CCMinutes - 04/21/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor questioned what proportion of the taxes on a two-story single-family large house would be applied to the land and which to the structure. Ms. Nathanson suggested the condition of the house was a factor. Mr. Weinman estimated a ratio of approximately 4:1 for the structure to land proportion. Ms. Taylor said the house could be in good enough condition to live in, but could be torn down to make way for a multi-family project, leading to the loss of needed low-cost rental property. Mayor Torrey said he would oppose the amendment in the case of a tie. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman voting yes, and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in op- position to the motion, and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the council's use of tax incentives. He said that it seemed the council had ~no restraint whatsoever" in its application of tax incentives. He said tax revenues were very limited, and the approach of %ome-one, come-all" could not be supported by the budget and he did not think it would be supported by the public. He hoped future councils exercised some discretion in their review of applications, but he would not have supported exemptions for about half of the projects that had already received the MUPTE. They were, at best, ~adequate" rather than distinctive and did not diversify the housing stock. He believed the public would get the wrong message, leading to defeat of money measures at the polls. Speaking to Mr. Kelly's remarks, Ms. Nathanson said that it was essential for the council to follow through on the goals it had for the West University Neighborhood and improve housing in that area and downtown. It would be a disservice to the community to do nothing. She said that for him to say the council had no restraint was a vast overstatement. She asked what percentage of the land area of the city was in question. She pointed out the City was not extending the exemption citywide, rather on a focused and targeted area that had been identified consistently as a place where the City wanted to see improvement. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the main motion because of her previously stated remarks about lost revenues and subsidies to student rentals that would be built anyway. She did not think that condomin- ium development or home ownership was viable in the area given the current state of affairs. The City had taken no steps in the process to encourage quality housing or long-term residency. Mr. Meisner noted the council had modified the ordinance to target a specific area, and he hoped that meant something in the long-term. Mr. Meisner said future decisions about applications would be made by future councils, which might decide to deny applications on the basis of quality or location. He did not want to predict what a future council would do. The main motion as amended passed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting no. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 7 Work Session