My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 08-15-97
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
RM 08-15-97
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2012 3:21:52 PM
Creation date
10/8/2012 4:32:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting - August 15, 1997 <br />block was needed or desired by developers. <br />Mr. Kil distributed two sketches showing how <br />a new office building could be constructed <br />while leaving Mr. Moerlein's building alone. <br />Ms. Schwartz stated she wanted to respond to <br />Steve Moerlein's statement that the action that <br />the Commission possibly will take regarding <br />acquiring that quarter block is improper, <br />illegal, and for a private purpose instead of a <br />public purpose. She stated that since the <br />Commission has no proposed action in front <br />of it, they can't respond with regards to a <br />specific action. But they can respond in <br />saying that the Commission would never <br />knowingly acquire that quarter block <br />improperly, illegally, or for a private purpose <br />instead of a public purpose. In fact, they <br />would carefully avoid doing so. She also <br />noted that the type of challenge Mr. Moerlein <br />brought to the Commission generally, and <br />with no specific proposal or plan in front of <br />the Commission, is a kind of challenge that <br />has been litigated in Indiana and the authority <br />of the Redevelopment Commission to acquire <br />land for future redevelopment has been held to <br />be a public purpose in Indiana. She stated that <br />she was not trying to get into a legal debate <br />with him because that wasn't her position. <br />Ms. Schwartz stated that his concerns and his <br />bringing alternative arrangements forward to <br />the Commission are greatly appreciated. Mr. <br />Moerlein stated that his intention is not as a <br />threat, but that his property is unique to his <br />family and there's nothing else in the area that <br />could replace it. He stated the property next <br />door to Osco was a possibility, but to his <br />understanding that property is being leased <br />out. If his property is pursued for acquisition <br />by Redevelopment he will litigate it. <br />H:\ HOME\ CPHIPPS \WPDATA \COMMSN\081597.MIN -22- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.