Opinion ID: 1290055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Due Deliberation

Text: Plaintiff, in its memorandum before this court, points to the number of readings as being one of the critical differences, relying on the language of Greenberg v. Lee, 196 Or. 157, 178, 248 P.2d 324, 333 (1952), wherein this court stated that [t]he required readings    are natural impediments to impetuous, impulsive, capricious or arbitrary legislation. A better safeguard of due deliberation than the proforma readings (normally by title only) is the minimum time required between the first public notice of a proposed action and its enactment. The minimum time required for Ordinance 120 adoption is greater than that required for ordinance enactment. The ready availability of the emergency clause (with immediate effectiveness) vitiates the salutary effect, if any, of the 30 day delay in effective date of an ordinance.