CCAgenda-3/08/04Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Russ Brink, 132 East Broadway Street, of Downtown Eugene Incorporated (DEI) echoed the comments of Mr. Connolly. He agreed that urban renewal could be controversial, but asserted that the only way some of the things that had been discussed for the courthouse neighborhood could be achieved would be through this funding mechanism. He asserted that there had been a change in focus as it was no longer the Riverfront Research Park but was now the Riverfront Urban Renewal District. He opined that this council and councils to come in the future would change the track record of earlier urban renewal efforts for the better. Cynthia Kokis, 2465 Jefferson Street, asked whose idea the urban renewal district was, who stood to profit from it, how it would affect the ~powerless," if it would impact funds for schools or the General Fund, and how would it impact the river. She wondered if this district would use money from highway funds. She thought the Willamette Greenway permit study should be reinstated. She highlighted the history of the downtown developments since 1973, noting that things had been built and torn down. Nishan Yanatta, 3435 Potter Street, echoed comments made in support of keeping the eco-system safe. She also agreed with remarks made with regard to the timing of the district and ~dollars." She did not object to improvements in general, but would not support an increase in tax rates. She noted that when the library had been voted down, the City found private and matching funds to build it. She proposed that the City do the same for the urban renewal district and suggested that anyone able to raise funds should be paid a percentage of the monies they raised, including City Councilors. She reiterated that citizens had repeatedly voted down tax increases. In closing, she thanked the City Council for the good work that it had done for the community. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, echoed comments about adjustments made to the urban renewal district and how some of these adjustments had been %orrosive" to public trust. He questioned whether the district was actually %lighted," given that a significant portion of the area was Willamette Greenway. He opposed ~gerrymandering" funds to be spent outside of the regular approval process through an urban renewal district. He alleged there was an ~ill-advised" transportation project planned to locate a portion of Highway 99 next to the river. He stated that the City was behind in the Willamette Greenway planning. Bryn Anderson, 2277 Friendly Street, expressed concern regarding the Riverfront Research Park and asserted that there was a lack of attention being paid toward some elements of campus in order to build others. She alleged that a new dormitory was being built while other dormitories were run down and in need of repair. Noting the Bus Rapid Transit corridor down the center of Franklin Boulevard, Ms. Anderson questioned whether the safety of pedestrians and students would be addressed. She asked what the development in the Riverfront Research Park would mean and why students were not being asked to contribute input. She urged the City and the University to examine the issues and not create more by extending the Riverfront Research Park. Al Urquhart, 1045 East 20th Avenue, agreed that the purpose of the amendment was to change the focus of the Urban Renewal District from that of a Riverfront Research Park to that of supporting a courthouse and the downtown area. He opposed the inclusion of the present area of the Riverfront Research Park in the new addition because the City would need to evaluate what has happened there. He averred the area was still blighted according to the report, and listed some of the reasons given in the report for the blight. He called the Riverfront Research Park a failure as a tax increment district. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 12 Regular Meeting