Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

the same ownership group. A portion of the Bon building was being leased. The buildings were not available in same way as other buildings were when the City began to assemble options. Mr. Zelenka was anxious to get on with the RFQ for the area, suggesting that once the area developed, many of the issues of concern would go away. However, that did not address the hole on Willamette Street. Mr. Sullivan said the hole mentioned by Mr. Zelenka was included in the footprint of the RFQ. Mr. Clark pointed out that there were two holes downtown, and one of them was owned by the City. He thought that people watching might be curious about that. He pointed out the City had options on all the properties of concern and had the power and ability to affect the future of downtown without being punitive and without creating an adversarial atmosphere in downtown. He looked forward to a council discussion of desirable outcomes and ways to create new innovative ways to address downtown’s needs. Mr. Clark asked why business owners would invest in downtown when the City had never been serious about providing public safety downtown. He asked why business owners would invest in downtown when the City had created a situation though its inaction that made it almost impossible for businesses to be successful downtown. He cited as an example a man who passed out in a bathroom at the Chevron Station th on 7 Avenue with a needle in his arm, requiring a public safety response. When the man was released without any citation for drugs that he may or may not have had, he stood in front of the business next door and harassed them for the rest of the day. He suggested that downtown had a climate that the City had the opportunity to improve. He wanted the City to partner with the private sector downtown in a more creative and positive way. Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Solomon’s remarks about the fee as counterproductive to the City’s downtown planning. He agreed the fee was a tax. Mr. Poling said if the City required property owners to fill their vacancies, they would fill them with less desirable options, not with what the City was looking for to create a vibrant and active downtown. He pointed out the City had some incentives in place and had the RFQ process to consider as well. He reiterated that imposing a new tax on unoccupied spaces would be unproductive. Ms. Taylor contended that the unoccupied properties downtown created more need for City services. She suggested that the fee already being charged to occupied properties could merely be extended to unoccupied buildings, which she thought should pay more. Regarding the surrounding environment being unattractive to businesses, she maintained that it was unattractive because of the vacancies. If there were more people in downtown, the undesirable people such as the drug addict mentioned by Mr. Clark would merely fade into the background and become part of the “local color.” Ms. Taylor did not see the fee as being punitive; she perceived it as merely as a way to ensure that the owners of unoccupied buildings contributed their share. Mr. Pryor thought the discussion was helpful but it reinforced for him the need to integrate it into the larger discussion of downtown. He said there may be situations were the stick was more appropriate than the carrot, such as in the case of the hole on Willamette Street, but he wanted to approach those issues on a case-by-case basis. He suggested the discussion be tabled for the time being so the City Council could be more effective with an overall strategy. Speaking to the subject of the City-owned hole, Ms. Ortiz thought the City Council did due diligence with that site in its attempt to locate ORI in downtown. She did not think that nothing had been done. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 4 Work Session