06-11-12 Common Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING JUNE 11, 2012 she has been a member of the commission since 1984. She stated that she hopes the Council is not going to postpone this matter any longer. She stated that there has been sufficient investigation and its time for them to be able to move into a better situation. The following individuals spoke in opposition to this bill: Wendell Johnson, 305 S. Falcon Street, South Bend, Indiana, advised that he lives on the Western Avenue corridor. He stated that there are many buildings there that are empty and need development. He stated that the Human Rights Commission is supposed to serve all, but they are probably serving more outside the city. He stated that the people who are in most need of those services live on the west end of South Bend, and are very seldom if ever heard. He asked the Council if they have ever used the services that the Human Rights Commission provides. Has anyone ever gone there? He stated that if they want a bigger building, revamp, and identify a need to improve and to help the city. He stated that they need to look at the minority population to see if they have been serviced well. Are we getting our monies worth? He advised the Council to ask these questions before they are allowed to move. He stated that he wants improvement, and for the city to grow. Jesse Davis, 1333 Calvert, South Bend, Indiana, stated that he is confused because it was mentioned that they had looked at a few buildings that the City owns, that supposedly weren’t ADA compliant or up to code, then there were comments made that they didn’t look at buildings that were on a list that Redevelopment has. He asked for clarification from the Council and advised them to continue this bill until all the questions are answered. He stated that obviously human rights are important to everybody in the community, but at this point, who is the landlord that is going to be taking the money on the lease as well, and are copies available for the public look at. In rebuttal, Ms. DeRose stated that the Board of Public Works was advised by legal counsel of the requirements of the Act. She stated that the requirements of the Act and the requirements of the Act are that you don’t go outside unless you have adequately looked within, because that is the test of necessity and to best of their knowledge none of our buildings meet the needs of the Human Rights Commission, which are unique and are special to them and there are no other spaces that would accommodate this use. She stated that all the Council needs to do is make a finding that this is necessary for the use of the commission and that’s what they are asking the Council to do. Council Attorney Kathy Cekanski-Farrand stated in response to last gentleman who spoke. The lease was available before the Board of Publics acting upon it. Mr. Custard clarified his comment on the initial list. That list that he was talking about was a list of potential buildings that they could lease, it did not include any city own buildings, that was already looked at before they initiated their list. Councilmember Dieter asked who looked at that list. Mr. Custard stated that it was the Engineering Department. Councilmember Dieter asked if Engineering has a list of the buildings that they looked at. Mr. Custard stated that he was not sure. Councilmember Dieter asked if that list could be made available to the Council. Mr. Custard stated that he would ask. Councilmember Scott asked if there was a report stating that these buildings were on the list and we rejected them for whatever reason. He stated that he would like to see something like that. Mr. Custard stated that he would ask the Engineering Department. 10