My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SM 07-10-75
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1975
>
SM 07-10-75
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 9:29:35 AM
Creation date
9/20/2012 4:00:49 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 END REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION <br />SPECIA MEETING: July 10, 1975 <br />MR <br />Page 7. <br />With no further discussion or comment from the members of the <br />Commission, the motion was unanimously carried by all Commissioners. <br />Letter from International Constructors Compa <br />1975: Mr. Brownell advised we received this <br />national Constructors Company, and is in the <br />packet. Asked if it is Mr. Medlock's desire <br />read, Mr. Medlock said he had no objections. <br />read in its entirety and is on file. <br />1y, dated July 7, <br />letter from Inter - <br />Commissioners <br />the letter be <br />The letter was <br />President Nimtz asked Mr. Medlock if wants to comment further <br />regarding the letter and the attachments. Mr. Medlock advised, <br />"Only to say that we are sincerely interested in seeing this <br />developed and in seeing this developed in the best way possible, <br />and we feel that we have made every effort to make our plans public <br />knowledge, and, in fact, to communicate to the other bidder, that <br />we would be willing for them to join our group and that we would <br />be glad to meet with them to negotiate the development of the <br />office portion as a part of a'single bid, if that can be done <br />without collusion or any of the things that would throw out a <br />future bid, but we are, as we have gotten further into this, <br />more and more convinced that the best development of Block 6 is <br />going to be something that will involve some land use change, <br />and we might as well make the necessary land use changes to do <br />what is best for the community." <br />President Nimtz requested an explanation be given on the land <br />use, and Mr. Butler, Commission Legal Counsel, advised, "Basically, <br />the land use is a requirement of HUD regulations. They require <br />that the Local Public Agency declare land -use conditions/restric- <br />tions in any urban renewal area, and those be the land use de- <br />signated at the time the property is put up for bid. If, from <br />that point on, a contract is successful, or an acceptable contract <br />is openly signed, then the land use for that particular property <br />which is subject of bid is locked in for a period of at least <br />30 years from December of 1969 until December, 1999. It can be <br />extended. We are talking about a 30 -year period." In re- affirming <br />the statement, President Nimtz stated, "So once a decision is <br />made on a particular land use, that is it for 30 years." Mr. <br />Butler stated that is correct. <br />The Chair requested response from the Commissioners: <br />Mr. Wiggins said, "I think that, without question, we have had <br />to rely upon the specialists in the field, because this is what <br />HUD requires largely. I think to a degree, in all fairness to <br />the Commission, since we are not all experts in all of these <br />things, we have to rely to some degree upon their judgment. I <br />don't know if anybody's got a crystal ball that is clear and <br />really forecasts the future, so there is an element of possibly <br />being wrong, or wrong in varing degrees, or right in varying <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.