Laserfiche WebLink
South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />Regular Meeting —April 25, 2013 <br />by persons residing in the project area; to the greatest extent feasible, as determined under the <br />standards specified in 24 CFR 135... " <br />The Commission recently devised a property to the South Bend Heritage Foundation for the <br />rehabilitation into senior housing. We are aware of at least one Section 3 eligible (category 3) <br />person for attempted to gain employment at the site without success. This appears to be at <br />variance with the statute. The statute state that "to the greatest extent feasible " low and very <br />low- income persons should be employed or contracted with. This is not the first time this has <br />occurred. A whole section of our community is suffering due to the Commission's unwillingness <br />to follow the law. <br />Please be advised that in the controlling case precedent the court stated the meaning of "to the <br />greatest extent feasible " Ramirez, Leal & Co. v. City Demonstration Agency, 549 F. 2d 97— <br />Court of Appeals, 9'h Circuit 1976 <br />...They were required, to the "greatest extent feasible, " to contract with Ramirez. This is strong <br />language. It does not give the City officials the "broad discretion" that the trial court concluded <br />that it does. We think that "greatest extent" means what it says, the maximum, and that the <br />defendants were therefore obliged to take every affirmative action that they could properly take <br />to make the award to Ramirez... <br />Please do not take your responsibility lightly, to do so would create a basin for litigation. <br />Yours sincerely, <br />Joseph Shabazz <br />Progressive Urban Industries <br />Mr. Meteiver noted that the Commission is conscious of the requirements of this particular <br />statute and we do comply with the requirements when it's necessary. In reviewing the terms of <br />the Rushton project, neither the Commission nor the city has ever held title to the Rushton. <br />Indiana Landmarks Foundation (ILF) acquired the property and then conveyed it to South Bend <br />Heritage Foundation which is doing the rehab. The statute by its very terms does not apply to <br />the Rushton project because the city never held title to the property. The Commission did <br />commit TIF funds in the sum of $322,300 towards assistance in rehabilitating the project, <br />however. The statute would apply typically in situations where the Commission or the city has <br />acquired title through a property tax sale or purchase of tax certificates from the county, which <br />generally are acquired at little or no cost. In no particular situation did the CDC acquire the <br />property from the city or the Commission. <br />Mr. Varner asked if this statute applies to all properties owned by the City of South Bend, or just <br />those that are acquired under these circumstances. Mr. Meteiver responded that it will apply to <br />any property that Commission owns and is transferring it at no cost to the CDC. <br />11 <br />