SM 06-12-80 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Be d Redevelopment Commission Special eeting - June 12, 1980 6. NEW BUSINESS b. dontinued... r. Nimtz continues... hen a gentleman from Crowe Chizek poke with us and we determined that hey weren't eligible? Now was that ecause they had already started their uilding and this differs from that articular abatement? r. Ellison: In their situation they ad constructed a building on urban enewal land and the start of their onstruction period was prior to the ime the Council implemented the batement process, and also prior o the time of any ten years abatement eing granted locally. Our advice to hem was to rely on the previous statute. he Chair recognized Mr. Ernest Szarwark, ttorney for the petitioner (Mossberg & Co.): r. Szarwark: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ssentially Mossberg has no qualms as to the actual findings in the staff's excellent eport. Mossberg feels that it has been good corporate citizen, rather the question hat we are posing, and I think it is going o be a rather important one, in terms of ther people asking for tax abatement. "What s the area at which you are going to look when ou determine whether a particular parcel f real estate is entitled to tax abatement ?" ssentially, Mr. Ellison's report, looks at ust the property owned by Mossberg & Co., hich shows a very small parcel of real estate hat we own. It is true, we have kept up our eal estate very well, and we have always tried o modernize and keep the building in the best ossible condition, to keep it clean, and as r. Ellison said, a good corporate citizen. hat we are saying, however, is that you can't ust look at an isolated parcel of real estate ou have to look at the surrounding neighborhood. f you do look at the surrounding neighborhood, ou are going to find that there are a lot of roblems with it. The Southeast Area Planning rofile calls this a troubled neighborhood, 5