My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 06-04-76
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1976
>
RM 06-04-76
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/6/2012 9:08:09 AM
Creation date
9/21/2012 3:37:19 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
5. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont'd <br />to explain the thought and the theory behind this Remonstrance. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Ault were in the audience and advised they only <br />attended to answer any questions that may be raised. <br />Mr. Butler advised there is some concern expressed by the re- <br />monstrators that the action taken by the Redevelopment Commission <br />on Resolution No. 522, and today with Resolution No. 524, which <br />is a confirming resolution, would prejudice their rights - -the <br />remonstrators' rights - -to later contest any attempt to take their <br />property by condemnation proceedings. Mr. Butler advised he dis- <br />cussed this with Mr. DuComb yesterday and explained to him that <br />the action of the Redevelopment Commission would not in any way <br />prejudice the rights of the owners of property, whose property is <br />in the R -66 area but not on our acquisition list at the present <br />time. In order for the Redevelopment Commission to take any addi- <br />tional property they would have to follow this same procedure- - <br />amending the Urban Renewal Plan- -and specifically amend the Urban <br />Renewal Plan by adding properties to the acquisition list. Mr. <br />Butler further advised this morning,`in conjunction with the <br />adoption of Resolution No. 524, confirming Resolution, that the <br />Commission might want to, by motion, state that their action on <br />Resolution No. 522 and Resolution No. 524, amending the Urban <br />Renewal Plan, will not in any way prejudice the rights of owners <br />of property in the R -66 project area, whose property is not on <br />the acquisition list, where either failure to remonstrate or to <br />take action on any remonstrance which might have been filed. "To <br />my knowledge, this is the only remonstrance." <br />The Chair asked if there are any questions by the members of the <br />Commission? Do we have anything further from members of the public? <br />No questions were forthcoming. The Chair then recognized Dr. George <br />A. Wing, Chairman, Mayor's Downtown Development Committee, and asked <br />if he would make a presentation. <br />Dr. Wing stated he can only say that the proposed change, which is <br />really a multiple change - -at least that part of the change that <br />concerns him is the relaxation of the plan to allow the construction <br />of the motel - -was initiated by the Mayor and himself, as an in -kind <br />brokerage thing. Dr. Wing stated he became aware of the fact that <br />there was an interested party in that particular block of land- - <br />Block 6- -and having been made aware of that interest, they put the <br />interested parties together and then initiated the change that you <br />see before you -- permitting the construction of a motel: "We feel <br />very strongly that there is a potential need for more public housing <br />in the downtown area given the imminent completion of the Century <br />Center. We feel this is a very good change." <br />The Chair thanked Dr. Wing for his comments, and asked if there were <br />any other comments by any member of the public? The press have any <br />questions? Any questions or comments by any members of the Commission? <br />There were no further questions on this portion of the Public Hearing. <br />- 4 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.