Information required for decision on bridge The Eugene City Council has done it again. As it has with a number of the city's most pressing issues. Eugene's elected body of representatives has elected to make the voters decide — this time without even having a clear idea what they're deciding on. The issue at hand is the proposed expansion of the Ferry Street Bridge from its current widtn of four lanes to a larger, six-lane over pass. The voters will decide in November whether the city should proceed with the project. Unfortunately, they’ll be voting blind. Those council membors who wore in opposition to the expansion, in discover ing that they couldn’t just Without knowing what the expansion really moans, voters are almost sure to vote against It make it disappear altogeth er, instead took action that would damage the proposal's chances of gaining voter approval. This will be achieved by denying tho voters the kind of information they need to make an informed decision. At Monday's meeting, the council debated whether extra design plans — clarifying exactly what the expan sion would entail — should be drawn up before the election, so the voters would have a better idea of what they will be voting on. After hoaled debate, the council decided on a compromise which still failed to satisfy a majority of the members — mayor Ruth Bascom was forced to step in to break the tie. An issue as important as this one — crucial to tho future of the downtown area — needs to be seriously examined and studied before anyone decides on it — and especially before it goes to the voters, who are just aching to vote "no" on everything. Without knowing what the expansion really means, and without city council endorsement of the project, voters are almost sure to vote against it. And the city will continue to suf fer. Past city councils have relied heavily on plebiscites. When the council couldn't make up its mind on re opening some of tho closed streets downtown, it referred the measure to voters. Decisions on how to expand tho Eugene public library have been delayed so as to lot tho voters have their say. Here again, the public is being asked to make a decision that the council wasn’t able to. When the council can't make headway, it sends the issue to the poople. It removes the responsibility from the council's back, but it does little for the health of tho city. Sure enough, the voters will ultimately decide the fate of the Ferry Street Bridge, and there’s nothing wrong with consulting the voters on the issue, per se. But when tho voters don’t have enough information to go on, they cannot issue a mandate — and that’s what tho council is hoping for. *,,,, ,wv Emerald PO 00* 31S9 CUGCME 0«CG0»i The Oegon f-Wy f'*#'<** s pub*«shed daity Monday through Friday cfcjrtng the school juai and Tuesday and Thursday du'-og the summe* by the Oregon Oa»y Emerald Publishing Co tnc at the University of Oregon t ugene. Oregon the fcmeraAJ operates independently of the University wth offices at Suite 300 of the t rt) Memonal Un»ort ami *s a member of the Associated Press The Emerald * pr-vate property The unlawful removal or use of papers * prosecutable Managing Editor Editorial Editor Graphics Editor Freelance Editor Editor-In-Chief Jaae Derg Caitey Anderson Sports Editor David Thorn Editorial Editor Jett Pastay Photo Editor .Jeff Winters Supplements Editor Night Editor: Dave Charbonneau Steve Mms Jeh P**hardt Anthony Forney Kaiy Soto Associate Editors: Edwtud Ktapfenstem Student Government Rebecca Merritt. Community. Jui»e Sweosen. t+gh*f Education Adm>n,3trrtvn News Staff: Mindy Baucum. W*ison Chan. Oave Charbonneau. >m Daws. Meg Dedotph. Amy Devenpod. Cara Echevarna. Mata F«kts. Marini fisher. Sarah Henderson Heethene Mimes Yin tang leong. Manus Meiand. Tnsta Noel. Elisabeth Reenstpma. Kate Sabounn. Robb* Reeves. 1* SaJocoa. Scon S «f wi China's Neu VWan Rights Policy . . A. WARM AwO FoZlY LETTERS Cover up? Now that the brouhaha over tin* withdrawal of defense secre tarv-designoe Bobby Kay Inman has died down, it is time to dis miss the observations he made during his news conference. Two points are particularly noteworthy: First in 1981, Israel, for offen sive purposes, received intelli gence satellite photos that aided its attack on an Iraqi nuclear power plant. Clearly that was done against the laws of the U.S. government, which allows the Israeli government to receive intelligence information and weaponry for defensive purpos es only. Who committed the crime? And why didn't any newspaper columnist bother to investigate it? And more impor tantly why was Mr. Safire, a New York Times columnist, complaining to William Casey. CIA director, about Inman's decision to limit Israel's access to satellite photos. Is Mr. Safire some type of agent for the state of Israel or a newsman? Secondly. Inman also noted that some newspapers like the New York Times do not publish op-ed pieces and letters to the editor that question its hidden agenda Until these issues are clearly dis< ussod in the media. Inman's resignation remains not a mys tery as the editors and colum nists would like us to believe, but yet another case of white wash It is much easier for opin ion writers to dismiss Admiral Inman as thin-skinned than to scratch the surface of what he said. M. Reu Behnem, Pb.D. Eugene Hide out Robbie, I sympathize with your attitude concerning mili tary recruiters, but you seem to misunderstand the role of the Armed Forces in America. If you knew your U.S. history, you should know that the Peace Corps did not free America from the fjiitish. Despite what you might think, the U S. military is designed pri marily as a defensive force (i.e., to deter aggression toward the U.S.). In more primitive terms that you should understand, the bigger your club, the less likely you will get hit. So. if pacifists like yourself continue to make decisions about the strength of the Armed Forces you might as well build a bomb shelter in your backyard and hide. (I bet you would be really talented at that ) But do yourself a favor, don't let me find you there. Paul Hibbard Graduate Student U Sc. USNR Bahai In a shameful display of opportunism and political dis honesty. the so-called Baha'i faith has attached itself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr for the past two weeks while America honored the slain civil rights leader. King lost his life in a struggle against racism and racial segre gation. while for years the Baha’is have collaborated with and praised the state of Israel for their barbaric treatment of the Palestinians in that segregated society (The Baha'i headquar ters are in Haifa ) So what's in common? Noth ing! The Baha'is' hidden agenda is and has always fawn to add new members to their midst employ ing any means possible. Recent ly, Martin Luther King and his reputation were opportunistical ly used. T.J. Footed! Eugene Frightened? 1 can only hope that Mr. Thom's Jan 12 opinion column, glorifying the human species as the great "environment manipu lators.'' was printed as a test to see if anyone out here actually reads this paper. I do not want to believe that a University stu dent (a seeker, not holder, of knowledge) has developed such an attitude at such an early age. But if public response was the writer’s aim. that his article was quite successful. Thorn would like to believe that, as a human, he is superior to all living and non-living things. Maybe the alternative frightens him. You use several thin arguments to support your presumption. Intelligence. Our ability to manipulate our envi ronment. Our ability to both "destroy or save the environ ment." Intelligence got us to the moon (so what?). It also created processed cheese food, spike heels and nuclear waste, things that the lowly subspecies never wasted an ounce of energy pur suing. And why is the manipu lation of the environment more advance than a life spent in total harmony with its environment? Why is a man who builds a fire to stay warm better than the bear who just is warm? And finally. Thom's final and weakest point. Well. I suppose it is half-right Only the human has the power to destroy the environment. (Why do we insist on thinking power is a good thing?) As of yet, no human has come forward with the answer that will save the planet. But it seems to me that as humans — the top of the food chain — we depend on all other living species for our existence. Species on the "bottom," how ever, form the foundation of this pyramid of life. Can even the most naive pro-human really believe that the planet would not survive without us? What would it die of? Loneliness? The question is not "us or them.” It is them or cheap gaso line ... them or cleaner kitchens ... them or bigger houses. We are not killing them to survive. We are killing them for conve nience. I just have to wonder — if we as a species have the "intelli gence.” the “power" and the "conscience” to choose between saving and destroying the plan et — why we seem to have cho sen the latter. Andrea Q. Rlner Landscape Architecture