CC Minutes - 07/21/08 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

students did not want the arena because of other priorities, such as increasing fees and tuition. He thought there were other issues more important “for the people” that were not being addressed. He said the UO should do better in regard to affordable housing for people, asserting that people wanted the UO to continue to run the Westmoreland housing complex. Jonathan Bowers , 1149 Ferry Street, opposed the vacation because he believed the new arena was not needed and maintaining MacArthur Court better served the public interest. He asserted that those who disparaged MacArthur Court for safety reasons did not cite independent sources or studies. He said that many older arenas continued to be in use in the United States and cited some examples. They were being renovated rather than demolished. Keeping and renovating MacArthur Court served the public interest of the UO, the City, and the State as a historic remnant would be preserved and given landmark status, the UO would not have to consider taxpayer money for repayment of the bonds if that became necessary, and the UO would not be in debt for many years and could continue to use MacArthur Court at less expense over many years of time. Mark Robinowitz , PO Box 51222, Eugene, suggested the public was being diverted from larger issues by corporate sports and the community was prioritizing competition over cooperation. He said the UO was a publicly funded institute and its actions were causing people to vote no on new tax increases. He said the arena would not benefit the public but would benefit some companies and developers. He said it was perverse to call Eugene a human rights city because of Phil Knight’s role in funding the arena. He asserted that Mr. Knight exploited Indonesian girls at quasi- slave wages. He said that the EmX could not accommodate all those who would go to the arena and it would take fossil fuel to build the arena. He suggested the community would look back in regret at its decisions. Samantha Chirillo , a graduate student, opposed the arena project because she thought the UO should spend the money instead in homes for the homeless, energy security for all, and community policing. She said there was no time to lose to prepare for those things. Ms. Chiriillo said the arena and “any warping of the City Code” to accommodate the arena was foolish and a “crime against the common good and future generations.” She warned it would also set a “dangerous precedent” for City/neighborhood relations because of the work that had been done by the three entities in setting the parameters for University development. Ms. Chirillo assured the council that the UO had become a “corporate controlled, profit driven tumor” and no one could help keep it in check. She said the campus community was depending on the council to put the common good and emergency preparedness against projects such as the arena. Alice Warner , 1754 Orchard, asked the council to wait on a decision because it would not know what the public interest was until the University of Oregon went through the CUP process. As a neighbor, she did not have enough information. She did not think “this was the time.” She suggested that the request for a timely approval was a “very old trick” she was familiar with in her work as a project manager, when she frequently employed it in public testimony before public bodies. She asked the council “not to fall for it” and informed the council it could bring the issue back up after the CUP process, when all the information was in. Mayor Piercy called for applicant’s rebuttal. President Frohnmayer , on behalf of the UO, thanked the council for its courtesy and service to the public. He observed that the issue before the council was quasi-judicial, the decision was to be based on evidence in the record, and the standard was the public interest. He said the council had heard evidence about the need to replace the facility, about the economic impact, the economic sustainability of the new structure to be built, the needs of the disabled, the opportunities to be given young people as a result of the facility, about the issue of student athlete welfare, and about the lack of taxpayer funding. Money could be made available to the neighborhood to offset and mitigate the issues that affected the community. The arena would help improve the appearance of the community, including Franklin Boulevard. He said the conversation that Mr. Paz wanted was yet to be held because it was MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 21, 2008 Page 13 Public Hearing