09/09/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bayard McConnaughey, 1653 Fairmount, is a professor of biology at the Univer- - sity of Oregon. He read his testimony and then submitted it in writing. It concerned a meeting of the University Planning Committee on July 17, 1985. He said concerns were expressed about the desirability and the beneficial results of the Riverfront Park, the origin of the project and the approval process, the appropriateness of the site, and possible adverse effects from some acti- vities. None of the people at the meeting from the science departments indi- cated that the University will benefit from the Riverfront development. Mr. McConnaughey said some people at the meeting indicated high tech indus- tries will probably not alleviate unemployment here because the benefits will go to developers, contractors, and outside investors. The idea for the River- front Park did not originate with the departments that might interact with the businesses. The people in those departments have not officially discussed the project. Mr. McConnaughey said some people in the Institute of Molecular Biology signed a petition urging that nothing be done to harm the free and open atmosphere and trust of the scientific community here. A geography professor indicated that the Riverfront site is unsuited for the development proposed. Better sites are available on West 11th Avenue and other places. Some people indi- cated that undesirable activities might be conducted in the Research Park unless all classified research is banned. Mr. McConnaughey said problems should be solved before a ground lease is signed. Howard Bonnett, 1835 East 28th, opposed the plan amendment because it is spot e zoning. He said a tax increment district is not appropriate. He said no other site was given serious consideration. Revenue from businesses, such as Burger King, now goes into the general fund, but, if a tax increment district is formed, revenue from such new businesses will be used to finance the River- front Park and relocate the bike path and soccer field, he said. That revenue will not be used to finance schools and other public expenditures. It will provide housing for rich people on a site which should be a public recreation area. He said the proposed tax increment district is too large and is a subterfuge to pay for spot zoning of the land. He emphasized that the best economic development will result from maintaining the attractiveness of the local environment. Catherine Larson, 810 East 20th, opposed the location of the Riverfront Research Park because it will cause metropolitan sprawl. She asked if the council knew what kind of industry will be located in the Riverfront Park. Jon Silvermoon, 2441 Madison, said other sites should have been considered for the Riverfront development. He wondered how transportation improvements on the ends of the site will serve it if the first development is to be in the middle. He said the Riverfront Park might increase traffic on the Ferry Street Bridge and hasten the need for its replacement. He noted that River- front tax increment funds will not be used for the bridge. Mr. Silvermoon indicated officials should deal with the classified research and toxic waste issues. He did not think the Riverfront Park will enhance the - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 1985 ~~3