SM 06-12-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Bed Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW 3USINESS b. Mr. Szarwark continues... ee that within their neighborhood re building, standing, and keeping p thier property, the firm will ikely say that this is a good place o go in. The property values would e low because they have been tradition - lly run down, the people are keeping hem up and they are probably going o do a continuing investigation in here, so lets buy some real estate hile it is low; let us build here ather than someplace else where verything looks just great, but eal estate prices are higher. So, ou create an incentive, you create n atmosphere where corporations are illing to take the gamble on the est. On the other hand, if you ust say that people are keeping up heir property in a blighted neighbor - ood.that is fine, but no tax abatement o expand or improve, you are going to nd up with a certain type of stagnation. don't think that this Commission wants o see these areas. r. Ellison: The problem I see is that he businesses incentive-is not tax abate - ent. It is probably some other form f public assistance. The fundamental urpose of tax abatement is to cause he cessation of elimination of deterio- ating conditions which when added together ommonly are called "blighted ". Theoretical - y, a redevelopment treatement which would resumably have to address those kinds of onditions. The proposed project or edevelopment treatment will not directly ffect those conditions. Certainly, it ould add to the area but it is not mproving unimproved real estate, eliminat- ng substandard buildings that exist on he site correcting land use, or any f the traditional things that the ommission has to consider in considering edevelopment plans of its own. The uestion is not whether business incentive s necessary. Rather, the question efore the Commission is whether the rea (the abatement area) from a condition 15