11/06/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . " Mr. Waldron reported that Mr. and Mrs. Leo J. Friis own an undivided one-half interest of the real property in question, and James J. Friis owns the other undivided one-half interest of the property, and that they oppose the acquisition of their property by condemnation. Mr. Waldron further stated that they feel that the Agency's project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, and feels that it will probably cause the greatest private injury. Mr. Waldron stated that several years ago an action was taken which contested the Redevelopment Plan by Joseph Gilmaker, in which certain limitations were agreed to on the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the Redevelopment Agency. The case was settled and in agreement, condemnation of that property was waived for seven years. The benefits were extended to other persons in the area. One item was that the seven years of waiver of eminent domain would be discussed with the other property owners in the project area. He stated that this has not been discussed with the Friis' at all. Also, in the agreement, the Agency agreed to extend the opportunity to all property owners within the Redevelopment Project Area to enter into an agreement which is the same or similar to the agreement made with Gilmaker. He also feels that this was not done. Mr. Waldron stated that he does not believe that the Agency has satisfied its obligation to relocate these individuals from their property, and feels that the Agency has failed to satisfy the necessary prerequisites to condemn the Friss property. He further stated that the Agency has not extended the Friis' the opportunity to enter into an agreement similar to the Gilmaker Agreement, nor has the Agency discussed the waiver of eminent domain; in fact, the Agency representatives never mentioned the existence of such an agreement. Mr. Waldron asked that the Resolution not be adopted until all provisions of the agreement have been met. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. There was no response. The Chairman asked if there were any further comments from the Agency Staff. The Executive Director stated that Staff feels that they have followed all of the requirements with regards to Gilmaker and the law of relocation. Mr. James Conkey, of the City Attorney's office, addressed the Agency stating that in regards to the statement that Mr. Waldron made, that the Agency has not complied with the provisions of the agreement we entered into with Joseph Gilmaker in 1974, is not correct. Mr. Conkey read paragraph 5 of the agreement between Gilmaker: "The Agency shall extend the opportunity to all property owners within the Project Area to enter into an agreement which is the same or is similar to the subject agreement except, however, that the Agency shall in good faith discuss the waiver of eminent domain with any of such persons", and stated that this gives the opportunity for other owners to enter into an agreement similar to the agreement with Gilmaker, and that the last independent phrase refers to an Owners Participation Agreement, or refers to discussing with the particular owner of the property as to whether that owner would like to participate in the project that the Agency or Commission has approved. He stated that it was his understanding that the Friis' had been contacted and these things discussed with them. Mr. Waldron again approached the podium and stated that the answer Mr. Conkey gave to discussions of waiver of eminent domain was not satisfactory. According to James Friis' declaration, the Agency has not discussed this. -2-