Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Commission <br />Regular Mee �edevelopment <br />ing - November 16, 1979 <br />7. PROGRES� REPORTS <br />a. Mr. Nimtz continues... <br />los to downtown South Bend, or a developer pulling out and <br />so n, would be around their neck. They know their public <br />rel tions image is not too good, and if they do anything <br />fur her here to deter the economic _ development of South Bend, <br />I t ink their public relations image is going to deter <br />further. I guess we've got no.money from the City of South <br />Bend for use in the Historic Preservation Commission and <br />they probably won't get any. I'm sure they're acquainted <br />with their shakey public relations image with the press, the <br />public and the City Council. <br />Mr. Butler: May I make a recommendation for three consecu- <br />tive motions based upon the motion that has already occurred? <br />First, it would be a motion regarding the demolition bids <br />that have been received by the Commission. All the demoli- <br />tion bids should be rejected. The second motion would be <br />that all of the renovation.bids received by the Commission <br />be rejected. The third motion would, rather than simply <br />delaying any action until the first of the year, authorize <br />the staff to begin negotiations now with the developers who <br />have submitted proposals as well as with any other developer. <br />We have to be open to negotiate with any other developers who <br />have an interest in the project. These negotiations will <br />be for the purpose of determining whether the concerns that <br />thE staff and the Jannotta group indicated today can be <br />satisfied. At the same time, as a part of that same motion, <br />thE staff should be directed to work with the Historic <br />Preservation Commission to determine what the specific effect <br />of the action that has been taken is, and then secondly to <br />tr to reach an accommendation in accord so that we can. <br />av rt an economically disastrous result as a result of the <br />delay. <br />Mr. Nimtz: Your third motion is actually a recision and <br />re ision of the first motion? <br />Mr� Butler: No. I think you have indicated by the first <br />mo ion that you want to take some action, <br />Mr Nimtz: Commissioner Cira has suggested that we revise <br />th t first motion. <br />Mr Butler: Perhaps the first motion would be to rescind <br />th motion that was made earlier, followed by the motions <br />I ust mentioned. Carl do you have anything to add to that? <br />!Epa <br />