06-25-1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gilmaker stated that the plan called for the use of General Obligation bonds and Federal funds of any kind; that if there was no intention to use these funds, that it should be removed from the plan and replaced with tax increment financing; that the cities of Buena Park, Brea, Indio, Riverside, Pomona, Fresno, and San Bernardino were in varying degrees of difficulty with their Redevelopment Programs based on the same law; that the plan was not normal development; that the rights and freedom of individual citizens, property owners, merchants and tenants were being eroded by hasty development; that the use of eminent domain for any reason would continue to destroy the property rights of the majority; that if the plan failed, the bonds would become general obligation of all residents of the City; that the Redevelopment Commission without too much fanfare could extend to any part of the City; that all were opposed to present plan; that it was self-evident that the erosion of the basic freedoms would destroy free enterprise if allowed to continue; that they wished the right to redevelop, remodel, occupy, own and dispose of their property without undue government influence. Mr. Art Jacques, 1525 Portola Avenue, stated Council had driven the people out of the Chambers by prolonging the meeting and consequently the ones who should have been heard that live in the area and will be affected were gone. Mr. Steiner stated that Mr. Way had referred to the many meetings held by the Committee, however, the public had not been informed of all of them; that he had found out by accident and had attended the first meeting in a bank building at 8:00 A.M. one morning; that he had never been advised of subsequent meetings; that he found out by accident and attended two meetings which had been held on June 6, 1973. He asked what was going to'happen to the Fourth Street District assessment if the plan developed; that he was not against the plan in principal, but that he didn't like the way it had been handled as far as the property owners were concerned; and he suspects that there is a group buying'up properties who plan to make a lot of money on the transaction. The Mayor stated that as he understood it, there might be people who were speculating; that if Mr. Steiner had any such information that Council would check it out; that every Council member, Agency or Commission Member had had to sign a statement if he owned or bought any property in the Project Area.~ The Mayor then stated that the Fourth Street sidewalks assessment would continue; that there would be no tax increase or assessment districts of any kind. Mrs. Klipstein, lis West Fourth Street, stated that she resented very much any one person taking her and other people's time over a long period during the evening; that they all worked and many of the people had left because of time taken up uselessly; she requested that anyone speaking be limited to one speaking engage- ment; that she and her husband were property owners in the down- town area; that she had done a lot of volunteer work and had served on two building committees without compensation; that she had a degree that included architecture; that unless someone had a better plan, they were wasting the time of the community; that she did not want to see the plan tossed aside unless someone came up with something better. Mr. Ray Villa, 309 South Bristol Street, stated that he wished to speak on behalf of the plan; that it was a good plan, even though it might be misunderstood; that there was a dark cloud hanging over the area; that everyone was afraid of the words "eminent domain"; that the idea had not been initiated by the CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 229 JUNE 25, 1973