My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4 Communications
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Agendas & Packets
>
2013
>
05-30-13
>
4 Communications
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2014 12:00:52 PM
Creation date
5/28/2013 1:52:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.