Laserfiche WebLink
a memorandum from the City, but he "had not seen it." Mr. Rayor did not feel as though he had <br />been notified. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was concerned that, given the stand the property owner had taken, condemnation <br />could harden that stand and "put him over the edge." She also questioned whether the property <br />owner might have to be removed from the house by force. Mr. Carlson said that he did not feel <br />qualified to make a judgment about the property owner's reaction. He said that it was conceivable <br />the property owner could be removed from the house by force, either as a result of the <br />condemnation or foreclosure for past due property taxes. Ms. Bettman determined that the <br />property owner had one year to pay back taxes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that she could not support the condemnation action. She thought other <br />alternatives existed, and that the City should exhaust every avenue before it took such an action. <br />She said she would support the motion on the floor, but not the resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ indicated support for the motion but hoped the council was not setting a precedent <br />through its adoption. He suggested that the council could make a statement on the record without <br />taking formal action. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the manager to sell <br /> the trailer park. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that there were many people living in the trailer park and now the City was their <br />landlord, to the detriment of Iow-income housing. He felt that the City's purchase of the property <br />after the council's discussion was a "slap in the face" of the council, and if he could undo it, he <br />would. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson explained that staff had informed the council of its decision to make an offer on the <br />property. A memorandum describing why the City made an offer was sent to the council. He said <br />that the City learned another individual was going to buy the property, which would have resulted <br />in the removal of the residents. The City opted to purchase the property to preserve its options in <br />developing the master plan. The City had no intention at this time of moving people out of the <br />park. However, over the long-term, there were plans to redevelop the property as part of the <br />master plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he thought the City's purchase of the property more beneficial to the residents than <br />the other purchaser would have been. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted the property in question was in his ward. He did not recall that the council had <br />guaranteed the permanent survival of the trailer court; rather, it tried to guarantee its possible <br />continuance, depending on what its owner did. He concurred with Mr. Carlson's assessment of <br />the situation. He noted that there was considerable turnover in the trailer park, and few long-term <br />residents. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Rayor voting yes. <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to approve Resolution 4742 <br /> authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the <br /> acquisition of property interests (1948 Crane Lane, T1 17-04-25-24-05800) <br /> for location of a portion of a police department facility. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 14 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />