05/15/1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i-.. - . Mr. Allen Haddon, 210 West 20th, stated that he had made exten- sive repairs to an older home; that more were contemplated; and that the possibility of eminent domain proceedings would have a definite effect on his future plans. Mr. Goblirsch stated that he would not anticipate any major acquisition in that area; that the more improvement, the better; and that no zone changes had been made to property within the area. . . '8 Mr. Michael Madzoff, 211 Marigold, Corona del Mar, stated that he was in favor of the project. Mr. Billy Hall, Executive Director of the City Center Associa- tion, stated that the Association had concluded that this par- ticular expansion would be good for the City, and eventually good for the downtown area, and he read aloud a resolution of the Board of Directors dated April 15, 1975, supporting the recommendation, and filed a copy of the resolution with the Clerk of the Council. Mr. Joe Hammond, 214 Owens Drive, inquired if major undeveloped land owners had been contacted. Mr. Goblirsch responded that Mr. Hurwitz had indicated he was in favor of the plan, and that Town and Country owners also supported the plan. 8 Mr. Joe Gilmaker, 308 West Fourth Street, Chairman of the Property Rights Association of Santa Ana, stated that his Association was opposed to the amendment plan, as it was to the original Project Area, because it further controls and provides for acquisition of private property through eminent domain for private gain; that experience so far has indicated that to declare an area for redevelopment is to at once stagnate the area, except for redevelopment activity; that he questioned this expanded authority, under California Health and Welfare Law, to put the taxpayers further into the retail business. He further stated that there have been questions raised regard- ing the loss of taxes to schools and other districts; that he in concerned about the expansion of new taxes at this time; that in the public interest, a plan of this magnitude should be put to a vote of the people; and he requested a motion to that effect. . . Special Counsel Jacobs responded that almost all cities rely on property and sales taxes for basic revenues; that the down- town deterioration has caused a gradual decrease in this revenue source; and that the plan would restore the City to a healthy economic base. He stated that the Agency was not going into the retail business; that it was giving assurance that there will be adequate parking, and attempting to put the City in a position where private retail areas can compete; that there will be no loss of taxes to schools because they are limited in the number of dollars they can take from property taxes. He further stated that the old project is not stagnated; that the downtown area is not the kind of area where people will shop; that the regional shopping areas have sapped away the strength of the inner City; and that private economics at work will provide the answer for the future of the City. Mr. Thomas White, 413-1/2 West Roe Drive, asked what had prompted the particular site choice as opposed to one in the area of Buffums and the north business area, which would give a closer relation to the downtown area. Special Counsel Jacobs replied that the proposed area has open land, access to the freeway, and visibility from the freeway; that an expanded Bullocks and Draper and Kramer site are economically ana fiscally sound, and more feasible than any expansion of the downtown. . ,-. ~ 8 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 215 MAY 15,1975 .