My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-08-07 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
06-08-07 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2012 11:40:01 AM
Creation date
12/11/2007 3:21:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Date
6/8/2007
Document Relationships
06-08-07 Redevelopment Commission Agenda
(Superseded by)
Path:
\Public\Redevelopment Commission\Agendas & Packets\2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Rescheduled Regular Meeting June 8, 2007 <br />huge investment. Yes, right now, if you take <br />a look out there, it looks a whole lot better <br />for development, and we have more interest <br />in that area. <br />M.r.. eezl o vskl: But if you look at what <br />we're going to do by having the airport, <br />LaSalle Square, Hui-w.ich Iron and then the <br />Sample-Monroe district. If you look in the <br />dictionary under gerrymandering, that's <br />going to be the picture. We're going to have <br />this little dog on the end of a leash comil.g <br />here, them another corridor going down to <br />this. Why don't we just make all of our TIC` <br />districts one district` It looks like that's what <br />we're coming to. <br />Ms. .l t vY. <br />Q -id <br />- OMI C people- "a F Ne dof,lx 5.1i1.44. Ai \.Y <br />closer to home than you think. You are <br />getting ahead of yourself. That's not what <br />we're here for. I was just philosophizing <br />about general TI F. I'm not going to get into <br />how we've identified this place versus that <br />place. We're not going to get into that. <br />That's not for this discussion of this item. <br />Mr. Pe z o vski: I find it sort of related <br />because by agreeing to this it looks like <br />we're putting this one to bed in order to <br />facilitate the addition of this to the other TI. <br />Ms. Jones: I think we would do this no <br />natter whether there was nothing else going. <br />This is something we have to do and we've <br />obviously clone it before. <br />:fir. Pcezko vs is Weil, having done it before <br />is not a good recommendation. <br />Mr. Inks. From ray perspective, this is <br />completely independent of the other decision. <br />What we have here today is the fact that we <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.