Laserfiche WebLink
Li -A- <br />Progressive Urban Industries <br />To: South Bend Redevelopment Commission <br />From: Joseph Tillman, P.U.I. <br />Re: the sale or grant of real property <br />Greetings, <br />we previously submitted correspondence (4- 23 -13) indicating our discomfort with the <br />commission selling or granting properties without the employment and contracting <br />opportunities out lined in state and federal law. Subsequent to that correspondence the <br />attorney for the commission submitted a memo that denied that the city ever held title to the <br />property. <br />Based on research by our organization, we have concluded that the city did not have actual <br />title to the property. However, we have uncovered some questionable practices concerning <br />bow the acquisition and financing of the property was accomplished. <br />The property in question (5o1 Washington) was not transferred to the historic preservation <br />commission by the city; it was transferred by the St. Joseph County hoLsin� <br />consortium for which the city of South Bend is the lead agency. Since the consortium has <br />funds available to it for the rehabilitation of properties we question why the redevelopment <br />commission was willing to use TO funds to finance the rehabilitation of the property. <br />Additionally, although the redevelopment commission did not actually transfer title to this <br />property, there are several other properties that the commission did take part in. <br />these properties are currently part of the triangle redevelopment project. Since the officials of <br />the commission pleaded ignorance when we brought the state regulations to their attention, it <br />is doubtful that these laws were ever considered when transferring these properties. <br />Next there is the issue of transparency; as part of our issue development process we <br />requested.from the city a list of all properties that were transferred from the redevelopment <br />commission to a community development corporation. We received a rather long list of <br />properties that the city claimed was done as a courtesy to our organization and that a list of <br />such properties did not exist. This. In 2010 we received a list of properties from <br />the department of Community and Economic Development that shows some properties that <br />were acquired for the benefit of CDC's that were left out of the list that the city submitted to <br />us. These properties are now part of the triangle project. It is these types of actions that forces <br />us to question the sincerity of the city and especially the city attornev. <br />