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