06/24/1987 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

there are two classic definitions of blight. One is typically appl ied to housing and has to do with health, safety, and welfare. The other is applied e to commercial property and has to do wi th the relative value of the assessments in an area. For example, he said that if the assessed values of the downtown have not been keepi ng pace wi th other developments in the community, one can conclude that the area is not receiving its share of investment and is not receiving the necessary public improvements. Mr. Sercombe said the Oregon Revised Statutes have seven different definitions of blighted area. He said blight is a flexible concept and has to do with more than just an area's appearance. Mr. Holmer said the draft of the report on the updated Urban Renewal Plan calls for spending $600,000 on infrastructure improvements in the expansion area. He said this expenditure will not begin until 1990 and will continue until 2002. He said he did not understand the logic behind spreading out the treatment of a blighted area over that period of time. Mr. Byrne said one of the crucial aspects of the entire updated plan is that public investments should be tied primarily to private investments. Rather than making speculative public improvements, the City should make investments where private investment is expected. He said this strategy will help ensure that tax increment flow will be generated to pay for the public improvements. Mr. Byrne said staff has no knowledge of any specific proposals for private investment in the expansion area. He said the report on the updated plan shows one possible scenario for how funds might be spent in the expansion area. He said thi s model is meant to ill ustrate the overa 11 financial feasibility of the plan, not to show precisely how funds will be spent. He said that as more is learned about where private investment might occur, the City will refine its plans (during the annual budgeting process) for making e public investments. Referring to Mr. Holmer's memo and comments, Mr. Bennett said a very important question is: If the downtown is just approaching an acceptable intensity of development in the current Urban Renewal District, why should the City be considering expansion at this point? He said his thought in response to this quest i on was that the current di stri ct has certain uses, demands, and supplies. He said the district does not necessarily compete with the land in the proposed expansion area. Development of the former does not necessarily have to occur at the expense of the latter; therefore, expansion is not necessarily at odds with the goal of promoting intensity. Mr. Bennett said the overriding issue for him is whether the downtown is an area that should be given more support than other areas of the community. He said the downtown might be viewed as just one area among many in the city; or it might be viewed as an area in which the entire community has a stake. Mr. Holmer said the downtown does deserve special treatment; however, the question is whether this special treatment should be given through the urban renewal device, or whether this treatment should be provided as a function of the whole city through the normal budget process. He said that even if the City continues to use urban renewal, the basic issues of the plan should be voted on by the public. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 24, 1987 Page 6