Document text
http:// --> Ashland, Oregon HOME Valley & State Sports Nation & World Opinion/Editorial Classifieds Business Columnists Local Issues Obituaries Weather Archive Revels Etcetera Backpage Hot Topics Most Viewed Forum Photo Galleries Video Readers Polls O-Zone Online Games Movie Preview Special Sections Real Estate Guide Menu Guide Shakespeare Subscribe Contact Us Rate Card Place an Ad Featured Galleries: May 2, 2007 Revision exposes Lithia Park By Robert Plain Ashland Daily Tidings State law would not prohibit the sale of Lithia Park, if a revised city charter is passed by voters on May 15, according to the relevant passages of Oregon Revised Statutes cited by city officials. For months, public officials, charter review committee members and political activists have bickered back and forth at Ashland City Council meetings and in e-mail exchanges about whether or not Lithia Park could be sold if a line specifically guarding against a sale is removed the existing charter. Art Bullock, a political activist, has said at several public meetings, "It gives city the power to sell Lithia Park to developers." But John Enders, former chairman of the now defunct Charter Review Committee says this is untrue. "This is false," he said in an op-ed piece in this newspaper. "State law would prohibit it." According to City Administrator Martha Bennett, the provisions of state law that would play into the potential sale of Lithia Park are Oregon Revised Statute 271.310 and 226.350. ORS 271.310 says, "...whenever any political subdivision possesses or controls real property not needed for public use, or whenever the public interest may be furthered, a political subdivision may sell, exchange, convey or lease .... all or any part of their interest in the property to a governmental body or private individual or corporation." ORS 226.350 reads, "After so much land and property ... as is needed has been appropriated for public squares, parks or playgrounds, the municipal authorities of the city may by ordinance authorize the sale of the remainder of such land or property and impose such restrictions in any deed of resale as may be deemed necessary or proper." Bennett and Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello said state law prohibits public employees from commenting on issues that are on an election ballot, such as the charter amendment. But another former charter review committee member Michael Riedeman interpreted the law, in an e-mail to the council listserv, by saying, "The state language on the conversion of parkland actually would require a decision-making body to decide basically that there is a better public interest that can be served by selling." He added, "It doesn't take much to imagine tight economic times, or some kind of economic crisis that would lead a group of people to want to sell a portion of city land above Lithia Park for houses." Ashland City Councilor Kate Jackson, a proponent of the charter revision, said in an e-mail, "the state prohibition on conversion of park land is very strict." She did not say it is outright prohibited. The existing charter has specific language that prohibits the sale of Lithia Park. This language was removed from the draft charter, according to former charter review committee member Pam Marsh, to streamline the document, remove issues of policy and make the charter function more like a "constitution" for the city, she said. Jackson said Lithia Park would be protected by an local ordinance that the council has seen and plans to vote on after the election, rather than state law, if the proposed charter is adopted in the May election. "While some may say that an ordinance is 'easy' to amend, the truth is it takes four votes," she said in an e-mail. City councilor Cate Hartzell took the opposite position. "Ordinances take a mere four votes of councilors," she wrote in an e-mail. "Protections in the Charter require the majority of residents to change." Hartzell, along with councilors Alice Hardesty and Eric Navickas voted against putting it on the ballot. Jackson, along with councilors David Chapman and Russ Silbiger and Mayor John Morrison voted to put the charter amendment on the May ballot. City water A similar proposed amendment to the charter could also allow the city to sell water to a private company. "The existing and revised [charter] language would allow four votes on the City Council to allow a private company or public jurisdiction to participate in running our water utility," Hartzell said in an e-mail. "Neither the existing or draft charter will prevent [a company] from coming in and setting up a bottling plant without a voice of the people. We would charge them higher per gallon rates if they use a certain level of water, but that's it. Battles will be fought over water in our future." Jackson and Hartzell disagreed on this point as well. "No one in their right mind would suggest selling a piece of Lithia Park, or the city's water supply," Jackson said in an e-mail. Riedeman, during the summer, said it would be possible, but not likely, that the council would act to sell water rights to a private corporation. "Would an Ashland City Council propose franchising our water rights?," he asked rhetorically. "Anything is possible, but I feel it is highly unlikely here. And if a councilor did propose this, and somehow it passed (even more unlikely) then state law allows citizens to raise this to a public vote of citizens by referendum." Staff writer Robert Plain can be reached at 482-3456 x. 226 or [email protected] Current Comments: Call me crazy, but I for one don't see anything good to be gained from removing protections on public land and water to allow 4 people to do as they please. These people's "feelings" already allow illegal campfires in the watershed and impose whimsical restrictions on otherwise legitimate growth. Trusting our town's most precious assets to said "feelings" is a HUGE mistake in my never-humble opinion. This is how I feel - Ashland, OR - May 2nd, 1:32 PM Are we about to kill off the goose that laid the golden egg? So much of Ashland's history revolves around the founding of Lithia Park, which was Southern Oregon's first public park when it was created over 100 years ago. In the early 1900s Ashland voters resoundingly defeated a similar attempt to commercialize & privatize Lithia Park. Citizens of Ashland, do not give up your right to control what happens to your parks, your water, and all that makes Ashland such a unique town. Robin Thompson - Ashland, OR - May 2nd, 2:23 PM "No one in their right mind would suggest selling a piece of Lithia Park, or the city's water supply," Jackson said in an e-mail. Regardless of what opinion one might have of Ashland's current Councilors, would it be prudent to count on all future Councilors to be "in their right mind?" Behavior of elected officials elsewhere argues against having much confidence in that. Sal Santamaura - San Clemente, California - May 2nd, 2:48 PM Amen, Sal! I just wish I didn't find myself in agreement with Hartvickas on this one. But heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day... This is how I feel - Ashland, OR - May 2nd, 5:13 PM I still don't see the "benefit" of revising the city charter. What are we fixing that was broken? Heather - Ashland, Oregon - May 2nd, 5:16 PM The two measures on the May ballot do NOT appear to be anything close to "completed staff work". The city council can't resolve this? Is this their way of justifying being paid for their "work"? Pathetic. Why should voters approve either version when the council is split 3-3? And the so-called "summary" and "explanatory statement" are worthless without the specific language changes, which is too great a burden on voters. Vote NO on both measures and tell the idiots to work it out or resign. Tom Besich - Ashland - May 2nd, 5:19 PM Sell Lithia? It is not going to happen. As Don Montgomery, one of the authors of the new charter points out: "All of Ashland's parks are protected by State statutes (ORS 271.310(1) and ORS 271.310(3)). The only possible way for the city to sell Lithia Park is for the people to no longer use the park". I say vote YES on both 15-76 and 15-77. It is time for pragmatic government for our fair city, not this luddite idiocy that we now have. Libertarian - Ashland - May 2nd, 5:41 PM Raise your hand if you think that Lithia Park would ever be for sale...anyone? That's what I thought. There would be riots in the streets if anyone ever suggested such a thing. But you gotta love small town politics sometimes. Mike - Ashland, OR - May 2nd, 6:48 PM Our park and water must be protected with unambiguous law. We can't simply trust the good will of elected officials. Vote against the charter. Chris Wood - Ashland, OR - May 2nd, 9:23 PM Finally! I can build a house right in the middle of the park. it is about time we parceled off that land. And hey, it would take care of those darn kids downtown too as there would be no place to sit. But I call dibs on the big grassy area right up front. I have already have a nice bland building in my mind to build there. Brian! - Ashland, OR - May 2nd, 10:10 PM The proponents of selling any land or allowing the sale of any land associated with Lithia Park should be tarred and feathered and run out of town. Townie - Talent, OR - May 2nd, 11:44 PM So, the city council and the Mayor would have to be on board to sell the park? Not likely, and hey, don't we elect them? Vote YES!!! robin - ashland, or - May 3rd, 8:33 AM But then again, our council is not "in thge right mind". Right??? jt - TAXVILLE - May 3rd, 10:23 AM Does this mean we'll be seeing a Starbucks and a Baby Gap in there soon? Oh goodie! I hate driving to each end of town for my latt�. Jon - Ashland - May 3rd, 10:32 AM What have we got, maybe 5,000 to 10,000 voters in Ashland, of whom, only a dozen have read the actual language of the proposed "Constitutional" changes for our City. A city council split 3-3, with 3 supposed communist against 3 supposed facists. Look at McCloud, CA. Their council sold their water to a foreign entity for peanuts. Don't think it couldn't happen here. Make the 6 crybabies work together to earn their medical benefits or all resign. Vote NO on ambiguities until they get it right. Tom Besich - Ashland - May 3rd, 11:16 AM It certainly seems, with all the confusion regarding the language of this proposal, and the sharp 3-3 divide on Council, that we ought "stand pat" and not make any changes in our form of government. How could they have spent so much effort working on the charter and done such a poor job of explaining its effects before asking for the vote?? Just A Townie - Ashland, OR - May 6th, 9:08 AM vote no on the charter change. there is a lot of sneaky busines going on re: this, revisions, changes, and a divided council. furthermore, saying "the state prohibits it" is no reason to change the wording in the current charter. I recommend reading the handout by "Of the People" also, why not sell shakespeare's property to rais funds? stop subsidizing a profitable and lucrative entity. Kelsu - Ashland - May 8th, 6:47 PM NOW I get it! All the recent stories about the druggies and social misfits lurking around the park. I know this is a town of many actors but the staged theatrical police sweeps of the park seeking the evil weed, then there was that hysterical account by that group of visiting high schoolers from California written about in this newspaper here a year ago. It's all a setup to convince the public that in the name of public safety we must bulldoze the crown jewel of Ashland for "THEIR" own good! Rob - Ashland - May 10th, 8:19 PM Leave a Comment: Advertisement: Advertisement: Paid Advertising: Debt Help Inkjet Printers Payday Loans Free Ringtones Debt Consolidation Security Systems Debt Relief New Hampshire Primary Advertisement: Copyright © 2007 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers. All Rights Reserved. Del.icio.us