Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend edevelop meat Commission <br />Regular Mee ing - January 25, 1991 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) <br />a. cominuea... <br />WOLF: I just want to clarify some <br />thirgs. Is this only for acquisition, or <br />is this acquisition and demolition? <br />MRS. KOLATA: This is only for <br />acquisition, although I think there is a <br />vexy strong possibility that it would <br />ther. mean demolition. But we have no <br />reqLirement to state that at this point. <br />MR. LF: How does this affect our plans <br />to acqutire the Opelika Building. I know <br />that1s another issue, but does it bump <br />it? I'm kind of concerned about the fact <br />that, we still have this pending <br />situation. <br />MRS. KOLATA: It really depends. In terms <br />of the acquisition, we can handle both. <br />The question will be the demolition cost <br />and Ilooking at the budgets. We might <br />have to make a budgetary decision. <br />MR. WOLF: If it is demolished or <br />developed, will there be a requirement <br />that, it be bonded beforehand? Or a <br />guarantee from the developer on the land? <br />MRS. KOLATA: I can't say at this time. <br />Nornally the Commission will acquire the <br />property and make a determination as to <br />whether the structure needed to come down <br />at that point or would wait. I think <br />that 's up to the Commission as to whether <br />they are going to make a requirement as <br />to whether or not there be a firm <br />proposal for development. <br />MR. LF: We understand the problems of <br />the ouilding. It's also way down on the <br />priority list of theaters, so it's fallen <br />into that black hole. At one time we had <br />recotmended and looked into the <br />pons' ility of someone developing only <br />the runt and not the auditorium. I <br />that would be viable and that if <br />it' sltorn down for a developer on the <br />-5- <br />