SM 06-12-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW OUSI b. Mr. Szarwark continues... t is an eyesore in the neighborhood... ou are going to say granted it is 11 very good, prime industrial ground nd somebody else would be glad to buy t and move in, but it is run down, herefore it is entitled to abatement. Ir. Ellison: No, Mr. Szarwark. In that ituation what you would do is enforce he codes. If an area is otherwise pwardly trnasitional with respect to is overall condition, and if there s an isolated property that is deterior- ted, and stands out like the eyesore, he typical governmental response is o undertake code enforcement to use he regulatory process. As I see it he problem is that neither the ommunity nor the Council or Commission ants to provide disincentives to usiness, certainly not to Mossberg. t has indeed been a very good corpor- te citizen, and it does indeed have ery well maintain property as was oted. Tax abatement from a legis- ative standpoint, a state legislative ne, is not primarily a business de- elopment ingentive. What it is, s an incentive that is designed o correct blighted conditions. The undamental problem that we have is hat the project will not address lighted conditions because we ind that there do not substantial onditions which might be considered lighted ones in the area. Ir. Szarwark: The extent to which ,ou show development in an area, in broader area, that is going downhill, nd to the extent that you show expan- ion, you show that none of these properties are going to be kept up .re going to be improved. You do reate an atmosphere within an area therein development can occur. Certainly f corporations or executives looking .or persons to locate their corporations 14