Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Ortiz asked if the owners of unoccupied buildings were paying any fee. Mr. Weinman said the fee was charged only to occupied buildings. He clarified that the City collected the fee and contracted for services with DEI. Ms. Ortiz said there was a community perception the City only wanted desirable people downtown and that offended her, as residents from all walks of life were here together as community members. She took offense to comments about undesirable or marginal businesses. Mr. Zelenka did not think it was fair for Mr. Clark to compare the City-owned hole to the hole on Willamette Street, given that the City had tried to bring ORI downtown and was still attempting to secure a use for the space and the owner of the property in question had done nothing to develop it. He also expressed support for the use of incentives and partnerships and that was why he was excited about the Broadway RFQ. If that failed, he wanted to consider the fee. He believed the work session was proposed because of some people’s frustration with the lack of activity on the part of private property owners “sitting” on downtown property. Speaking to Ms. Ortiz’s remarks, Mr. Poling said that when he discussed less-than-desirable tenants, he was not referring to a person or racial group, but was contrasting an active, vibrant exchange of people, such as a coffee shop or theater or retail store versus a warehouse or single-office use. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged Mr. Poling’s remarks. th Mr. Clark said his point in bringing up the 10 Avenue hole was that the general public did not differentiate between the holes or were knowledgeable about the City’s efforts to fill it. He thought it “seems kind of funny” that the City was looking to treat one punitively when the other was the City’s. Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for Ms. Ortiz’s remarks and said when he offered his anecdote he was not commenting about any particular type of person. Mr. Clark said he had once owned an advertising agency that had the Oakway Mall as a tenant, and it had been difficult to market that facility because the mixture of uses did not attract customers. The mall was now very vibrant and attracted people because it was full of businesses and opportunities that created demand. He said that the community’s downtown had done nothing for many years to create demand for people to go there. The City had never done the things that were needed in the way of enhancing public safety downtown that would create the opportunity to bring in someone who could create demand. Ms. Taylor said that when she thought of undesirable people she had been thinking of the person mentioned by Mr. Clark, who could be considered undesirable, but blended into downtown so it did not matter. She said that the downtown needed a mix of people and different types of businesses, not just one type of person th or business. She had objected to the ordinance banning dogs and skateboards on 13 Avenue, which was intended to eliminate those who were considered undesirable people. Instead, those people moved downtown, and were subsequently displaced to a park. The City could not make them disappear. She thought that downtown should be a place for everybody. Ms. Taylor reiterated that the fee was not punitive as it merely treated unoccupied buildings in the same way as occupied buildings; but it might be a small incentive for property owners to secure tenants. She thought any tenant was better than no tenant as occupancy created life on the streets. Mr. Pryor, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to consider the issue in the context of an action plan on the council’s Downtown Goal. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 5 Work Session