03/18/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Obie asked for more information regarding the nodal parks. Ms. Hofmann stated that this would be for small park development with the same intention as the soap boxes. Mr. Obie asked, regarding the $66,000 for West University, what would happen when there is more low-income housing. Ms. Hofmann stated that the intent of this is to increase family dwelling units because of the high student population. Some options would be cooperative housing or other means for low-income ownership. Mr. Obie asked if low-income housing would still be dispersed, how Womenspace would be affected by the CETA cutback, and how that would affect their viability. Ms. Hofmann responded that CETA is not their main source of funding. They need $20,000 for a down payment and $6,000 for rehabilitation if an acquisition is made. The facility is owned by the State Highway Department but they could look at other places if necessary. Mr. Obie asked if there are any funds allocated for rehabilitation of Jefferson Pool. Ms. Hofmann responded that there are not as no application had been submitted for funds. Funding had been requested last year but then the application was withdrawn. Mr. Lindberg stated that there has been an ongoing debate about targeting and whether it creates some negative impact. Positive feelings in the neighbor- hood need to be created as well as spending money on physical problems. There has also been a question as to whether Block Grant moneys should be spent only on physical projects or if is legitimate to put it into social services. If targeting is approved, psychological improvements must also occur. The City should not create the impression that it is providing or promoting development in specific neighborhoods; rather, the neighborhoods are doing it themselves. In NIP areas, the neighborhood needs should be defined by those who live there. He is willing to agree with the targeting policies and vote in favor. In regard to disbursal of funds, there are conflicting City policies. He would like to discuss that further to see if it can be changed. There seems to be a 1960s idea of breaking up ghettos. Perhaps another look should be taken at the pockets of poverty allover the city in some other way besides targeting programs. Ms. Schue stated sympathy with Ms. Lansdowne's concerns. She repre- sents a ward which is not targeted either. The Community Development Block Grant funding are small amounts. She understands the targeting policy. She knows that that is not much comfort, but there are financial constraints. This is not an ideal program, but it is the best that can be done with the situation. There is a proposal to include $50,000 for neighborhood projects for non-targeted neighborhoods in the City budget. This would not buy Gillespie Butte, but it could provide street trees. Ms. Smith noted that the Womenspace program for next year does not include CETA employees. Ms. Hofmann said that this goes through the committee, and not through the City Council. Ms. Smith stated that it should be made clear that if groups are helped to acquire facilities, that they do not expect general fund moneys. Mr. Obie asked how much the West University Neighborhood is currently receiving. Ms. Hofmann responded that they are receiving $274,000. Mr. Obie stated that he has no problem with targeting. It is effective. However, he does have a problem if money is not spent concretely. He would like to see 100 percent of the funds going into "doing things," not administration. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 6