My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 03-17-78
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1978
>
RM 03-17-78
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 5:06:22 PM
Creation date
9/24/2012 2:27:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
COMMISSIONER'S REGULAR MEETING <br />Friday, arch 17, 1978 <br />FLOOR DISCUSS I <br />Questions asked of Mr. Brademas regarding his proposal): <br />Ms. 4eanne Derbeck: Then you don't intend to get rid of any of those <br />buil ings. You would just enhance their value? <br />Mr. �rademas: That is true. <br />Mr. ohn Kagel: Mr. President, it certainly breathes some new life into the <br />Indiana R -66 program, and into the City of South Bend. I think that we have <br />had some negative attitudes from time to time, which robbed the future of the <br />City of South Bend, and I think there are some of us in this room who feel <br />that the opportunity for this City to grow and for things of this type to be <br />developed are good. It is very interesting to see that there is some local <br />initiative, that should this go through, I believe every opportunity should <br />be given to certainly nurture it. I think that it is pretty good news for <br />St. Patrick's Day. <br />Mr. �an Caesar: Would there be any land use changes that would have to be <br />made for this project? Or any alterations to the present R -66 program? <br />Mr. utler: Off hand I haven't really had a chance to digest it all, but <br />I would say yes sir, there would have to be a land use change. I think that <br />thero is no housing for example, under the current land use. <br />Mr. Can Caesar: Would it be a minor obstacle under the present? <br />Mr. Butler: In a matter of time, but of course, we open ourselves up to <br />a potential lawsuit again. <br />Mr. Can Caesar: In what way? <br />Mr. Butler: Remonstrators. No—we would have to go through the normal <br />plan change process. If you are familiar with it, we have done it three times <br />within the last two years. <br />Mr. C apleau: I think there is a very real chance of litigation if the City <br />attempts to acquire the property, and the owners don't want to sell it. Then, <br />You Ire getting involved again. <br />Mr. Butler: In the acquisition aspect..... yes. <br />Mr. Brademas: That is true, but what would happen would be that the only <br />point and contention would be the price of land, and therefore, the redevelopment <br />Commission could proceed to acquire the land, sell it, and make it available <br />and we could go forward with the development then at some later date, the <br />price could be determined. <br />ME <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.