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,