My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 11-16-79
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1970-1979
>
1979
>
RM 11-16-79
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 4:45:00 PM
Creation date
9/25/2012 1:13:14 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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 edevelopment Commission <br />Regular Mee ing - November 16, 1979 <br />7. PROGRESS REPORTS <br />a. con{ hued... <br />Mr. Treadway: What I am saying is that you don't have to <br />change the outside. <br />Mr. Ellison: Obviously, we knew that. From the staff's <br />poi t of v'fiew, we tried to say,the issue was whether we're <br />gofi g to save the building or not, It's got nothing to do <br />wit Historic Preservation, it's just got to do with the <br />building., The first decision would be whether it's`up or. <br />it15 down, and then we have a chance to negotiate with all <br />the developers, or redoing their proposals in a number of <br />ways to accomplish a bankable deal. That might include <br />dropping the glass for some other kind of treatment, it <br />might include requiring Mr. Brademas to take a very heavy <br />expense to do terra cotta all around the building. It <br />may include a lot of variables, but in eigher case if an <br />outside force like the Advisory Council dictates do's and <br />don'ts, if they rule the building historically, then we <br />are in a difficult position to negotiate or operate above- <br />board and have the controls the Commission is designed to <br />have. That's my only concern. So, I'd much prefer to <br />simply get the historic question settled. <br />Mr. Cira: Carl, my biggest answer I'd like to have is, if <br />we delay this until the first of the year and see that <br />thE deals will not go through and we want to demolish the <br />building, then it's a historical site, we won't be able to <br />demolish the building. Now, that's what I don't want. <br />Mr. Ellison: Well, that could happen. we're in a high <br />risk poker situation. <br />Mr. Cira: Well, can't we get some kind of agreement from <br />Mr. Wasielwski over this? <br />Mr. Ellison: Well, I think we do have it. Let me state <br />ve y clearly and unequivocally, I don't have any problem <br />with the action the Commission has taken. I don't have any <br />problems with Ted or Ruth or anybody else that's involved <br />in that. I just want to be very sure that the Commission <br />anc public understand the ramification . of their actions, <br />If I were in Ted's position, frankly I'd do the same thing, <br />Bui we have to understand the significance of it and to the <br />ex ent we have to do certain things, I think, in response <br />to it. It''s not a vendetta against Ted or the Historic Pre- <br />servation Commission. It's just that I think what the <br />Redevelopment Commission has to have ultimate decision _ making <br />authority. Because if we're going to go with one of these <br />-39- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.