CC Minutes - 01/29/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the working poor who worked for the City. She said that none of the City's economic development strategies had proved to be effective and the level of public benefit was unknown. Ms. Bettman thought the council should also be willing to spend economic development dollars to support the working poor. She said that public dollars should not be used to perpetuate poverty. She was prepared to support the ESSN's living wage proposal. She thought it was a good proposal and gave the City latitude in implementation. However, Ms. Bettman indicated willingness to consider a ramped-down amount. Ms. Nathanson said that regardless of the issue, she was not moved by assertions that something was obviously the "right thing to do." She looked at issues from many various points of view and tried to be fair. Speaking to Mr. Meisner's comments regarding whether the living wage was the best way to achieve the goal of reducing poverty, Ms. Nathanson agreed it was not the best way to achieve the desired goal. She said that other cities that had passed a living wage were reconsidering them, and that signaled to her that there was no one best solution. She was concerned about the right way to address the problem. Was it helping the working poor, or reducing poverty? She perceived a difference between the two. Ms. Nathanson noted that she met with the proponents of the proposal three times and had reviewed the information they provided. She said she also considered the discussion of the Budget Citizen Subcommittee in reaching her decision. Mr. Kelly said that the council heard testimony that nearly 90 jurisdictions had adopted a living wage and noted that he had been provided no information about cities scaling back. He requested that data. He said there was evidence supporting the claim that the living wage reduced poverty, citing a Baltimore-based study. Mr. Kelly said that there was no single best tool to address poverty. The problem of societal health had to be addressed in many ways. He said that one way could be economic development strategies that could include incentives for large companies; another way could be programs and incentives that help the working poor. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Bettman that the City did not do enough in the latter area. He said yet another way could be programs and incentives for the jobless and homeless. Mr. Kelly agreed with the citizen who characterized the living wage as a "trickle-up" economic tool. He said that people would spend their increased pay in the local community. He agreed with another citizen who testified that adopting a living wage was a right and moral thing to do. Mr. Kelly indicated interest in seeing a draft ordinance based on scaled-down version of the ESSN proposal. Mr. Poling said that he received many constituent contacts about the living wage proposal and had done some research. He found information both in support and in opposition to a living wage. In response to Mr. Kelly's question about cities that have rescinded the living wage, Mr. Poling noted that in November 2002, Santa Monica, California, rescinded its living wage ordinance. He further noted the unintended consequences experienced by Montgomery County, Maryland, when it adopted a living wage. Mr. Poling expressed concern that cities that adopted such an ordinance had no data demonstrating its effectiveness. He believed that the living wage concept was "wishful thinking fraught with fundamental flaws." He did not believe it was the most effective way to use City resources to fight poverty. He suggested the residents were better served by placing any available money toward restoring social services, energy assistance, food, shelter, and drug and alcohol treatment. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 29, 2003 Page 6 Work Session