My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-08 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
03-28-08 Redevelopment Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2008 12:46:09 PM
Creation date
4/18/2008 12:42:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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 -March 28, 2008 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />A. Public Hearing <br />(2) continued... <br />game the past years. With that kind of <br />attendance, do we want to expand a ballpark <br />so that it can accommodate 7,500 - 10,000 <br />people as the original projects we're looking <br />at. Those numbers are subject to change, but <br />why do we need 10,000 seats if we're only <br />getting 2,000 people? The numbers don't <br />seem to be there. <br />Secondly, the immediate beneficiary is the <br />baseball team. The fact that it's partially <br />owned by a previous mayor of South Bend <br />may be just a coincidence. And perhaps not. <br />I did see that the first beneficiaries of the <br />purchases on the list are contributors to the <br />election campaign of our mayor. If you <br />follow the money as to where our money is <br />being spent, it is going into the pockets of <br />people who are connected to the city. While <br />that is not an absolute trend, I still find it <br />alarming and I think it needs to be called on <br />as a point of reference when I see taxpayer <br />money being spent on a development project. <br />The idea that this has to be oriented so that <br />ballpark access is to and from the downtown <br />is strictly a conception. It is not absolute. <br />The fact that it has to go through the former <br />Sears building, the Gates Chevy building, is a <br />plan. It is not absolute in any way. There's <br />no reason we can't orient it off of Monroe <br />St., which is a logical connector from <br />Mishawaka. Western Ave. doesn't connect <br />that well. Neither do the northern accesses <br />that we're considering. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.