Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shay, TL 1985 RJPRM & Abuse of Power
Shay, TL 1985 RJPRM & Abuse of Power
T. L. SHAY, Ph.D.
-="""'==""-""-~-,-,.--,.-.~---------------
- 3-
Election
-4-
-5-
-6~
--
spite
of
this,
non-Rajneeshee
-7-
residents
Corvallis.
All but one voter, who traveled to The Dalles,
chose to cast absentee ballots. The election results
were 57 in favor of the name change and 22 opposed.
Antelope is now officially the City of Rajneesh.
The School
One of the earliest fears of the longer term
Antelopians and nearby ranchers was the prospect of
an influx of Rajneeshee children into the school system
and a resulting increase in property taxes.
The
Rajneeshees were specifically asked and agreed from
the begiming not to send their children to the local
school.
Instead they agreed to establish a private
school on the ranch.
Nevertheless, the ranch was
located within the Antelope School District.
Thus
Rajneeshees paid property taxes to help support a
school which their children did not attend.
Even so, by I 983 several of the nearby ranchers had
petitioned the Wasco and Jefferson County Boundary
Boards to have their property moved into either the
Maupin or the Madras district.
The petitions were
accepted. Over 200 square miles were to be removed
from the Antelope district, leaving only property on
the Rajneeshee ranch and in the town itself to be
taxed in support of the school. To achieve this clearly
gerrymandered taxing district, Antelope and the ranch
were connected by a one foot wide strip of land that
stretched for fifteen miles. As a result, Rajneeshees
would be expected to provide the bulk of the tax
money to operate a school their children still did not
attend.
Not surprisingly, Rajneeshees voted against a
district budget request in June and also elected one of
their community to a vacancy on the school board.
The board members sent a reduced levy request to the
voters and it too was defeated.
Whereupon they
decided to close the Antelope school and send the
twelve non-Rajneeshee elementary schoolchildren to
-9-
- 10 -
- 11 -
of
the
old
The "take-over"
theme was not confined to
Antelope. By the fall of 1984 many Wasco residents
were alarmed that the Rajneeshees might "take over"
the county government in the November elections.
Their fears were stimulated by the "Sharing a Home"
program, which the Rajneeshees had initiated to
relocate numerous "street people" at their ranch.
It has been reported that 3700 homeless people
were recruited from among the most destit~te in
sixty-one major metropolitan areas nationwide.
The
program offered them medical attention, nutritious
food and housing in a clean, drug-free, crime-free
environment. It also offered them encouragement and
support to transform their lives for the better.
Bus fare to Oregon was provided for all and return
fare to those boarding the buses before September 23
who later might decide to leave. Return tickets were
no longer promised to newcomers after that date.
They were asked to sign an understanding to that
effect and to consider carefully whether they were
committed to a change of lifestyle. However, some of
the later arrivals did eventually decide to leave the
ranch. They subsequently called upon or were offered
charitable resources in Portland, Madras and The
Dalles for return transportation.
the
transportation
costs
some non-Rajneeshee
charities contributed to those who left.
But many viewed this program quite differently.
No sooner had it begun than rumors began to circulate
that the Rajneeshees were going to "import hordes of
street people" in order to "take over" Wasco County
government in the November elections.
Two of the
three county court I commission seats were at stake and
contested.
Each candidate had indicated that he or
she was not favorably predisposed towards the
Rajneeshees.
Any attempt by the Ra jneeshees to "take over"
would
have
required
mounting
two write-in
campaigns.
Then an enormous "bloc vote" of
Rajneeshees and newcomers would have had to be
delivered. There were several media reports pointing
out the virtual arithmetic impossibility of these fears
being realized.
But reasoned arguments had little
effect on the situation.
Non-Rajneeshee voter registration in the county
soared.
Anti-Rajneeshee
groups in Albany and
elsewhere announced plans to go to Wasco on or near
election day to register and to vote illegally in order
to "save" the county. Wasco officials pleaded with
these people to stay home.
Meanwhile the
Rajneeshees announced that they would offer two
write-in candidates and that they would "take over
Wasco County". These actions were later explained as
a "joke" designed to determine how far opponents
might go.
- 12 -
- 13 -
- 14 -
- 15 -
- 17 -
.I
I'
treated.
Land use statutes are, at best, ambiguous
with regard to the topic.
Goal 14, which deals
specifically
with the creation of Urban Growth
Boundaries (UGBs) does not explicitly deal with the
incorporation of cities in areas outside of already
existing UGBs.
The Rajneeshees, Wasco County
Court/Commission,
Wasco County Circuit Court,
LCDC, LUBA, and the State Court of Appeals, as well
as many legislators, have all interpreted this ambiguity
differently at different times. The result has been a
welter of administrative and judicial confusion.
The Oregon State Constitution is much clearer on
the issue of incorporation.
It provides for Home Rule
and states that, "The legal voters of every city and
town are hereby granted pwer to enact and amend
their municipal charter "
Oregon's implementing
statutes provide that 150 or more people living in an
area outside of an already existing city may initiate
the incorporation of their own city.
At least 10
percent of them are first to petition the appropriate
county court/commission,
which then holds one or
more public hearings and approves a detailed order for
an election.
If a majority of those residing in the
area vote to incorporate, the county recognizes the
creation of a new city by proclaiming the election
results. One issue under contention is what impact, if
any, SB I00 was intended to have on this statutory
procedure.
Implementation of SB I00 over the years has
res~lted in land in or near existing cities being
designated as urban or urbanizable if it falls within
UGBs adopted by local governments and approved by
LCDC. Almost by default, all land not falling within a
UGB, or specifically designated for some other use
such as forest or recreation, has been categorized as
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). SB 100 contained no
explicit provision concerning the incorporation of a
new city outside of an established UGB, that is, on
EFU land.
Former State Senator Ted Hallock, one of the coauthors of SB I00, has explained legislative intent as
being the protection of truly valuable agricultural
land. He has also said that during the 1973 legislative
deliberations, the incorporation of new cities was
never considered to be a matter governed by SB l 00.
I spent five months of agony fighting to get
that bi II through the legislature, and I can tell
you that not for one moment was any
consideration given to the possible formation of
new cities. My primary purpose was to protect
good farm land from further encroachment by
existing urban areas. Not once did we discuss
the evolution of a new city in a semi-desert
area what you're doing here (Rajneeshpuram)
is totally cff'mensurate with the intent of our
legislation.
Another issue under contention is whether or not
the statutory language adopted by a 1981 legislative
session amendment renders land use planning goals
applicable to the incorporation of new cities.
The
attempt to clarify land use issues specifically related
to annexation was worded as follows:
"Cities and
counties shall exercise their planning and zoning
responsibilities, including, but not limited to, a city or
special district boundary change which shall mean the
incorporation
or ~rrexation
of unincorporated
territory by a city "
One judicial decision has held this language
ambiguous and not intended by the legislature to apply
to the incorporation of new cities. It reasoned that if
the legislature had intended such an application, it
would have worded the phrase to read "incorporation
of or annexation of".
Another decision disagreed,
saying that the passage "is not ambiguous, although it
could have been more artfully drafted" and that it does
rende~ ~and ~se goals applicable to the incorporation of
new c1t1es. 1
Meanwhile, 1000 Friends of Oregon has developed
- 18 -
- 19 -
of Rajnees~ram
- 20-
- 21 -
- 22 -
essentially
untried
"exceptions process".
and
potentially
protracted
<f
- 26 -
- 27 -
.1
~t
Also in June, LCDC met to consider Rajneeshpuram's Comprehensive Plan. Four hours of testimony
were heard and four critical votes were taken. First,
LCDC rejected a request from I000 Friends for an
enforcement order that would have stopped development in the city. Second, they rejected a motion to
deny the comprehensive plan because there had been
no justification for or exception taken to two of the
planning goals. Third, LCDC rejected a proposal to
postpone action on the plan because of litigation
- 28 -
-----
-------
......
--------
-------------------------
- 29-
- 30 -
- 31 -
puram.
And after the LUBA rulings, they made
additional requests of the Wasco County Circuit
Court.
They asked the court to issue orders for the
removal of all structures in the city which had been
constructed under permits issued by the city since the
adoption of the Rajneeshpuram Comprehensive Plan in
September of 1982. They also asked the court to order
the removal of the community's sewer and water
systems.
In sum, they sought the destruction of the
city, based upon the LUBA rulings, which in turn had
been based upon LCDC's retro41rtive rule, which they
had reportedly helped to write.
- 36-
- 37 -
rule.
decisions, voted to remove all references to Rajneeshpuram from the county's comprehensive plan. This
action was tantamount to rescinding the earlier
ordinance adopting the city's comprehensive plan.
However, the appeals court had merely required the
incorporators to return to Wasco County to pursue the
exceptions process. It had not declared the city to be
illegal.
The Court of Appeals reversal of its own March
decision brought criticism
from many quarters.
Among those comments was an editorial in the Eugene
Register Guard. It called for the legislature to pass
clear laws concerning the incorporation of new cities.
It went on to state, "The prospect of retroactive
municipal aborticr based on ex post facto land-use law
is unappealing."
Lmd Use l~ues in Perspective
When evaluating all of the legislative, judicial and
bureaucratic confusion and contradiction in this case,
three vital factors must be kept in mind.
First, the land use laws of Oregon are, at best,
vague and ambiguous insofar as they relate to the
incorporation of new cities in rura I areas. At worst,
these
Jaws are
incomplete,
inapplicable
and
incomprehensible as they relate to the issue at hand.
The authors of SB 100 disagree as to what they
meant to include and to exclude from the jurisdiction
of the statute. The 1981 session of the legislature did
not unambiguously clarify the matter.
The various
di rectors of DLCD disagree as to whether or not
incorporation was ever meant to be or actually has
been regulated by the goals of LCDC. LCDC members
themselves have been divided in their understandings
and interpretations
of their own rules.
Most
importantly in this case, LCDC members were divided
on the issue of fairness of applying their retroactive
administrative rule.
The petitioners
- 39 -
Approve
Date, Tribunal,
City
Issue
November 4, I 981, Wasco
County/Commission approves
incorporation election
2
March 12, 1982, LUBA holds that
land use laws do not apply
3
March I, 1983, Court of Appeals
reverses LUBA and remands
0
June 2, 1983, LCDC refuses
to stop development
4
June 2, I 983, LCDC refuses
to deny comprehensive plan
4
June 2, 1983, LCDC refuses
to postpone vote on plan
4
June 2, 1983, LCDC approves
13 of 14 Goals in plan
4
July I4, 1983, LCDC adopts
temporary retroactive rule
3
September 26, 1983, LUBA
holds that exceptions process
required
0
September 29, 1983, LCDC
accepts LUBA September 26
ruling
2
March 2 I , 1984, Court of
Appeals reverses LUBA
ruling
3
June 22, I 984, Court of
Appeals reverses Court of
Appeals March ruling
4
TOTAL VOTES ON
33
CRITICAL ISSUES
- 40-
Disapprove
City
0
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
32
- 42 -
- 43 -
f/l
- 44-
a modified
tryt7
- 46 -
- 48 -
been recognized as
As one newspaper
- 1,9 -
I
confrontation between the Rajneeshees and the 1000
Friends of Oregon, we are witness to two determined,
assertive and well-financed organizations locked in an
intricate legal battle.
Various units of government
in Oregon have
become involved in this confrontation.
What must be
demanded by citizens is that such governmental
involvement be fair, open, lawful and impartial.
Instead, there are a number of examples wherein
government has failed in its great responsibility and
has used its power arbitrarily.
This is the abuse of
power which must not be permitted to go unchallenged
or uncorrected.
In some instances, the courts have played a vital
role in correcting arbitrary or discriminatory actions
by government.
One example is the Wasco County
Circuit Court's order to the "old" Antelope City
Council to cease its obstructive behavior and issue
lawfully requested permits. Another example is the
same court's reversal of the Jefferson
County
Court/Commission
decision to refuse to grant a
religious festival permit, an action clearly not in
accordance with the law.
In other instances, the courts are still considering,
on appeal, various questionable governmental actions.
Among such actions are the "temporary"
and
"retroactive" rule of LCDC and the LUBA decisions
guided by that rule. Such actions include also the
Attorney General's complaint, which has been based on
his "assumed" facts concerning the intermingling of
religion and government in Rajneeshpuram.
Other governmental actions are clearly premature,
such as the efforts of Wasco County and its Planning
Director to treat Rajneeshpuram as if it had already
been declared illegal. And some actions seem simply
excessive, such as those of the State Department of
Commerce in setting a $1,400,000.00 fine for the
questionable installation of some electrical wiring.
- 50-
I
'
~.
.1
- 51 -
55
- 52 -
- .'j] -
.
1
Ii
I
NOTES (continued)
NOTES
I Fred Bruning, "Holy cities
Maclean's,January
14, 1985,p. 7.
in Oregon
hills",
-----------------------------
17 Henry Richmond,
March, 1984, p. I.
IOOO Friends
Bar Bulletin,
Mailing, circa
20
21
22
23
26 Or App 75 ( 1983).
24
10 The Oregon
Section 2.
State
Constitution,
Article
26
27
XI,
29
- l
NOTES (continued)
NOTES (continued)
42
46 Attorney
359FR.
General's
.
revised
complaint
in 84-
Statesman-Journal,
____l
41
. I
~ I
l;
33
- 32 -
to
- 33 -
Again
- 34-
- 35 -
---
--------------------
------