Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 18, 1987)
Editorial Condo-conversions would be unjustified The City Council would be doing many Eugene residents a disservice by changing the current condominium-conversion ordinance. The council may vote to amend the ordinance tonight, and it should heed the con cerns of the community and keep the ordinance as it stands. While we are not opposed to the concept of condo conversions, the proposed changes would strip the elderly, disabled and poor of protections found under the current ordinance. Similarly, the changes would redefine significantly the meaning of “special category tenants" — those 62 or older, those with an income that is at 80 percent or less of the me dian income of the area, or those who have a mental or physical handicap currently qualify under this category. Under the proposed revisions, tenants would have to have an income at 50 percent of the median area's income, have substantial mental, emotional or physical disability, or be 70 years of age or older. Relocation benefits for currently defined special category tenants are in peril if the changes go through. Many who now are deemed elderly, poor or disabled will receive little or no assistance in finding another place to live if their apartments are converted. Moving expenses would be cur tailed, and the city would be obligated to provide only minimal referral services for those who find themselves displaced by condo-conversions. The most disturbing aspects of the proposed changes, however, deal with comparable housing and lifetime leases. The current ordinance mandates converters find displaced special-category tenants a comparable place to live. If this cannot be done, then the developer is obligated to offer these tenants a lifetime lease. Under the new proposals, these benefits would be denied. This is wholly unfair in light of the scarcity of low-income housing alternatives available in Eugene. The lack of comparable housing was one of the prime motivators for the Eugene Planning Commission's decision to change the ordinance. Providing comparable housing is a thorn in the side of developers seeking condo-conversions. By removing this provision, conversions could come much easier. But conversions never have been a problem before. All but three of the apartment complexes in central Eugene have been converted. The Eugene Planning Commission's ra tionale is that the current ordinance keeps prospective developers out of our city — this rationale is questionable at best. The evidence shows that if developers truly want to convert apartments to condos, they are going to do so regardless of the current ordinance provisions. Denying lifetime leases adds insult to injury. Special category tenants should not be financially penalized because they cannot find comparable housing. Where are they to live if they cannot find comparable housing and cannot afford to purchase their apartments-turned-condos? We would find it much easier to support changing the condo-conversion or dinance if it were not for this provision. Private developers have the right to do with their pro perty as they will. However, considerations should be made for special category tenants, most of whom are elderly. Changes in the condo-conversion ordinance only should come after provisions for these tenants are made. Until that happens, no condo-conversion measure should be passed. Letters Responsible In response to the article “Legal liability of alcohol ex amined at fraternity-sponsored seminar/’ I’d like to thank Karen Creighton of the ODE. There are a few points I’d like to clarify and add regarding the issue of liability and the im petus of seminar. Alcohol is not permitted on sorority-owned property. This is a regulation established by the majority of sorority national executive boards. Our par ticular incident occurred at a party co-sponsored with Sigma Alpha Epsilon. The initial com plaint was issued against SAE, and the question arose of how liable a sorority is for co sponsoring a function when the sorority does not fund or pro vide alcohol. Equal respon sibility was the decision we made. Alcohol liability and risk management is a hot issue. It is not an issue, however, which is inherent to the Greek system. Consideration of this issue should be extrapolated outside Oregon Daily Emerald The Oregon Dally Emerald Is published Monday through Friday except during exam week and vacations by the Oreaon Dally Emerald Publishing Co., at the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403. The Emerald operates independently of the University 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 Susan Thelen Production Manager Wayne Michael Lotttnvllle Classified Advertising Alyson Simmons Assistant to the Publisher Jean Ownbey Advertising Sales: Peter LaFleur / Sales Manager Teresa Acosta, Brent Collins, Beryl Israel. Janelie Heit mann, Laura Goldstein, Catherine Lilia, Rick Martz, Joseph Menzel, Peter Miller, Joan Wtldermuth Newt end Editorial Display Advertising and Business Clessitied Advertising Letter Perfect Graphics Production Circulation 686-5511 666-3712 686-4343 686-5511 686-4381 686 5511 Editor Managing Editor News Editor Spectrum Editor Spectrum Assistant Editor Editorial Page Editors Sports Editor Photo Editor Spectrum Photo Editor Qraphics Editor Night Editor Associate Editors Community Politics Higher Education / Administration University Affairs Student Government Student Activities General Assignment General Assignment General Assignment Michelle Brence Lucinda Dillon Michael Rivers Stephen Maher Stanley Nelson Michael Drummond Angie Muniz Capi Lynn Michael Wilhelm John Qiustina Lorraine Rath Michael Rivers Jolayne Houtz Nick Reed Chris Norred B.J. Thomsen Carolyn Lamberson Sarah Kitchen Karen Creighton Dennis Fernandes Scott Maben Heporters: bean Axmaker, Mary Courtis, Gary Henley, Janet Paulson. Photographers: Sherlyn Bjorkflren, Shu-Shing Chen, Marla Corvallis. Derrel Hewitt, Bobbie Lo, Dan Wheeler. Production: Michele Ross / Ad Coordinator Kelly Alexandre, Elizabeth Asher, Ronwin Nicole Ashton, Virginia Banlaga. Sandra Bevans, Sara Briscoe. Shu shing Chen, Janet Emery, Lisa Haggerty, Donna Leslie, Curtis Lott, Kelli Mason, Mike McGraw. Rob Miles! Angelina Muniz, Julie Paul, Ingrid White, X Kang Xie the “college scene” to anyone sponsoring/hosting a party where injury may result out of irresponsible alcohol consumption. The legal implications of hosting parties is frightening in our “era of lawsuits.” More pressing than monetary matters is moral responsibility. The burden of knowing one may have been instrumental in sav ing another’s life or quality of life following an accident is one we should all hope to avoid. Luckily, our situation saw no injury or litigation. Hopefully others will benefit from this before having the whistle blown, and take preventive measures to stop intoxicated in dividuals from injuring themselves and others. Beth Gaiser President, Kappa Kappa Gamma Weathermen Dan Goulet, your generation gap is showing! Your letter referring to the “mad bomber,” Silas Trim Bissell, is an example. If memory serves me correct ly, the Weathermen (Weather Underground) were anything but terrorists. My simplistic definition of terrorism is the needless taking of lives to establish a political ideal. The Weathermen issued war nings on an intended bombing — with adequate time to evacuate the premises. Ter rorists don’t; they strike without warning, the Weathermen didn’t hit populated areas; terrorists do. “Our great nation” was in tremendous political turmoil in 1970 — turmoil brought on by the war in Vietnam. Naturally, ROTC buildings were often targets. That the FBI could spend 17 years tracking an alleged perpetrator of an intended makes me ill. Meanwhile, the Green River Killer is still on the loose. I don’t know Terry Jackson. I get the impression (from his present demeanor and past con nection with the Weathermen) that he ain’t no terrorist — nor has he ever been! The ODE put it succinctly and well. They say “much ado about nothing.*’ I heartily agree. Kristi Svendsen Pre-Journalism Rebuttal It says a great deal that “pro choice" people such as Mary Sullivan can argue only in slogans and ad hominems (ODE, Feb. 11). Abortion is either right or wrong. Whether I am male or female has nothing to do with the merits of my argument. Dis qualifying me from the debate because of my maleness is ab surd. It is roughly akin to saying anyone who is not a parent can not argue against child abuse because only parents can understand just how irritating a whining child can be. I admit I have trouble referr ing to a pro-abortion position as “pro-choice.” This is because I see two individuals affected by abortion, with only one given a choice. If abortion isn’t such a bad thing, why does “pro abortion” sound so terrible to you? The idea that there is a “need” to kill innocent human beings IS beyond my com prehension. 1 feel that abortion for social reasons is damaging not only to the baby, but to the woman and to society in EVERY instance. I grieve for all three, not just the baby, when an abor tion is performed. THAT is what you seem unable to comprehend. Jeff Hoyt Student
