Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Manager noted this was not a public hearing, but a number of <br />citizens asked to speak with the Council's permission. <br /> <br />.e <br /> <br />Speaking on the ERA's disposal of Parcel 125A were Dorothy Dole, <br />930 East 21st; Dorothy Gilmore, 2350 City View Road; LaVerne <br />Edwards, 1260 President; Brad Perkins, 1691 Mill; Martha Filer, <br />235 East 3rd. <br /> <br />Those testifying wondered how the ERA Board could reject a <br />proposal that was recommended by three agencies, the Historic <br />Review Board, the ERA staff, and the Renewal Agency Design <br />Review Team. They asked how the City Council could give the <br />power of appeal away since the ERA Board is not answerable to the <br />citizens. Several suggestions were given for the Council action: <br />1) the City Council could designate the buildings historic; 2) the <br />Council could ask ERA to justify their choice over the recommended <br />proposal; 3) the Council could look into the question of legality. <br />Can people who sell property to ERA be allowed to develop that <br />property or is it a conflict of interest? and 4) the Council <br />could appoint a committee to consider all the facets of this <br />problem. <br /> <br />The people who testified could not understand destroying three <br />irreplaceable historic buildings for one "giant clam." They <br />recognized that the larger building would bring in more tax money <br />and that rehab monies would be brought to rehabilitating the old <br />structures. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Tom Slocum, 2125 Fairmount, Associate with Park Willamette Associates <br />Group, responded that his group followed the guidelines and felt <br />that they were keeping the best of the old structures. He would be <br />glad to respond to questions. Their group was anxious to move <br />forward with developing the area. <br /> <br />There being no other person wishing to speak on the issue, the Mayor <br />asked for Council comment. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Haws' question, "What can we do?," Mr. Long <br />stated this was an old problem dating b~ck to 1971. ERA is a <br />separate body with State and Federal statutes and regulations. <br />There is no appeal process. Review in the courts would be possible <br />if someone could contend a capricious decision had been made. If <br />the Council is uncomfortable with ERA, they can recapture ERA <br />powers. The Council would then sit as ERA itself and take over <br />its functions. Mr. Long suggested Council could ask ERA to <br />reconsider and express its opinion. Mr. Haws asked if the Council <br />could reappoint members and Mr. Long could not respond. <br /> <br />Mr. Kupper said ERA is drawing up an agreement with Park Willamette <br />Associates Tuesday and any "substantial divergence" from that <br />agreement would be cause for termination. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />3/0 <br /> <br />5/30/79--4 <br />