RM 09-19-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Bed Redevelopment Commission Regualr eeting - September 19, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS a. tax abatement report continued... We betieve there is ample evidence to suppoftt contention that the area has been underuti.2ized. eed, despite extensive e44oAt oven a number o4 tus to market the atcea 4otc tight .industr>ia2 use, buyer was found. F inatty, a4ter 4.iv e yeats , Hepter putcchazed the propetrty. Besides being ant 4or an extensive petri.od o6 time, this property o wars the subject o4 a tong t.ist o4 envitonmentat Att City ut it i a are pies ent and the atea is zoned "D ", tight .indurtniat. Supptementat Observations This petition presents a ptobtem. Construction is c mpteted on the project. Thous, ' it is impoz s.i.bte to say at the ptcajeet woutd not have occwviced without tax abate- ment. It has occwrtced. Like the Habt.in Company case, however, this ,us a ,soeciat one. Mr. Hepter, through his eounset, attempted tq 4ite 4ot abatement consideration 4tom June o4 1979 to D cember o4 1979. Because the taw had been changed, Mt. H2.pZeA could not appty 4ot the 4.ive year abatement. yet, t ere ex bsted no 4orma.e ized pnocess 4o& 4.i e i.ng 4or consider- on o4 the ten yeah abatement. At the Redevelopment C mm.us.5.ion meeting o4 December 7, 1979, the Commission ,stated .c is po-6iti.on that no petitions woutd be accepted untit tocat pnoeedwr.es were estabt.ushed. These procedures w e not 4onmaZi.zed by the Common Council untie Apra 14, 1 80. Because o4 buz.ine/ss tequiAements o4 M. Hepter and tie de/s,itce o4 the Commu z ion to proceed with .imptovements it this area, construction occwviced during the summer and o4 1979. Mt. Hepter's eounset /states that he (Mr. Hepter) as cognizant at att times o4 the tax abatement ptocezz and cons-idered it e zentiat to the ptann.ing and putchase o subject propW y. " Given Mt. Hepter' �s e44oh t6 in attempting to 4ite 4ot abatement, we concuA with thus -state - m nt. Cowsequentty, the department wars 4oreed to make a bjecti.ve judgement o4 the condition o4 the ptoperty ptri,ot t the time -imptovements were ptaeed on it. Thus judgement was not d.i6jicutt since this /site was nt of an otd Redevelopment Area and thus vetcy 4amit iaA us. Because of conditions that ptev,iousty existed, as we t?,ined above, the department bet.ieves Mt. Hepter de/setves x abatement and shoutd not be un4aiAty punished by the n4u6ion caused .by the change in the taw.