Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

urban renewal proposal package, which was trying to accomplish too many things at once. He assumed that the public hearing was also about relocating the police station outside of downtown because the plan amendment included a public safety component that would deflect outrage over that move. He felt the public would refer the plan to the ballot because of the lack of detail. He also questioned what organizations would be meeting in the space LCC would be providing and wondered if LCC students had been allowed to vote on that decision. Misha Seymour , Lincoln Street, Eugene, opposed the downtown urban renewal plan. He said the stated intent to make downtown more welcoming for everyone was not true. He saw mean-spiritedness that was psychologically damaging the poor on a daily basis. He said that people were not allowed to gather on the sidewalk outside of the library. He said an urban renewal plan amendment should be used to provide low- income housing. He said chairs and tables had been removed from Ken Kesey Square and people were not allowed to sleep in the library. He said the community should be for everyone and that was not currently happening. He said the plan amendment should be placed on the ballot for a public vote. David McLean , Beacon Drive, Eugene, Ward 5, said the urban renewal plan represented an opportunity to take steps to address issues in Eugene that had thwarted the community for decades and an opportunity to say “yes” instead of “no.” He said the LCC project would spur the local economy and bring hundreds of students downtown, supporting local businesses and bring positive activities to the City’s core. He said the public safety improvements would make downtown feel safe and welcoming, the Farmers’ Market would continue to bring people downtown and the VA clinic would support area veterans and fill vacant space. He said the projects were ready to move forward and the funding mechanism did not require raising taxes or harm other services. He asked for the entire community to take advantage of the opportunity and support the projects, which would help the City move forward to create a downtown everyone deserved. Thomas Kamis , Lincoln Street, Eugene, a downtown resident and business owner, said the plan amendment would not solve all of downtown’s problems, but it was a good start. He said the other funding mechanisms available to support the projects were complicated and would take more time. He spoke to the benefits each of the projects would provide to the community and downtown area and urged the council to support the proposed amendment. William Ivanoff , North Grand Street, Eugene, Ward 7, spoke in favor of the LCC and VA clinic projects downtown. He questioned whether the urban renewal district had increased the livability and vibrancy of downtown since 1967. He was not certain that urban renewal had caused many of the issues downtown today and felt there were other City policies that drove businesses from downtown. He said urban renewal would not solve all of the problems in downtown; it was a more complex issue. All of the City’s policies that contributed to the current situation should be examined. Duncan Rhodes , Lewis Avenue, Eugene, Ward 7, thought the projects were good, but the urban renewal district had been in existence for a long time and he wanted to see a financial accounting of its history, including the revenue generated and how it was spent. He said that information should be compiled and submitted to a referendum before any of the projects were approved. Jared Mason-Gere , Willamette Street, Eugene, speaking on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, said that often the City had ignored opportunities, but in this instance he was confident that would not happen. He commended the council’s thoughtful deliberations and the well thought-out projects that were MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 19, 2010 Page 6 Public Hearing