again now and indicated that she would support the proposed expansion. Councilor Obie indicated that he would like to ask the council to delay a decision on this issue until the ERA boundary is determined in the area in question. He said that if the Renewal Agency does extend its efforts into the subject area, there will be an additional layer of government for citizens to deal with. Mr. Obie said he could understand why there have been controversies regarding this annexation. He felt that the land uses on the east and west sides of Washington Street are very different and that many objectives of the two areas may not be compatible. Mr. Obie cited his own experiences in trying to develop property in the Whiteaker Neighborhood. He felt that having to deal with that group had been frustrating, and had encumbered and delayed his efforts. Mr. Obie reiterated that neighborhood groups did not have veto power. He said, however, that in his five years on the council, he had not seen the council make a decision that neighborhood groups did not support. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 11, 1981 Page 18