Laserfiche WebLink
the recommendation was that boundaries of those neighborhoods would be called into question <br />and reexamined. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he had been contacted by residents in his neighborhood with interest in <br />dividing the neighborhood and forming a new association. He said that the recommendations do <br />not include a process that allowed a group of neighbors not currently allied with an existing <br />organization to question the boundaries or form a new association. <br /> <br /> Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the motion by <br /> modifying the recommendations on page 161 of the staff report with the <br /> following: "If an active or semi-active neighborhood association no longer <br /> meets a size limitation or characteristic listed above, or if five or more people <br /> from the same geographic segment in an existing neighborhood association <br /> have contacted the City's Neighborhood Services Office with their desire to <br /> form their own neighborhood association, its borders may be called into <br /> question." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that given the fact association budgets were based on an association's size, it <br />was unlikely a neighborhood association would choose to divide itself. The amendment gave <br />residents another option. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he understood that some people might want to split away from an existing <br />organization, he believed Mr. Meisner's concerns were addressed by the recommendations <br />before the council. He was very concerned about the fact a great deal of expense could be <br />incurred by five individuals who, for example, just did not like the chair of the existing <br />organization. He noted that most associations' budgets were largely directed toward newsletter <br />production, and questioned whether budget was actually a motivation for keeping a neighborhood <br />whole. He said that nothing precluded a person now from asking the existing association to <br />change the boundaries if that person had the support of a majority of neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not agree with Mr. Kelly that his concerns were addressed by the <br />subcommittee's recommendation. He wanted to create the possibility of new organizations, <br />pointing out that the new organization would still have to meet the standards established through <br />the program. He wanted to base neighborhoods on interest and commitment, not simply the <br />number of units in an area or geographic barriers. The recommendations did not allow neighbors <br />to empower themselves. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested a parallel in the motion to how items got on the ballot; the council <br />could place something on the ballot, or citizens could collect signatures and place an item on the <br />ballot. She asked for staff input on the motion. Mr. Weinman said he tended to think that if <br />people wanted to split off from the existing organization, they should make an attempt to go <br />through the existing organization first. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly was concerned that the motion to amend could lead to community Balkanization. He <br />believed that if there was sufficient interest in an area in forming a new organization, it would be <br />relatively easy for 20 people of the 300 units needed to attend a neighborhood meeting and <br />succeed in their objective. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor questioned 300 housing units as an optimum size for a neighborhood organization, <br />pointing out that there would be potentially more than 200 such organizations if their size was <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 6 <br />Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />