Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - May 21, 1993 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) <br />a. continued... <br />MRS. BLACKETOR: My name is Jo <br />Blacketor. I just have a couple of questions <br />for the Redevelopment Commission. Just one <br />question, really. If this is a partnership <br />project, why didn't the School Corporation <br />have the information about blighted <br />information? They were only aware of tax <br />incremental funding. The blighted <br />designation was news to them. And, in fact, <br />they did not have the packets that we're all <br />privy to right now. If you review the <br />development plan, it says the Riley High <br />School issue is a key element to the entire <br />project. I just wonder why that wasn't <br />communicated and why there isn't a <br />partnership here with the School Corporation? <br />Thank you. And I don't support the <br />resolution when the words blighted are there. <br />We're talking about revitalization on one <br />hand, and that's what the school corporation <br />chose that location for —to revitalize the <br />inner -city. On the other hand, in a different <br />public agency, we're talking about blight. <br />MRS. KOLATA: First of all, on the issue of <br />objecting to the word "blight," that's a legal <br />requirement in the state law: in order to be a <br />redevelopment area, you must find that there <br />is blight. That does not mean that every <br />piece of property within the entire area is <br />blighted, but that, overall, there are <br />conditions that cannot be corrected by just the <br />normal operations of the private enterprise <br />system. It requires some activity on the part <br />of the Redevelopment Commission in order to <br />make private enterprise function as it would <br />-27- <br />