Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Fart agreed with Ms. Bettman that condemnation needed to be the City's last option. Based <br />on what he had heard, he believed that all options had been exhausted at this point. He indicated <br />support for the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she could not vote to evict someone who could not be negotiated with. The result <br />of the City's action was unknown. She asked what would happen if the County foreclosed on the <br />property. Mr. Carlson said that the property owner could be forcibly removed by the County when <br />it took possession of the property. The foreclosure period ended September 2003. Ms. Taylor <br />asked if the City would be responsible for paying back taxes if it condemned the property. City <br />Attorney Glenn Klein believed the answer was yes; the City's money would be deposited with the <br />court, which would allocate it first to back taxes first. The remainder would go to the property <br />owner. He said that was a separate transaction from the relocation benefits the property owner <br />would receive. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the requirements of the relocation act ensured that the property owner would be <br />able to purchase comparable or better housing. He pointed out that the motion did not cause <br />condemnation; it initiated a process that could lead to condemnation, and it was his hope that the <br />action could spur the homeowner to engage the City in negotiations. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that the need to condemn was created by the City's acquisition process, and <br />she believed that there was no need to proceed with extreme haste at this time. She encouraged <br />the council to allow events to play out, suggesting that over a year's time the property owner might <br />change his mind. She did not think the City had exhausted all its options, so she could not <br />support the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that anyone who presumed that the mechanism of <br />condemnation would work better for the property owner than the foreclosure process was "playing <br />god." <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ suggested that the likely outcome of waiting was that the County would take possession <br />of the property and the City would be negotiating with the County for the property. At that time, the <br />property owner's options would be even fewer than he had now. He agreed with Mr. Kelly's <br />summary of the situation. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />James R. Carlson, <br />City Manager pro tem <br /> <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 28, 2002 Page 15 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />