My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 01-02-80
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1980
>
RM 01-02-80
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 4:25:13 PM
Creation date
9/25/2012 3:34:50 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 Bond Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting January 2, 1980 <br />4. COMPXICATIONS (continued) <br />Ms. Auburn: Mr. Chairman, I would like for you, <br />out of respect and courtesy to the new administration <br />to .nvite the new City Attorney to go with you to see <br />the Judze. <br />Mr. Nimtz: I will consider that. I really don't know <br />tha the City attorney is involved directly. <br />5. OLD <br />The <br />6. NEW <br />a. <br />INESS <br />NO OLD BUSINESS <br />was no old business to present to the Commission PRESENTED <br />ideration of regi <br />-10. <br />st to settle Claim Parcel #66 -32 <br />s. Kolata: I have the details of this case. It <br />wolves a letter address from DeVere Goheen to <br />Nimtz several weeks ago which was referred to <br />e Commission and then to the staff for investi <br />tion and report. <br />. Nimtz: To refresh your recollection—The <br />dy whose property we have acquired has died, it is <br />an estate, and DeVere Goheen claims that we <br />nolished the house without notice to the lady etc. <br />Ors. Kolata: Upon investigation, we did not proceed <br />)ut of order. The suit had gone into condemnation, <br />the money was placed into Court for the settlement, <br />the money was then taken out of the Court by the <br />)riginal woman, and at that point the Department of <br />2development did have title to the property and <br />lid demolish the property. The person in question <br />ias since died and her son is asking for more money. <br />['he case has been in the Court and it has been held <br />;ince about 1976. Originally, the case went into <br />lourt in 1974; it is still being held on the <br />locket and has been postponed. The question is <br />)ver whether we should try to settle out of court <br />For slightly more money or whether we should let <br />Lt follow the regular Court procedure. We don't <br />Find that there is any reason to believe that the <br />)epartment of Redevelopment has acted improperly <br />Ln demolishing the house. <br />-12- <br />CONSIDERATION OF <br />REQUEST TO SETTLE <br />CLAIM PARCEL <br />#66 -32, NDPA -10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.