Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting —July 20, 2001 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />a. (Continued...) <br />MR. MASTERS: We'd simply like you to leave <br />it off the acquisition list, leave him [tenant] <br />alone, and let him [tenant] go on with his own <br />[tenant] plans to develop his [tenant] own <br />property. Thank you. <br />MR. HUNT: Do you [Ms. Greene] care to <br />comment on that? <br />MS. GREENE: Mr. Masters has filed a written <br />remonstrance and it was, indeed, timely. As <br />part of the process for adding [property] to the <br />[acquisition list in the] plan, the property owner <br />receiving notice does have the opportunity to <br />file written remonstrances. At this point in time <br />the Commission has now heard Mr. Masters' <br />remonstrance on behalf of his client. Essentially <br />the Commission is required to make some kind <br />of finding on that remonstrance— whether or not <br />to sustain it, or to go forward with the <br />acquisition. <br />MR. HUNT: Going forward with the acquisition <br />or going forward with the placement on the <br />acquisition list? <br />MS. GREENE: With placement on the <br />acquisition list. <br />MR. HUNT: Do we damage in any way his <br />client's ability to develop his own property by <br />placing them on the acquisition list? <br />MS. GREENE: The statutory scheme set forth <br />by the legislature contemplates that as part of a <br />redevelopment project you have to add <br />properties to an acquisition list before you can <br />11 <br />