04-25-13 Redevelopment Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

South Bend Redevelopment Commission Regular Meeting —April 25, 2013 4. COMMUNICATIONS (CONT.) A. continued... (A) use lower income project area residents as trainees and as employees; and (B) contract for work with business concerns located in the project area or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the project area; to the greatest extent feasible, as determined under the standards specified in 24 CFR 135... " The Commission recently devised a property to the South Bend Heritage Foundation for the rehabilitation into senior housing. We are aware of at least one Section 3 eligible (category 3) person for attempted to gain employment at the site without success. This appears to be at variance with the statute. The statute state that "to the greatest extent feasible" low and very low - income persons should be employed or contracted with. This is not the first time this has occurred. A whole section of our community is suffering due to the Commission's unwillingness to follow the law. Please be advised that in the controlling case precedent the court stated the meaning of "to the greatest extent feasible " Ramirez, Leal & Co. v. City Demonstration Agency, 549 F. 2nd 97— Court of Appeals, 9`h Circuit 1976 ... They were required, to the "greatest extent feasible, " to contract with Ramirez. This is strong language. It does not give the City officials the "broad discretion" that the trial court concluded that it does. We think that "greatest extent" means what it says, the maximum, and that the defendants were therefore obliged to take every affirmative action that they could properly take to make the award to Ramirez... Please do not take your responsibility lightly, to do so would create a basin for litigation. Yours sincerely, Joseph Shabazz Progressive Urban Industries Mr. Meteiver noted that the Commission is conscious of the requirements of this particular statute and we do comply with the requirements when it's necessary. In reviewing the terms of the Rushton project, neither the Commission nor the city has ever held title to the Rushton. Indiana Landmarks Foundation (ILF) acquired the property and then conveyed it to South Bend Heritage Foundation which is doing the rehab. The statute by its very terms does not apply to the Rushton project because the city never held title to the property. The Commission did commit TIF funds in the sum of $322,300 towards assistance in rehabilitating the project, however. The statute would apply typically in situations where the Commission or the city has acquired title through a property tax sale or purchase of tax certificates from the county, which generally are acquired at little or no cost. In no particular situation did the CDC acquire the property from the city or the Commission. El