CC Minutes - 07/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

questioned whether the council's taking an official position would make a difference or have an effect on the legislature. Continuing, Ms. Nathanson said she was really disappointed with the proposed legislation and the action taken by the current legislature and previous legislatures in overturning local decisions. She agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks about the need for consistent opposition to legislation threatening local control, but questioned whether the City's opposition mattered given the State legislature's indifference to the issue, as demonstrated by its actions. Mr. Pap~ questioned what good the council's opposition would do given many State legislators' negative view of Eugene, and suggested that "sometimes it was better to stand up and be counted and sometimes it was better to shut up." He did not know which was better in this instance. Mr. Pap~ pointed out that the enterprise zones were a creature of the State, and for that reason questioned whether arguments about home rule were appropriate. Mr. Kelly asked the council to act on the motion by keeping in mind the City's representative at the State legislature could not discuss the bill with sympathetic legislators or the governor's office without council direction. He did not think the motion could do any harm. Mr. Kelly acknowledged Mr. Papa's remark about the State's jurisdiction over enterprise zones, but pointed out that under the State statute, the question of determining consistency with the criteria was delegated to the counties. Mr. Torrey said that if the council deadlocked on the motion, he would oppose it in its present form. His opposition to the Senate bill was based on the State legislature's lack of information in taking action, and the timing of its action. He said that legislators were largely unaware of the impact of the bill. Mr. Torrey supported predictability in rules. He could support a motion that indicated opposition on the basis of the reasons he cited. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Torrey pointed out that although the motion did not speak to local control, the legislature would not be aware of the motion but of the council's discussion, as reported by The Register-Cmard. That discussion was largely focused on local control. He reiterated he could only support a motion that indicated opposition because of the legislature's lack of information and its haste in acting. He noted his belief the Senate legislation would pass. Mr. Meisner expressed concern that a defeat of the motion at this point would be perceived by many in the public as endorsing the halt of the investigation and indifference on the part of the council. He said that troubled him, made him angry, and was inconsistent with the City's human rights ordinances. Mr. Meisner said the City Council needed to take a position on the bill, which would be a reaffirmation of its prior motion that it would not tolerate discrimination. Mr. Torrey questioned how the motion spoke to Mr. Meisner's concerns. Mr. Meisner said that Senate Bill 245 was specifically intended to forestall the tax assessor's investigation into the allegations of discrimination against Hyundai, as illustrated by the remarks of Oregon Economic Development Department staff. Mr. Fart said he was not prepared to act on the motion, not because of its content but because he had not had an opportunity to examine the legislation. He said that the current compliance enforcement system was MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m.