CC Minutes - 12/10/07 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cities” that had more protected upland habitat than Eugene did. He declared that sustainability meant things that could continue indefinitely “after the oil was gone.” He called the Broadway redevelopment project “corporate welfare for real estate speculators,” noting that it had been rejected. Mr. Rabinowitz questioned why the City was “willing to spend tens of millions” on the urban renewal project but had not acted to protect the last unprotected area along Amazon Creek, which he thought was the largest stream in Eugene. He wondered how many of the councilors who would vote on the properties had actually visited them. He averred that the trees there were not replaceable in anyone’s lifetime. He asserted that clear-cutting forests was the “second largest contributor to carbon pollution of the atmosphere.” He said this was changing the climate. He declared that the thickness of the portion of the air that was breathable in the atmosphere was as wide as the distance from the western edge of Eugene to the eastern edge of Springfield. Tom Halferty , 4510 Manzanita Street, stated that he had enjoyed all of the parks in the Eugene area. He had hiked through all of them. He had also enjoyed the regional parks. He supported saving the Green and Beverly properties. He said there were big trees on the properties that were storing a lot of carbon. He also noted that there were a lot of sensitive species that lived there. He believed it was important to save the wonderful things that the City did have for its future generations. He suggested that if the City wanted to call itself the Greatest City of the Arts and Outdoors, the outdoors part of it needed a boost. Robert A. Olsen , 32810 Sisters Loop, commended the City Council for revisiting the Amazon Creek headwaters issue. He averred that as representatives of the City the acquisition decision would have a permanent implication. He said if development was the choice the environmental result would be irreversible. He did not believe there was a foolproof formula to estimate the property’s value. He stated that the use of recorded market transactions’ prices as an indicator of land value to a society was generally based upon a specific set of assumptions that were rarely met in practice. He said it was assumed that everyone had complete knowledge of the property and that viable competition existed. He asserted that market prices of comparison prices could be totally irrelevant unless the parcels were identical to the one that was being appraised. He also thought the council should be aware that property appraisals were not measures of property value in an economic sense, rather they were guesses about the transaction price that might occur “under sale conditions.” He declared that if there was not a willing buyer or seller there was “by definition no market price,” only a price that was agreed “by fiat.” He briefly recounted a history of the properties. He questioned how the property that had been acquired for $325,000 by Mr. Green and went subsequently unsold at $400,000, had become a “million dollar fantasy.” Lisa Warnes , 5020 Nectar Way, asserted that there were “certain members of staff” that would try to “derail any efforts” to place the Beverly/Green properties into public ownership. She opined that when it “served the City” to have a low appraisal price the price was low and now it was higher so that it would “serve the City to try to halt the purchase of the parcels as it was too high.” She asked where the appraisals were. She found it suspicious that they were not in the public record. She asked how it could be determined if the appraisals were done in a fair and legitimate process. She asked if a comparative market analysis had been conducted. She wondered if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 10, 2007 Page 6 Regular Meeting