Laserfiche WebLink
South Bendl <br />Regular Me <br />5. PUBLIC <br />Redevelopment Commission <br />!ting - March 20, 1981 <br />HEARING (continued) <br />Mr. McMahon noted that Mr. Pick Pitts, who serves as Ac- <br />quisit on Specialist, will be spending about 100% of his <br />time w th respect to Monroe- Sample activities. Mr. Mc <br />Mahon taid he felt that it is necessary that we provide <br />staff n a full - time basis to be available to residents <br />to discuss this with them so that they fully understand <br />all of the paper work and what they are eligible for and <br />what they are not eligible for, and walk them through <br />that e tire process..)In addition, Mrs. Hedy Robinson is <br />going o be involved full time in performing relocation <br />activity in that area. The staff will be providing two <br />people and basically 100% of their time will be spent <br />working with individuals that would be affected by the <br />plan, if adopted. <br />Mr. Ninitz now declared the meeting open for any comments <br />or recommendations from the public and asked Mrs. Glenda <br />Rae Hernandez if she was acting as spokeslady for the <br />group. <br />Mrs. H rnandez introduced herself, stating that she lived <br />at 702 East South Street and that she was President of <br />SEPAC, Inc. Mrs. Hernandez then proceeded by reading the <br />following statement: <br />"Generally the Southeast Side PAC feels that this plan <br />is better than anything previously offered by the City. <br />Obviously it looks 50% better to us than the original <br />announcement three years ago calling for total clearance <br />of the area. Additionally, it looks better to us to keep <br />the preserved residential area contiguous rather than <br />split in half as it would have been with the Fellows- <br />Columbia connector proposal. However, in exchange for <br />this instead of losing 51 structures as we would have <br />with that plan, we will now be losing 75. If Redevelop- <br />ments n save and physically move up to 7 of these as <br />projec ed, then the total demolitions will fall below 70, <br />but no as low as 51. <br />So whi e the plan does look like the best that can be put <br />together on paper, we still have some very real concerns <br />about it. As a neighborhood organization, we cannot <br />simply endorse what looks good on paper without consider- <br />ing what it means to individual lives that must be affected <br />in order to implement it. Granted, there are a few people <br />who will happily take their money and go elsewhere. Yet <br />from m conversations this seems to be only the tiniest <br />minority of people. <br />11 <br />