Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (July 2, 1985)
editorial Wording of House measure is unclear Following Thursday's passage of a House amendm at that specifies the provisions under which Congress would allow the president to commit troops to Nicaragua, an Oregonian headline stated, “House votes to limit U.S. troop use in Nicaragua.” while a Register Guard headline read “House bill OKs using U.S. troops.” The separate articles contained almost identical information obtained from the Los Angeles Times. The measure specifies that Congress will approve the dispatch of troops into Nicaragua when there is “a clear and present danger" to the United States, its allies, embassies, or citizens; in a response to acts of terrorism, or upon the in troduction of Soviet MiG aircraft or nuclear weapons into Nicaragua, but its meaning seemed to befuddle the press and legislators alike. The wording of the measure, which is unclear, appears to be the source of the confusion. Legislators who support the bill and say they do not want U.S. troops in Nicaragua, say that the measure inhibits the president's ability to commit troops to the troubled region. Those opposed contend that the bill’s wording leaves it open to wide interpretation, and that the measure could be seen as a House approval of military intervention. The opposition also asserts that the bill parrots the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a measure that set the stage for U S. military intervention in Vietnam. The disparity of opinions was also evident in the votes of Oregon's representatives. Republican Denny Smith, who scored a 100 percent Conservative Index rating (The 1985 in dex. which is tallied by editors of The Review of the News, is based on congressional voting records.) found himself op posing the bill with Les AuCoin, who is a liberal Democrat. Conservative Republican Bob Smith shared support of the bill with Democrats Jim Weaver and Ron Wyden. who scored indexes of 20 and 10 respectively. It is unclear as to whether the measure is an effort to limit the president or whether it is a disguised attempt to facilitate military intervention. But if the House truly was seeking limitation, why did it pass such a vague collection of specifications? Because the measure does not specify what the House would consider "danger” or "terrorism” to include, a president eager to go to war probably wouldn’t be hard pressed to find examples of both. NCAA regulations impose stiff penalties on cheaters The overwhelming support of the University and other National Collegiate Athletic Association schools of guidelines that will impose stiffer penalties on schools guil ty of repeat rule infractions, is a formidable attempt to crack down on cheating. The new regulations, including the so called ‘‘death penalty,’’ were designed to combat activities such as illegal recruiting, point shaving, and awarding undeserved credits to athletes. The citing of the University for giving phony credits to football players in 1980 is just one example of the problems that have plagued the NCAA in recent years. The “death penalty,” which calls for the two-year suspension of a team that violates a rule within five years of another team from the same school, may be medicine that some schools find hard to swallow. But perhaps its introduc tion will encourage athletic departments to play by the rules. r Oregon daily emerald The Oregon Daily Emerald is published on Tuesdays and Thursday during the summer session except during exam week and vacations by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the University of Oregon, Eugene Oregon, 97403 The Emerald operates independently of the Universi ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial Union and is a member of the Associated Press The Emerald is private property The unlawful removal or use of papers is prosecutable by law General Staff Advertising Director Production Manager Classified Advertising Assistant to the Publisher Susan Thelen Russell Steele Vince Adams Jean Ownbey Advertising Sales Tim Clevenger, Michael Gray, Nancy Nielsen. David Wood. Production: Vince Adams, Kelly Cornyn, Stormi Dykes, Kathy Gallagher, Kelly Neff, Michele Ross, Peg Solonika. Karen Stall wood, Colleen Tremaine, Hank Trotter Editor Managing Editor, News Editor Editorial Page Editor Entertainment Editor Photo Editor Night Editor Julie Shlppen Diana Elliott Michelle Brence Shelia Landry Karen Stallwood Sheila Landry Associate Editors Administration Higher Education, Community Student Activities Features Kirsten Bolin Scott McFetridge Julie Freeman Marty Schwarzbauer Reporters Sean Axmaker, Robert Collias. Allan Lazo, Linda Hahn, Chris Hazen Photographers Steven Gibbons, Jim Marks, Ross Martin, Hank Trotter. News and Editorial Display Advertising and Business Classified Advertising Production Circulation 886-5511 688 3712 686-4343 888-4381 888-5511 commentary Slowing of park development recommended by lay planners The "Riverfront Park" is con tinuing forward without ade quate recognition of the deci sion making and planning pro cesses in the University com munity. As those 'members of the University community who have served on local planning and land use commissions, we am disturbed by the process with which decisions regarding these important riverfront lands are being made. •A non-profit development cor poration has been set up which will control the development of the University's riverfront park lands. •This corporation consists mostly of Kugene business per sons and is holding meetings which are closed to the public. •The land, which is to be developed by this corporation, was purchased with student housing funds. A soccer field, which cost about $650,000. was constructed with student funds, and is likely to Ik; destroyed for the development. •A subcommittee of the Cam pus Planning Committee is soon to forward recommendations for groundlease conditions bet ween the State Board of Kduca • tion and the development cor poration. The ground lease con ditions are undergoing their seventh revision: As lay planners, we recognize the value of open consideration of planning issues. Open deliberations foster vvi ler com munity participation, and build support for well-conceived and evaluated development pro posals. l-and use decisions regarding the University's river front property are already governed by two adopted plan ning documents of the Universi ty: the North Campus Plan, adopted in 1982. and the'Cam pus Transportation Plan, adopted in 1975. Areas of con flict between the "Riverfront Park" and these 'plans were enumerated in a memorandum to the Campus Planning sub committee from David Rowe, university planner, in January, 1985. The "Riverfront Park" concept is inconsistent with there .adopted plans in numerous major respects. For example, the North Campus Plan recognizes that the area along the river is to be reserved for student playing fields and other recreational uses. Changes in plans should not proceed on an ad tux; basis, but rather after evaluation of all fac tors which might contribute to a change in land use. This pro cess of evaluation includes public hearings and delibera tions, followed by adoption of revised land use criteria. Following such revisions, which should occur at the University level, and must oc cur at the city and regional level, developmental proposals might be appropriately con sidered if they are consistent with the new land use designation. Instead, University officials have not moved to amend University planning documents. They are discussing development with several developers in meetings closed to the public with a develop • meet corporation. which is in sulated from the University, community, and'acting without public .input. A process to . amend the Metropolitan General- Plan is underway, and it will take several monthsjust to ascertain if the use of this, land, as currently described in • the General Plan., should be. modified to some use consistent . with a‘.'Riverfront Park." The stage in the "Riverfront Park” development process at the University -level is. far. for ward of the land use. decisions yet to be made. Furthermore, rushing through this process during the summer months • does notallow tie Improvement in land use and development decisions that would, result from fuller participation in the process by the University com munity. Lastly, .we take note of the fundemental importance of • planning processes practiced by public institutions, such as universities and governments, which establish patterns of land use. It is essential that these processes remain open and take into account existing plans in order to avoid chaotic patterns of land use which are detrimen tal and costly to the community. We recommend that the pro cess be slowed down. We affirm that changes in land use require amendment of University plans, which involves public hearings and open discussions. We urge that the planning processes of the University be followed before any issues surrounding development of University owned riverfront lands are discussed. By Howard Bonnett and Kverett Smith Howard Bonnett served as the Eugene planning commissioner from 1970-75, and Everett Smith served on the Boundary Commission from 1970-72 and served as the l,ane County plan ning commissioner from 1974-77,
