Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Lookout Eugene-Springfield’s “no” endorsement on Measure 20-373 is disappointing not just because it sides with polluters over the health and safety of our community, but because of the flawed and shallow process that the outlet engaged in.
In addition to parroting opposition claims — such as “a neighbor could sue a neighbor” — the endorsement buys in entirely to the opposition’s unsupported speculation that there would be a significant number of lawsuits. Both of these arguments are easily refuted.
A cursory read of the measure shows that individuals cannot sue other individuals under this law, so the “neighbor suing neighbor” scenario is baseless. Only corporations, governments and business entities are subject to enforcement under the law.
The fear-mongering claim that there would be a wave of lawsuits under Measure 20-373 is not remotely supported by the history of other environmental laws or laws similar to Measure 20-373. Similar claims were made about the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
All of these laws allow citizen enforcement actions, yet none have been abused in the way critics suggest would happen here. Likewise, critics of an aerial spray ban law in Lincoln County asserted that serious harms would befall small businesses, but those predictions did not materialize during the 2½ years it was in effect.
Had there been a robust endorsement interview process, we would have shared the story of Pittsburgh’s “community protection law” that banned natural gas drilling within the city limits. Like Measure 20-373, it grants rights to ecosystems and natural communities to “exist and flourish,” and also allows residents to initiate civil suits to protect those rights.
Having been enacted in 2010 and on the books for 16 years, somehow the residents of this community have managed to avoid the tidal wave of lawsuits coming to Lane County. One wonders what is so special about Lane County that we would have such a calamity happen here when it has not happened elsewhere with a very similar law.
And one wonders why Lookout didn’t take the time to learn more about our law before making such pronouncements in its article.
Another major argument that Lookout uses to justify a “no” position is that the industry might sue to overturn it. Has the “Fourth Estate” — or at least Lookout — so completely capitulated to powerful interests that just the threat of litigation is enough to carry the day. Would Lookout have urged Congress to not enact landmark civil rights laws or the ADA because opponents might sue?
We wish that Lookout had been more diligent, as they might have come to a different conclusion.
