SM 05-09-75 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

9. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT (Cont_d) said that 'The Commission will give prompt consideration to this bid and will proceed with the negotiation far sale of'two adjacent parcels as p rt.of the'total_ construction %proposal of'the Associates and the First Bank & Trust Company.' Further ' Mrs. Allen stated, "in March - -the next month - -in minutes of March 16, 1973, there was a letter-from HUD that said they have reviewed the Redevelopers Statement of Associates Bancorp., Inc., etc., and find no objection to these corporations as redevelopers of the disposition parcels note . Now renderings were presented in April 6, 1973 meeting and noted in t ose minutes. In May 22, meeting, which was a Special Commission Meet ng, you mentioned the joint venture. This is all in 1973: Then it goes on down the line, and then down to August, in minutes of August 3, 1973, a public hearing was held 'in' the City - Council Cham ers on the amendatory urban renewal plan and minor plan changes. Mr. Van Mele made the statement, in Commission minutes of April 6, 1973, 'We aill commence construction on Parcels 4 -31, 4 -32 and North 140 feet of Parcel 4 -1, by.December 31, 1973 of this year, assuming marketability title is transferred and 4 -31 and 4 -32 are completely cleared.' Now then, again and as stated in the Minutes of September 21,1973, Mr. Cha les F. Lennon, Jr., then the Executive Director, said there would be an update of Associates status report. I do not have a copy of the Minutes of May 22, 1973, so I cannot elaborate on it. But I think the point is well taken. For 2 -1/2 years, everyone has been under the impression that the Associates and Gulf and Western had a 'hold' - -a definite hold - -with its Letter of Credit and everything-- that they had a definite hold on this property, and you have not received, nor welcomed, or invited' - -I should say - -bids from anyone else. Now, dur- ing this 2 -1/2 years, if anyone else - -Mr. Glaser and everyone else - -had realized that Associates did not have a binding commitment, we might wel have received many other developers and we might well have had a lot of buildings down there right now. So I think that your point is wel taken that you make it very clear that Associates or the First Bank- - NEI HER ONE- -has a definite commitment for this property you are trying to ispose of, and make it plain that bids for its use of the property are welcome from any developer at this time. Commissioner Wiggins stated: "I think you ought to differentiate between proposals and bids. There is a very distinct difference. We would " welcome any and all proposals, and we have been in this position all along. Mrs Allen responded: You were open for bids and in 2 -1/2 years later, you find no fire action-was taken on that bid, but from all intent they felt that their _bid had been and was accepted on this property.` And, THAT'S IT!" Commissioner Wiggins stated that "Mrs. Allen's comments and the comments of many of the public made here, 'you are correct.' They are aware of the procedure and how it takes place. At the time we had the property up for bids, Associates was the only one that responded, and we had no response of interest from anyone else at that time. We should all be aware- -the =YAM