My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SM 04-29-75
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1975
>
SM 04-29-75
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 9:41:21 AM
Creation date
9/20/2012 2:55:51 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
4. NEW BUSINESS (Cont'd <br />up a specific letter of credit for a specific <br />amount of money so therefore, if they do not <br />perform we, at least the City, get something <br />for tying up the land all this time. Not to be <br />in a position where we've been 2 1/2 years nothing's <br />happened, another year and then they say, well we <br />need another year. In the meantime its all well and <br />good but the merchants are going out of business and <br />the people that do own property here are suffering. <br />Mr. Glaser stated, "in addition to that, I feel <br />if you would consider possibly that as a strength <br />to your negotiators in this situation that you <br />should consider the possibility of the original <br />plans of going ahead with the mall all the way <br />down and completing it and opening this up for <br />other bids. I know the first thing we'll hear <br />is, we don't have another bidder in mind. The <br />reason as you know no one is going to come in <br />and try to duplicate what Associates tried to <br />tackle other than the First Bank has the expertise <br />to cope with it and I think you should remember <br />you might be amazed how soon that would fill in. <br />How people would go in and develop but not the <br />whole thing. Before you give them another year <br />or so, take this into consideration; deal from <br />a strength and not a weakness ". <br />Mr. Butler's reply to Mr. Schrager and Mr. Glaser <br />was, "I think when you said the property has been <br />tied up, the property downtown, it has been to this <br />extent, that the assumption has been that the Assoc- <br />iates project was the most practicable project that <br />had been presented to the Commission by anybody ex- <br />pressing interest in that area. I think we had one <br />other bidder at the time, Mr. King, on Parcel 4 -30, <br />he wanted a rehab on that lot. No one has been dis- <br />couraged to express interest in that property other <br />than perhaps the fact that it was assumed that the <br />Associates proposal was the most viable, the most <br />workable, the most practicable for renewing a major <br />segment of the downtown area." <br />Mr. Schrager interjected with, 'IT think its a wonder- <br />ful thing for Associates or the Fi.,rst Bank and we <br />should all cooperate and work in any way possible <br />but cooperation should be a two -way street and per <br />haps if the project is too big for then to put over <br />they should be willing to admit It and go ahead with <br />a smaller project. But, let's all get our shoulder <br />behind the wheel and move forward. <br />- 6 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.