My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
RM 04-13-89
sbend
>
Public
>
Redevelopment Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
RM 04-13-89
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2012 2:23:12 PM
Creation date
10/4/2012 11:50:47 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
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
South Bend Redevelopment Ccmission <br />Reschedule4 Regular Meeting - April 13, 1989 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (Cont.) <br />b. Cdntinued... <br />Trigs and loans and then ask the <br />payers to bail them out. Now, the <br />fit for the merchants on the <br />2et ... we've stated our plan, which is <br />ple ... retain all buildings, with the <br />sption of maybe one or two. And we <br />ad for technical advice on rehabbing <br />buildings and everything was turned <br />i. Nobody listened. You neighbors <br />B your awn plan. 'That's what this <br />1 is. A Near Westside Neighborhood <br />i. I don't know where South Bend <br />itage is at today. They used to be <br />)lved in heritage of historical homes <br />areas and buildings. They've had <br />Sandocks building now for two years, <br />h Mr. Gilbert stood in front of the <br />ity Comrnissioners and took it off the <br />sale because they could do something <br />1 it. Mr. Gilbert hasn't done <br />ping with it, except gone to an <br />ineer now anddsays that it would cost <br />much to fix it up, therefore we can <br />it down. Now maybe that decision <br />1't been made, but if that cost <br />ire comes in at less than $100 per <br />ire foot, then maybe you ought to <br />ib the building. Maybe you ought to <br />the new museum that everybody is so <br />i in- the -sky about down in the <br />locks building at a far less cost <br />i the $7,000,000 that you're <br />)using. And then we'll have some <br />:orical tourists cane down on West <br />ungton. And you can forget your <br />I issue on building behind the Oliver <br />-ion. I think the Oliver Mansion <br />stand on its own as a tourist <br />:action. It doesn't make people <br />id up here and say economic <br />!lopment. And housing, housing is <br />economic development. It creates <br />ctruction jobs tei porarily, and then <br />are gone. And your proposing in <br />i A to tear down connercial space. <br />housing. That's absurd. Wherever <br />attitude is coming from, and it's <br />-32- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.