My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm.
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2004
>
CCAgenda-08/09/04WS
>
Item B - Econ.Dev.Comm. Recomm.
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:11:18 PM
Creation date
8/9/2004 10:58:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
8/9/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
than being able to relocate it. Mr. Johnson said that discussions about retaining the cannery <br />occurred with the company, but it was not interested. He agreed a regional discussion about the <br />economy would be ideal. <br /> <br />Mr. Prichard pointed out that if Eugene retained its UGB, in 30 years it would be one of the few <br />places in the country where one could go to the edge of the city and be on a farm. That land <br />could not be speculated on and would hold its lower value.. Mr. Forbes reiterated his concern <br />about the impact of the UGB on land values and asked where people would live. He questioned <br />if people were really willing to live in higher density development, and if people who worked for <br />nonprofit agencies such as his, Lookingglass, would be able to live in Eugene. Mr. Prichard did <br />not think there was any correlation between land value and the UGB, pointing out land values in <br />Los Angeles were high but there were no boundaries. Mr. Obie believed that it was the intent of <br />the framers of the Metropolitan Plan that some residential growth go to the smaller communities. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Teninty, Mr. Johnson said the effect of Ballot Measure 47/50 <br />was that new growth in a community meant more tax revenues to the local revenue. New growth <br />was more value than existing development because that was the only way to add to the property <br />tax base. <br /> <br />Ms. Teninty noted that no one had mentioned the Region .2050 regional planning effort and <br />asked if that was irrelevant. Mr. Johnson did not think so, but pointed out the effort was <br />relatively recent. He believed the level of enthusiasm with which it was received by regional <br />elected officials would be an indicator of its relevance. · <br /> <br />Mr. Forbes thanked the presenters. The committee took a brief break. <br /> <br />As the next presenter, Mr. Linton, had not yet arrived, Mr. Forbes distributed a document entitled <br />Suggestions for Next Steps, which included recommendations for the committee's process from <br />this point. He reviewed the document, which addressed what the recommendations of the <br />committee should cover, and identified several technical policy issues, including the buildable <br />lands inventory, possible code revisions, the efficient provision of infrastructure, business <br />assistance/incentives, business climate, and work force. <br /> <br />Mr. Forbes asked the committee if it wished to meet as a full committee or if it was ready to <br />break into subcommittees. The committee agreed to meet again as a full committee before <br />deciding to form subcommittees. : <br /> <br />Mr. Forbes asked the committee if members had suggestions for other issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Bowerman believed the list was a good one but felt the process was missing a visioning <br />component. He recalled the mayor's suggestion the committee focus on a common vision rather <br />than obstacles. ' ' <br /> <br />MINUTES--Mayor's Committee on Economic Development April 20, 2004 Page 11 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.