07/28/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . mente Mr. Bennett questioned whether demand would show that site to be the best e site at a time there was sufficient demand to attract downtown housing. To promote a site like that and to promote a new development when the basic demand is not there, and may not be for some time, would take substantial money which might better be used in other areas of housing. The ideal perspective is to have a situation where the basic demand is there and it needs a little bit of a nudge. That kind of help could be dealt with under the types of subsidies that are not considered the major ones. Mr. Bennett said that as a member of the Joint Housing Committee, his sense of it is that he is trying to use whatever expertise he has gained in the development business over the years to give something back to his community. That means trying to create some housing for those deserving people who might not otherwise have a quality place to live. He agreed that downtown housing is very important. He said he had a bit of a problem with a situation of providing substantial subsidies when no consideration is given to those who are the charge of the Joint Housing Committee. Since no other citizens were present to testify, Mayor Keller closed the public hearing. Council President Obie took over the chairing of the meeting. Councilor Schue said as the council representative on the Joint Housing Committee and as a person who was part of the discussion that Mr. Van Landingham and Mr. Bennett reported, she agreed with their conclusions. Pat Decker, Planning, explained the Planning Commission's decision on the recom- mendation, which was not to incorporate the wording change suggested by the Joint e Housing Committee. The concerns that were raised were that in order to make downtown housing in the community work and make it competitive with housing in outlying locations, there were going to have to be some forms of subsidy. The council and the Planning Commission have already established some of those sub- sidies now: exemptions from the systems development tax, and some property tax for improvements on downtown housing. The commission's further thinking was that housing in the downtown area is located near employment centers and is in an area where public services are already available, so in some cases developing housing in the downtown area is less expensive to the community than additional develop- ment on the outlying fringes. Finally, what swayed the Planning Commission the most was that in some cases it may be desirable for tools like land cost write- down be made available to a housing development project, and the commission's feeling was that the council could make the decision at that time whether or not a particular project merited that exceptional kind of public assistance. Councilor Miller agreed with Councilor Schue's statement on the Joint Housing Committee amendment. Councilor Wooten said the goal of housing in downtown Eugene continues to be an essential one. In order to attract that housing some kind of subsidy must be offered. The subsidy is in tax dollars and services and land, and that belongs to everyone. One of the things that will make downtown housing successful for the market is the diversity of people and housing types in the area. All kinds of housing make it a bona fide delight to live in proximity to recreation, employment, and cultural services. For that reason she supported the Joint Housing Committee amendment. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 28, 1982 Page 11