01/23/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Eugene, but statistics showed that many people moved away from the South Willamette Street rather than pay an assessment for the street, leaving the less affluent to pay for it while getting decreased livability of environment. Much of the housing on the fringes of the City where people moved to get away from assessed areas, is luxurious and should not be receiving subsidies. Still other reasons included a belief that those with a low or fixed income should not be forced to move out of their homes because of high assessments. It would be better to be priced out of the housing market than to buy a home and then be forced out by too high assessment charges. The charge might force the City to grow up, rather than out. Those speaking against the systems development charge were: John Boyer, 1445 Willamette Street, No.5 Mary Wahl, 1901 Minda (for Commissioner Robert Wood) Emerson Hamilton, 302 West 5th Avenue, President of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak Thomas Slocum, 2125 Fairmount e Reasons stated in opposition included: the community should pay for projects which benefit the community; owners of new homes in the hills would have to pay for the improvement of streets in the city, which those owners seldom use. The charge would make it so expensive to build in the city that it would work against the City.s objective of compact growth by forcing the development outside the city. Also, the concept that new home buyers don't pay their fair share is false and a rebate might become necessary. Eugene already has a good Public Works Department which has caused public costs to decrease, so the present system should be retained. In addition, public build- ings would have to pay an exhorbitant front-end tax. Other opposition views included: Because the cost of housing will go up, those on a fixed income will suffer; new development does not cause major capital improvements to be needed, but generates income for the City while developers pay the major portion of the costs for improvements. The Chamber of Commerce, with the exception of City Manager, voted in opposition to the change. The City might not continue to need as much as $600,000 for improvements and new development pays for itself. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Ms. Smith asked what alternative$the Assessment Committee considered. Mr. Anderson said there had been many possibilities, including a sewer user charge, but the systems development charge had seemed the - 1/23/78--7 ",.,