Page 20 RAIN Jan./Feb. 1984 CREATING NUCLEAR FREE COMMUNITIES by Don Skinner In November the people of Cambridge, Massachusetts, voted on a measure that would have made the city a nuclear free zone—i.e., it would have prohibited work and research on nuclear weapons within the Cambridge city limits. The measure went down to defeat, but the nuclear free zone concept remains very much alive in communities across the United States. Don Skinner, who was involved in a successfulfree zone campaign in Ashland, Oregon, describes his experience below. —JF In November 1982 the citizens of Ashland, Oregon, voted to adopt a nuclear free zone ordinance. This vote was the culmination of an initiative drive that had begun a year earlier. It had initially involved collecting the signatures of 1,200 registered Ashland voters. The idea for an NFZ initiative emerged from mid-winter meetings of an Ashland group working with Citizen Action for Lasting Security. Six of us spearheaded the free zone drive, blending our individual resources to effectively deal with the campaign and its recurring crises. There was considerable opposition from the mayor and a member of the city council to placing the measure on the ballot. Once it was on the ballot, though, the resulting campaign engaged virtually every segment of the community in the debate over nuclear arms and energy. The proposed Ashland ordinance would prohibit the positioning of any nuclear weapons, manufacture of component parts for nuclear weapons, storage of nuclear wastes, or production of nuclear energy within the municipal jurisdiction of the city. The campaign to adopt this ordinance involved three major elements. The first of these elements was an emphasis on community and individual responsibility in facing the nuclear issue. The second was an effort to gain the support of influential groups—churches and businesses—within the community. Some church leaders participated by sponsoring and endorsing an advertisement requesting that people ask themselves if Jesus would build a nuclear weapon—or even a small part of one. Some businesspeople were reluctant to be openly supportive, but a large contingent gave ample support for the measure. The third element was individual grassroots organizing. This was done in part by soliciting signatures and contributions for an endorsement advertisement. We collected over 400 signatures and $1,500. The result was a very impressive advertisement on election eve, much needed funds, and considerable community outreach. There was still considerable opposition to the ordinance. Some of the opposition was based on the wording of the measure. This problem could have been avoided if we had sought the advice of a lawyer. There
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz