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