▼ EDITORIAL
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:
Sarah Kickler
ASSOCIATE EDITORS:
Ryan Frank & Carl Yeh
NIGHT EDITOR:
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR:
Mike Schmierbach
\
A
editorials, letters, commentary and perspective
NEWSROOM:
(541)346-5511
DISPLAY ADVERTISING:
(541) 346-3712
BUSINESS OFFICE:
(541) 346-5512
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING:
(541) 346-4343
Hyundai strips Eugene community bare
■ OUR OPINION: Hyundai needs
to accept that as a part of the
Eugene community it does not
have the right to be exempt from
the community’s rules
Yes, Hyundai could bring
thousands of jobs to the Eu
gene area. Yes, plant con
struction, if it is ever fin
ished, could dump $1.4 billion
worth of construction contracts into
the community. And yes, if Hyundai
leaves, Eugene could look bad in the
eyes of businesses throughout the
world.
Nevertheless, sometimes we just
wish it would go away.
Communities in America and
throughout the world compete regu
larly to attract big companies like
Hyundai and the benefits they sup
posedly bring to an area. The logic is
that, for all the tax breaks and envi
ronmental leniency, the company
still contributes more than it snaps
up in perks and profits.
However, some towns seem to
have lost track of that logic, going to
such extremes to attract businesses
they end up destroying the welfare
of the people they are trying to help.
Hyundai has apparently decided
Eugene is just such an forgetful
town. Their ongoing tantrum put
many a 2-year-old to shame:
Hyundai wants the city to overlook
wetlands regulations; Hyundai
wants Eugene to swallow millions in
lost revenue; Hyundai wants the city
to ignore the will of the voters and
throw out the toxins bill. Hyundai,
Hyundai, Hyundai!
The tax issue is likely to remain
unresolved for a long time. The city
wants companies to give money di
rectly to needed community services
in exchange for property tax breaks.
Hyundai, like most companies,
seems to care little for the communi
ty in which it settles, and would pre
fer to keep the money to pad its
pockets.
Unfortunately, many people in
Lane County are all too willing to
help provide the padding. Paying off
corporations with tax breaks has be
come a time honored practice, and if
Eugene doesn’t keep up, its econo
my could fall behind.
Even if you accept the growing no
tion that the corporation ought to
come ahead of the community,
Hyundai’s insistence on dismantling
or ignoring environmental legisla
tion clearly goes too far. Giving mon
ey to companies to convince them to
come to your town is merely unfair.
Letting them ignore the law once
they get there is offensive.
Admirably, the city council has
thus far stood behind the toxic re
porting law, which is opposed both
by Hyundai and by lobbyists work
ing the Legislature. Hyundai fears
the law, which would require them
to report the use and release of toxic
substances and which could impose
fines, would impinge upon their op
erations. Well, that would seem to
be the point.
Environmental laws that restrict
companies from using and releasing
toxic chemicals are not written to ac
commodate big business. They are
meant to stop the ongoing assault on
the environment by corporations. If
the city allowed Hyundai immunity
\
At \
CHAD PATTESON/Emerald
from the legislation, it would sub
vert the entire point of such protec
tive measures.
Sadly, the city has seemed more
willing to cave into Hyundai pres
sures regarding wetlands protec
tions. Part of the company’s building
site was declared a restoration wet
land, effectively blocking construc
tion on that part of the property.
This would halt Phase Three of the
plant (Phase One has nearly been
completed; Phase Two is currently
on hold).
After Hyundai went whining to
the city, it agreed to reconsider the
designation and to look for ways
Hyundai could continue with their
plans. One hopes the city would
boldly defend the community from
outside interests — in this instance
they seem to be thinking about cav
ing in.
There was a time when companies
considered themselves an integral
part of the community they resided
in, realizing their workers needed
good schools, quality services and a
healthy environment. Sadly, that
day appears to have passed.
Instead, corporate operations have
become a sort of figurative strip min
ing, where companies move in, strip
a community of capital and labor
and pay little, leaving behind an en
vironmentally destructive legacy.
This cannot continue to happen, and
it certainly shouldn’t be encouraged
by local governments and civic lead
ers.
This editorial represents the opinion
of the Emerald editorial board.
Supreme Court session ends with controversial decisions
■ OUR OPINION:
The decisions
handed down by
the court deal
with issues that
have been causing
many debates
2 H/an/vi Daih/ C>
Recently, the Supreme Court has re
leased decisions on several major
issues. There is no easy way to
evaluate their verdicts. While we
may agree or disagree with the political re
sults of the choices, Constitutional law is
not about politics — in theory. Bearing in
mind that legal complexities may preclude
the Court from making the socially “cor
rect” choice, here is our take on four of
these decisions.
Sex offender law
In another in a long series of concessions
to the forces of state control and police
power, the Court voted 5-4 to allow a
Kansas law permitting sexual offenders to
be imprisoned beyond their term
The law mandates that offenders can be
held indefinitely after serving their time in
prison if they are believed likely to commit
future offenses. While we admire the pur
pose of the law — to get people likely to
continue to commit horrible crimes off the
streets — we cannot approve of the
method.
Not only does extended prison time rep
resent a questionable solution to the prob
lem of sex crimes, but its use under the
Kansas law represents a form of double
jeopardy — punishing a person twice for
the same crime.
If states truly believe they can and
should keep violent sex offenders in jail
forever, they should simply pass longer
sentences for the crimes in question. Sub
mitting prisoners to extended punishment
after a sentence has been doled out and
served clearly destroys the legal process in
tended to ensure the rights of all involved
parties.
Communications Decency Act
In a stunning affirmation of common
sense, the Court voted 7-2 to strike down
the act, finding it violated First Amend
ment protection of free speech. Even the
two dissenting judges agreed the act was
flawed as written, but they argued it could
be amended to fit within legal boundaries.
The law, which mandated no “indecent”
material be posted on-line where children
could find it, clearly overstepped both so
cietal needs and legal precedent. The Court
has earlier found restrictions on obscene
material to be legitimate but has repeatedly
struck down blanket restrictions on inde
cent speech.
This most recent decision and the prece
dents it was founded on clearly uphold the
needs of a healthy democracy. The mantra
of civil liberties groups like the ACLU has
always been that all speech, especially
those sentiments we hate most, must be
protected in order to ensure the so-called
"marketplace of ideas.” We agree.
Assisted suicide
While those of us in the newsroom can
not even agree on the desirability of doctor
assisted suicide or its harsher sibling eu
thanasia, we do agree with most of the
courts decision on the matter. The court
upheld bans of assisted suicide by New
York and Washington states in a 9-0 deci
sion.
The decision appeals to the largely dead
notion of federalism: those things not legal
ly dictated by the Constitution are remand
ed to the states. While this doctrine has be
come increasingly irrelevant, in the case of
such a controversial subject, it is worth re
turning to.
By remanding to the states the ability to
block or perhaps permit assisted suicide,
the court has in essence told communities
they need to reach some sort of moral and
legal consensus on the difficult issue. Now
it is up to states to determine if their citi
zens would like the "right” to die. Oregon’s
voters already spoke once, although the
legislature seems determined to make us
do so again.
If the people of a particular state or local
ity decide they want a right the court did
not find within the Constitution, all they
should have to do is demand it.
Paula Jones
The court found that President Clinton
can and should go to court to respond to a
lawsuit by Jones accusing him of sexual ha
rassment. Regardless of the merits of the
suit, Clinton should be held accountable
for his actions.
The President is not above the law, and
he is particularly not above the civil courts.
While the system should make every effort
to accommodate Clinton’s busy schedule,
he should not be able to avoid court for rea
sons of political expediency or personal
convenience.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board.
GAY PRIDE
PARADE
While it didn't
have the color and
flair of huge march
es in cities like New
York and San Fran
cisco, Sunday's pa
rade was a good
chance for Eugene's
homosexual com
munity to remind
people they have
every right to be
here and be open.
POLICE PROBE
In an era when
police brutality is on
the rise, it is impor
tant that claims of
abuse are handled
seriously and effec
tively. We don’t
know if the Eugene
police acted appro
priately when they
used tear gas to
break up a down
town protest, but
the odds an internal j
investigation would
have reached a fair
conclusion seem f
slim.
\
TIMBER TAX
BREAK
The Oregon
House passed a
measure Tuesday
that would give a
$25 million per year j
property tax break to j
timber owners. Not j
only is the measure j
another form of cor
porate welfare for an !
industrythatthrives j
on government gen- 1
erosity, but it would j
continue a trend of
unfairly shifting the ]
tax burden onto the j
individual.
CONGRESSIONAL
TAX CUTS
While some of
the breaks passed
by the house Thurs- j
day are admirable— |
like $1,500 credits j
for college tuition— j
too many of them !
unfairly benefit the j
wealthy. Cuts in es- j
tate taxes and capital ;
gains taxes are most !
useful to those with
a lot of money to in
vest. Cuts in the tax
es of small corpora
tions pander to
clever accounting.