Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989 | View Entire Issue (Nov. 4, 1981)
Ballot measure 51 O C Mayor, Commissioner debate By Darla Weinberger ■f the Print | Ballot Measure 51 pro- ■des Oregon City residents an ■portunity to approve, in a general election, the construc tion of a resource recovery plant that would be used to bum garbage, industrial or municipal solid waste. The issue was the subject of debate between Oregon City ~ Commissioner Jim Johnson, a long-standing opponent of the facility and Oregon Citi Mai >r KhTfateofafuturistic waste disposal plant was debated by Mt >or Don Anderson ■eft) and City Commissioner on campus last week. staff photo by Duffy Coffman Don Anderson, who supports the project, Oct. 30 last Friday in the Fireside Lounge. Johnson argued that the proposed Recovery i Plant would produce a highly toxic ash that may be used to make roads and used for landfills. He said the ash may cause birth defects, respiratory problems, cancer, and other major il lnesses. Disagreeing, Anderson stated “the health of the people would not be jeopardized.” If the Resource Recovery Plant is built in Oregon City it will be the first plant of its kind on the West Coast. The 10-acre building site for the plant is located across from the Rossman’s Landfill. The building will be 10 stories and have a smokestack 250-300 feet high. The current cost estimate is $262 million, but it may double before the propos ed 1983 construction date, ac cording to Johnson. The steam produced by the plant is to be piped down to Publisher’s Paper Plant, to be turned into electricity and the remaining steam will dry the paper. Both Anderson and Johnson toured the Saugus (Massachusetts) plant. It is only one out of the four plants operating successfully in the United States, Johnson noted. “Saugus is to be the model plant for Oregon City and has been cited six times for air quality violations.” One question asked of the debate was: If President Reagan raised air quality stan dards, how would it affect the Oregon City plant? Anderson replied it would be up to the people to see that the State En vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) would not lower their standards for the plant. Ander son said in terms of Ballot Measure 51 if people vote ’no’, they agreed to have the plant built, and if they voted yes, they wanted the right to vote on whether or not it will be built. Hatfield holds question, answer meeting _ _ ¿J I (Cont. from page 1) ie*said, of student aid,” he said, “The ¿hools have to come up with some kind of leverage to better the record of those students repaying their loans. We’ve got to do something about the miserable record there.” “He’s absolutely right,” Hakanson said. “You can’t blame the government for looking hard at the Pell Grants.” The tax cuts, budget cuts and spending proposals of the Reagan Administration were also discussed at length. The Senate Appropria tions Committee is the legislative body that organizes and approves much of the government spending. Referr ing to the importance of his chairmanship, Hatfield said, “ ‘The important Senator Hat field’: I laugh up my sleeve every time I hear that. I’m powerful, but I’m not that powerful.” Staff photo by Duffy Coffman Symposium set for eight Oregon artists I The College will host an Art Symposium tonight at 7:30 p.m. in the Pauling Science Center, room 101. ■ The artists include sculptors Leroy Setzoil and Lee Kelly, painter Jack Adams, ceramist Tom Coleman, and graphic designer Scott McIn tire. I Norman Bursheim, art department chairperson, will open the symposium with a slide presentation of the guest artists’ works which will be ■lowed '' by what Bursheim hopes to be a “lively discus sion.' Hr Some of the questions to be. addressed include: f Is it . time our academics stop teaching how to paint the tree? What is the artist’s responsibility to the public? Must a work of art be unintelligible to the majority of the people? Does a great work of art address itself to too few people? For the first such sym posium held at the college, Bursheim said he’d like to see a good turn-out and a productive discussion on the various ideas on art. “These guys- are really good,” Bursheim said, “We’ve got the best artists around here.” The symposium is Open to the pubic and free. Hatfield went on to ex plain that his committee has less control over appropriations that the title suggests. Of the 1981 federal budget of $707 billion, 78 percent is entitle ment and mandated spending, and thus untouchable by law. “If a student qualifies for student aid, then he qualifies. You’ve got to have that money for him,” Hatfield said. ‘‘Revenue-sharing, Social Security, Federal Pension pro- , grams, service of thé national debt are all entitlements. The fact is, we’ve lost control over the federal programs and spen ding.”^ Hatfield has long been, an opponent of the huge military budget and more recently of President Reagan’s economic policies. Of the 22 percent of the federal budget that is ap propriated, 17 percent is ear marked for the military, leaving 5 percent for non-defense pro jects. “We cut back $14 billion on what,remained of President Center's last budget year. We then had the reconciliation resolution that cut another $25 billion and in neither instance did we cut one penny from defense. All of those cuts came from the non-defense pro grams,” Hatfield said. Hatfield said he told the president, “We are not going to cut $10.4 billion out of these appropriation funds. It’s just not there. We’re at a point where... we’re not reducing programs, we are excising pro grams.” Unlike the majority of his party, Hatfield often speaks out against the military budget. “Can we build this expensive MX missile, while the educa tion, housing, transportation, natural resource evaluation and all of the other infrastruc tural programs are deteriorating?” the senator ask ed. “The idea that all the waste is in the welfare pro grams, or the food stamp pro gram is just phoney,” Hatfield said, “Last year alone, the defense program had $4.3 billion in cost over-runs. You can’t tell me we cannot make at least a 6 percent reduction in that bureaucracy.” The senator is no less critical pf other White House economic theories. “This simplistic idea of cutting across the board 12 percent is ine quitable and frankly, not very intelligent,” he said. MAGAZINE wants your art I deadline Nov»18 deliver^ work to — Page 3 Wednesday, November 4, 1981 SN: OL0055
