Laserfiche WebLink
case-by-case basis. He suggested the discussion be tabled for the time being so the City Council could be <br />more effective with an overall strategy. <br /> <br />Speaking to the subject of the City-owned hole, Ms. Ortiz thought the City Council did due diligence with <br />that site in its attempt to locate ORI in downtown. She did not think that nothing had been done. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz asked if the owners of unoccupied buildings were paying any fee. Mr. Weinman said the fee was <br />charged only to occupied buildings. He clarified that the City collected the fee and contracted for services <br />with DEI. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said there was a community perception the City only wanted desirable people downtown and that <br />offended her, as residents from all walks of life were here together as community members. She took <br />offense to comments about undesirable or marginal businesses. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka did not think it was fair for Mr. Clark to compare the City-owned hole to the hole on <br />Willamette Street, given that the City had tried to bring ORI downtown and was still attempting to secure a <br />use for the space and the owner of the property in question had done nothing to develop it. He also <br />expressed support for the use of incentives and partnerships and that was why he was excited about the <br />Broadway RFQ. If that failed, he wanted to consider the fee. He believed the work session was proposed <br />because of some people’s frustration with the lack of activity on the part of private property owners “sitting” <br />on downtown property. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Ortiz’s remarks, Mr. Poling said that when he discussed less-than-desirable tenants, he was <br />not referring to a person or racial group, but was contrasting an active, vibrant exchange of people, such as <br />a coffee shop or theater or retail store versus a warehouse or single-office use. Ms. Ortiz acknowledged Mr. <br />Poling’s remarks. <br /> <br />th <br />Mr. Clark said his point in bringing up the 10 Avenue hole was that the general public did not differentiate <br />between the holes or were knowledgeable about the City’s efforts to fill it. He thought it “seems kind of <br />funny” that the City was looking to treat one punitively when the other was the City’s. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for Ms. Ortiz’s remarks and said when he offered his anecdote he was not <br />commenting about any particular type of person. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he had once owned an advertising agency that had the Oakway Mall as a tenant, and it had <br />been difficult to market that facility because the mixture of uses did not attract customers. The mall was <br />now very vibrant and attracted people because it was full of businesses and opportunities that created <br />demand. He said that the community’s downtown had done nothing for many years to create demand for <br />people to go there. The City had never done the things that were needed in the way of enhancing public <br />safety downtown that would create the opportunity to bring in someone who could create demand. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that when she thought of undesirable people she had been thinking of the person mentioned <br />by Mr. Clark, who could be considered undesirable, but blended into downtown so it did not matter. She <br />said that the downtown needed a mix of people and different types of businesses, not just one type of person <br />th <br />or business. She had objected to the ordinance banning dogs and skateboards on 13 Avenue, which was <br />intended to eliminate those who were considered undesirable people. Instead, those people moved <br />downtown, and were subsequently displaced to a park. The City could not make them disappear. She <br />thought that downtown should be a place for everybody. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 28, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />