RM 02-20-81 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

South Bend qedevelopment Commission Regular Mee ing - February 20, 1981 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Mr.lMcMahon continues... We also make the observation that an argument can be nade in favor of the petitioner, noting that prior development in the area received either five - yea or ten -year abatements, and that the success of Block 6 is related to the continuous availability of the abatement inducement. With respect to the abo e, we feel that the abatement is for purposes of rekindling interest in the area, but not for the pur ose of continuing subsidy. However, the question remains as to when an area ceases to be blighted. In this particular case, should we turn it down, we would be implying that the area is eligible for tax abate- ment through the first six of seven parcels as they are developed, but then restrict it from the seventh parcel. We feel that this may be an arbitrary de- cision, should we choose to go that route. Let me bri a it down to the bottom line and summarize it. We spent quite a bit of time reviewing this particu- lar petition. Looking at Block 6 there is no question in cur mind, and I am sure in the Commission's mind bas d on the action previously taken, that Block 6 a num er of years ago was definitely blighted and that it vas blighted for a number of years before any activity took place. The inducement of tax abate- ment and other inducements that have been offered through Redevelopment have been the catalyst for causing that block to turn over. We think that up to this point there has been no policy that has said wher a block becomes unblighted, but certainly at SOME time that becomes the case. But there has been no information that has been put forth either by the Cit Council or by the Redevelopment Commission which has provided any developers or real estate people in the community with any type of background or guide as to when they can expect to receive abatement with res ect to an area like Block 6 and when things have mov d along to the point that abatement is no longer goi g to be available. In light of the fact that all of the parcels over there have received tax abatement in the area and this is the remaining par- cel and in light of the fact that there is no question that it was at one point blighted and that the induce- ments that have been offered through tax abatement haVE contributed to the fact that those six other dev lopment have occurred, we think it would be arbitrary for us to limit it now that we come to the seventh par- cel. We think that it would be in the Commission's 5