Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Public Hearing was opened. <br /> <br />Jim Lemert, 10 East 40th <br />Jim Johnston, 179 West 37th <br />Ed Hostick, 660 Hughes Street <br />Rosalie Lemert, 10 East 40th Avenue <br />Alan Loe, 2490 Adams Street (reading a letter from <br />Connie Holvey) <br />Donald Micken, 1163 West 11th <br />Ken Jones (past president of the South Hills Neighborhood <br />Association) <br />Wes Nebergall, 184 East 26th Avenue <br />Huibert Paul, 4443 Pearl <br />Joy Goolsby, 18 East 47th Avenue <br />Phyllis Earley, 3945 Mill Street <br />Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison <br />George Adams, 4970 West Hillside Drive <br />Michael Horton, 90541 Smith Lane <br /> <br />The above named people all spoke in favor of the systems development <br />charge. Also, Crest Drive Citizens, Jefferson Area Neighbors, <br />South Hills Neighborhood, Friendly Area Neighborhood, Hawkins <br />Highlands, Amazon Neighbors, and Westside Downtown Quality Project <br />endorsed the systems development charge concept. <br /> <br />Reasons given in support of the charge included: There is little <br />hard data that proves development pays its way. The 1975 Rand <br />Study stated that a systems development charge does not affect the <br />availability of low-cost housing and Corvallis, which uses the <br />system, has more low-cost housing than any other city in the state <br />of Oregon. Other arguments were that the objection that the charge <br />would be inflationary was moot when compared to the benefits of the <br />charge. In addition, it was stated that in many cases the City does <br />not collect building permit fees for several months, which means the <br />cost is passed on to the buyer as the service development charge <br />woul d be. It was argued that growth woul d not be deterred by the <br />charge and that it was more cost effective to directly help those <br />trying to get into the housing market, rather than attack the <br />systems development charge. The Homebuilder's Association of Lane <br />County and Eugene Realtors were not actually interested in keeping. <br />down the cost of new homes, or they would not include costly house- <br />hold appliances in the cost of the home, since these were temporary <br />costs; whereas the service development charge could be permanently <br />paid off. <br /> <br />Other reasons stated for favoring the systems development charge <br />were that it would be tax deductible, while an assessment charge <br />was not. Opponents to the charge said that 70 to 80 percent of <br />those who would pay assessments were with those already living in <br /> <br />1/23/78--6 <br /> <br />'+5 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br />