My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/06/1978
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
SUCCESOR AGENCY(formerly Community Redevelopment Agency)
>
COMMUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (1974-2012)
>
1973-1999
>
1978
>
11/06/1978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:15:32 PM
Creation date
3/3/2005 10:57:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
11/6/1978
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Low 0lIl... <br />ROIERT F. WALDRON <br />I._"tod <br />- 80'". Cbcl8 DtI.. <br />'4~Ar~~'F' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />which is the same or similar to the agreement made with Gilmaker. <br /> <br />2 The only exception made was that with respect to the question of <br />3 waiver of eminent domain (which the Agency had waived for a seven <br /> <br />4 <br />5 <br /> <br />(7) year period with Gilmaker) that the Agency would in good faith <br /> <br />discuss the waiver of eminent domain with the other property <br /> <br />6 owners in its project area. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />Contrary to the terms of its agreement, the Agency <br /> <br />7. <br /> <br />has neither extended me or my parents the opportunity to enter into <br /> <br />9 an agreement similar to the Gilmaker Agreement, nor has the Agency <br /> <br />10 discussed with me or my parents the waiver of eminent domain. <br /> <br />In <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />fact the Agency representatives have never even mentioned the <br /> <br />12 existence of such an agreement. <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br />No arrangements have yet been made to relocate our <br /> <br />8. <br /> <br />14 business to another location that is within the price range of <br /> <br />15 <br /> <br />We do not think it is <br /> <br />the compensation the Agency has offered us. <br /> <br />16 either fair or equitable or legally proper for the Agency to <br />17 authorize condemnation of our property without first having <br /> <br />18 satisfied its affirmative obligation to provide us with a new <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />location which can feasibly be purchased from the proceeds of the <br /> <br />20 Agency's offer of compensation. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />For the foregoing reasons, we contend that the Agency' <br /> <br />9. <br /> <br />22 project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most <br />23 compatible with the greatest public good and the least private <br /> <br />24 injury. <br /> <br />Condemnation of our property will cause not the least <br /> <br />25 private injury but in any judgment, the greatest private injury and <br />26 at most a highly debatable and seriously questionable "public good". <br /> <br />27 In any event, it is clearly not the "greatest public good". <br /> <br />28 <br /> <br />We further contend that the public interest and <br /> <br />10. <br /> <br />-3 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.