EDITORIAL
Homeless evicted:
A tale of three cities
When local governments attempt to address a trou
bling and complex problem, a frequently obeyed rule of
thumb is to sweep the problem under the rug.
However, cities all along the West Coast, from Seat
tle to Springfield to San Francisco, have boldly decided
to abandon this useless strategy and adopt a more pro
ductive. responsible attitude. They have chosen,
instead, to sweep it under someone olse's rug.
Measures taken within the past year in all three of
those cities have attempted to tackle the growing prob
lems of panhandling and homelessness. These issues,
inextricably intertwined, defy oasy solutions. Govern
ment agoncies throughout the nation have been grap
pling with them for decades. And yet in each of these
cities, lawmakers have sought the quick fix. which
would get the citizenry off of their backs, but which
accomplishes next to nothing.
In Seattle last week, several ordinances were passed
by the Citv Council that would, in effect, make home
lessness illegal. The ordinances prohibit sitting or lying
on the sidewalk, urinating or defecating in public
(despite the lack of public toilets downtown) and pub
lic drinking, among other things.
A loss drastic measure in Springfield, which gained
council approval in the spring, prohibits standing along
the street with a sign and asking for handouts or work —
one of the preferred methods of panhandling. The City
Council used a state law. which was originally designed
to prevent traffic tie-ups, to justify its actions.
And San Francisco, with its vaunted progressive
political tradition, has taken the most radical steps of
all: Police in the "City by the Bay" are required to wake
up anyone found sleeping outside and force them to get
up and move on. Where they go, of course, is no one’s
concern.
The effect of all of those measures is obvious. Rather
than correcting the problem (which, admittedly, is not a
simple task), these three cities have merely managed to
move it next door. The real losers, aside from the home
less themselves, are the cities of Tacoma, Eugene and
Berkeley ... which are all possible destinations for those
homoless people who suddenly find themselves city
less as well.
Residents of this area should be thankful that Spring
field’s measure is so much loss severe than the others. A
cynic might argue that this is simply because the home
less problem is less severe hero than in Seattle and San
Francisco. That might bo an accurate assessment, but
hopefully, the law is more lenient because the Spring
field City Council understands the futility of outlawing
homelessness.
If local governments continue trying to push the
homeless out of their respective jurisdictions, eventual
ly there will be nowhere left for them to go — except
maybe the sea. And the EPA would probably havo some
thing to say about that.
Oregon Daily
The Oagon D»ty Emerald it puNfWsd da«»y kfcjnday through Friday during (he achooi
y9at and Tuesday and Thursday during Iha summer by the Oregon Oa»iy Emera»d
Pubfeshmg Co . Inc . ai the University o» Oregon Eugene. Oregon
The Emerald ope*afee independently o< the University *ith o«*ces at Su«te 300 ol the
Erb Memorial Urnon and >t a mamba* o* the Associated Press
The f meratf *s pnvate property The unla*<uL removal o# use oi paper* is prosecutable
by LA*
EdJtor-*n-Chle* .lake Berg
PO 00
managing Conor
Editorial Editor
Orapiilo Editor
fraalanca Editor
Oav>d Thorn
J«Hi Pasiay
Thor Wa»t»l1an
W fcWIV
Editorial Editor
Photo Editor
Supplement* Editor
Jeti Pickhardt
Anthony Forney
Ka*y Soto
Associata Editors. Scot C*anian» Sfudanf Gotr#rnmonf-'4cf'v>f>*$ Rabacca Ma'ntt
ftwimumfy. H>v©*» Janssen Htghar Education A&vtmsirafion
Nows Staff; Oavs Cbart>onnaau Mag Dedoipn Amy Davenport. M.» a » eu?. Ma»tin
f v><k Lasind GaSkano. S*a* Nandarson. A'* Massa«d*ni. fcdwdfd Ktopl*ns«*in V»n L«"\j
laong Tfists Ho«- Ei’/abat* Reenstjarna. iia So . a Scott Simonson Staphama
Sisson. Susanna Stations. Jut* Swanson. M*c heia Thompson Agu»«*' K«vn Tnpp Amy
Van Tuyt, Wast
General Manage' Judy Rum
Adafftlsing Ofroctor: Ma»k Wa'^ Production Man agt r M *'*■ »* R
Advartismg r -a ■•«• H«* Je'rw ■ •• <• --• , M i M • ' *•• M • "*• ^ a
O Bryan ii. K»cr\*a W- K at say Was «?* Ang* WaxJhp*^
Class*tied M»- • ,i ' AtrMga-* <! M- i S ~ T/a Tr> *
Distribution. B*a • *, A- jarr. i "r l j »' a- S • : .
Busmas*. *;v^y ( .»-t< Swv^v • Judy O' ■= .
Production- Off V v- CO >' , • 1 -.*■ • V it* a Abe v ■•.»•*•., L't??. " ' •» 1
ii. kftruvw feuarw! Ktktt Truuviw ! Cl a-.tan Y#h*
Nowtroom
OHiC®
346-5512
Utsp .»y Aaveriifring
Classified Advertising
346 4343
OKAY,
tvtKBooY Off
i
9
Situ*
Berg off-base
In Carol Berg's "Anything
Goes" (ODE. Oct. 8), she implies
that the majority of religious
jHiople (i.e. Christians) subscribe
to the same beliefs as the right
wing religious fanatics responsi
ble for the "escalating violence,
the firebombings of abortion
clinics and the shooting of
physicians."
Sho further assumes that
"anything goes" when it comes
to these people’s efforts to pro
mote their "zealous agenda.”
condoning violent acts that con
tradict their professed high
regard for human life.
However, such gross over
generalizations allow the minor
ity — the right-wing fanatics —
to misrepresent, and thus hide
from public view, the true
beliefs of most Christians.
For instance, the majority of
Christians do not condone vio
lence against those who disagree
with them. Killing is wrong.
The majority of Christians
also believe that all people have
the right to live, regardless of
their opinions or lifestyles. In
addition, they believe that the
choices people make must not
infringe upon anyone else's fun
damental right to live. Contrary
to what Berg implies that Chris
tians believe, this right to live
also covers unborn babies and
homosexuals.
H> legalizing abortion, society
has already crossed the line that
grants everyone the right to live
If tins attitude renders some
lives less valuable than others,
where will it stop7
Most Christians, however,
believe that this line should not
have been c rossed in the first
place. II societv c ontinues cross
ing the line, who will lie next?
In reality, it is society, not
Christians, who seem to feel that
"anything goes."
Rob Peterson
Architecture
Kristin Unwin
Journalism
Peace n' drugs?
Recently I've heard people
talking around campus about
the current proposal to place the
course "Drugs and Society”
(LSS 463) under the peace stud
ies minor. Begging the question
of whether such a course should
actually exist on campus, it
seems to me ridiculous that it
should even be considered for
inclusion in peace studies.
Some fairly irrelevant courses
already fall into this category
("Feminist Theory" comes to
mind). But a class on chemicals
would be the icing on the cake.
Granted, some drugs do height
en in their addicts a tendency to
enter the minor in the first
place, but do they inherently
have any pacifying tendency or
is it simply the atmosphere of
Eugene that leads people in this
direction?
Actually, drugs in themselves
have no relation to peace, other
than to envelop their users in
somnolence. And is this truly
the sort of peaceful society that
the program is devoted to study
ing7 It seerns doubtful.
Keep drugs out of the peace
studies curriculum. It would
just give our rivals over at Ore
gon State another joke to pass
around.
Eric McCready
Undeclared
Parking rip-off
I purchased a University park
ing permit for $B0, but all the
parking spaces are taken when I
arrive at campus, so 1 have been
forced to park in un-allotted
spaces. Today I received a ticket
for $20. So, from now on, I will
have to park on the street at an
average of $1.25 per day. That's
$25 in additional parking fees
per month.
For argument's sake, let's say
that the University has 600 park
ing spaces. If the University
sells 5,000 parking permits,
that's 5,000 times $60, or
$300,000. Six hundred spaces,
with 5,000 trying to park. Let's
say that's 1,000 parking viola
tions at $20 each, or $200,000.
With only 600 permit spaces
for 5,000 cars. 4,400 cars will be
parked at meters at an average of
$25 monthly, multiplied by nine
months, or $990,000.
Adding this all up. we get
$300,000 in permits, plus
$200,000 in fines, plus $990,000
in meter revenue, totaling
$1,490,000 for a nine-month
period.
My questions are:
Is it legal for the University to
sell permits for unavailable
space?
If it's legal, then, is it ethical?
If I can't use the parking per
mit that I paid $60 for, isn't that
considered, in some circles, a
rip-off?
1 hate it when people are
being abused and don't have a
solution. So here is mine —
allow permit-owners to park at
the multihour meters
Vos, I know. The real "cor
rect” answer is: "Get a bicycle.
It's only a 20-mile round trip,
and think of the good :t would
do me."
D.R. Zuber
Eugene