My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
091312 Redevelopment Commission Minutes.docx
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Agendas & Packets
>
2012
>
09-27-12 Packet
>
091312 Redevelopment Commission Minutes.docx
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/24/2012 1:28:56 PM
Creation date
9/24/2012 1:28:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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 Bend Redevelopment Commission <br /> Regular Meeting—September 13, 2012 <br /> at requires at least three or four of the six <br /> people who were opposed to the first plan <br /> would still lose their homes!? So do we <br /> change this plan for just two or three people? <br /> Some objections have to do with the fact that <br /> we would lose the income from the property <br /> values and property taxes from those 30 <br /> homes. However the numbers do not hold <br /> with this argument. The 30 homes or so only <br /> brings in approximately $33,000 in property <br /> taxes. One commercial property, like the one <br /> that is being proposed just north or Culvers, <br /> would double the amount of property taxes <br /> the community would take in for two <br /> reasons. One commercial property brings in <br /> more property taxes to begin with and to it <br /> would be a larger building which means the <br /> improvements would be taxed at a larger <br /> rate. So that eliminates that argument <br /> altogether. <br /> Next argument has to do with the buffer of <br /> homes between the golf course and Fellows. <br /> This argument doesn't hold any water; <br /> pardon the pun, because of the drainage <br /> water that causes problems to the homes that <br /> butt up against the golf course as it stands <br /> now. Just the fact that we will be able take <br /> care of some of the drainage problems using <br /> the original plan makes more sense than <br /> anything else I've seen so far. Also by trying <br /> to save some of these homes we have to then <br /> leave the S-curve at Chippewa in place. Now <br /> even though the argument is there hasn't <br /> been any traffic fatalities at that intersection <br /> in the last period of time, imagine when we <br /> dump all those cars that I described to you in <br /> the first paragraph which will be a regular <br /> occurrence when the bypass is dumped off on <br /> Ireland Road. Now some people argue that <br /> we just simply send people up Ireland Road <br /> 34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.