My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 02-17-78
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
RM 02-17-78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 5:07:00 PM
Creation date
9/24/2012 2:20:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
Redevelopment Commission Meeting <br />Friday, I February 17, 1978 <br />DISICUSSIONS: <br />Mr. Edward Chapleau: My only comments are that at this hearing we have <br />to Jetermine by proof how much is involved, and what we can justify. I <br />have been thinking about this since the last hearing--we may be able to <br />prove that much or, we might be able to prove more. I am not certain <br />if we are planning to meet and discuss this. I am presently working <br />on this point as it may require some testimony. The problem involved <br />here is that the parties asked for a stay of proceedings, and the <br />Indiana trial rules provide for a bond. The purpose of the bond is to <br />guarantee the damage that we may suffer if this project falls through, <br />at least this is my opinion. I feel it is also important that the parties <br />post this bond if they are going to get the stay. If the parties don't <br />get the stay, it is my position that we should be able to proceed with this <br />project, providing we don't do anything that would interfere with the <br />rig is of the remonstrators. In other words, I don't see any way that <br />their rights would be affected or hurt on anything we do, as long as <br />it oesn't affect them directly. <br />Mr. Nimtz: I agree with you. The point here is that we are not planning <br />to take down their buildings in the immediate future, and we should be <br />able to proceed with the appraisals, plan changes, and the other pre- <br />requisites to put this project forward; and certainly that would not injure <br />their rights in any way. <br />Mr. Dave Anderson: When you mention procedure, are you speaking about <br />the appraisals and getting ready for demolition. Does this mean there <br />wou d be no actual demolition? <br />Mr. <br />thi <br />Mr. <br />Mr. <br />Mr. <br />app <br />hav <br />the <br />pur <br />pur <br />Sim <br />we <br />bec <br />Mr. <br />Chapleau: Yes. Hiring people, who have to be hired to do certain <br />ias, such as doing paper work, and preparing, planning etc. <br />Anderson: What is all this process...your appraisals? <br />Chapleau: Mr. Brownell is in more of a position to answer that question. <br />Brownell: We have to have real estate appraisals completed, and fixture <br />�aisals. We have contracted S.M. Dix to do this work for us and we <br />to have determination of relocation benefits so people who are using <br />property are entitled to relocation benefits when their property has been <br />: hased. As a matter of fact, under our present plans, we hope to <br />:hase real estate without disturbing its use at that time. We would <br />)ly take over the tenant, or whoever is using the property at the time <br />take title. For instance, if we bought land from an owner, he would then <br />)me our tenant until such time as we have need to demolish the property. <br />Anderson: If the bond is granted by Judge Miller on Monday? <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.