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