02/16/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, .' . . . Mr. Cooper -2- January 15,1982 1. The failure to specify the terms of the taking has been referred to above. -2. 'Sombrero Stree is 'not totally adverse.to the pro- posed development. It simply clãIms the right to full compensa- tion for all property taken, as well as losses suffered. The best measure of "full compensation" for all property taken is the market value of the property to be taken. (This, incidentally, is the same measure applied by courts in any condemnation pro- ceeding). Yet the process to date has never allowed negotiations between Fainberg and Sombrero Street to establish the market value. Similarly, no one has shown any interest in the potential for damage to Sombrero Street during construction. 3. Everyone seems to presume that the only way the Fainberg development can occur is by a full taking (cancellation) of Sombrero Street's rights under the prior agreement. Considera- tion should be given to cooperative use of the property not requir- ing total destruction of Sombrero Street's right to purchase the property during the original lease period. This has never occurred. 4. Consideration should also be given to taking less than the "whole" of the property for the Fainberg project. To my knowledge, this has never been evaluated. Has the Agency decided it must simply take the "whole" because Fainberg considers it necessary? The law prohibits the taking of more property or property rights than that which is necessary for the purpose of the condemner. Another alternative deserves study. 5. The closing of 3th Street east of Main (only approximately two blocks long) and transferring Sombrero Street's lease thereto, could solve two problems presented. First, it would provide immediate substitute property for Sombrero Street's parking during construction, immediately adjacent to Sombrero Street. Next, it would provide equivalent "expectations and opportunity" to acquire, use and own the lease-hold property. 6. If to the above items 3,4 and 5, the response is "we have considered these alternatives", this points out a further deficiency. Quite reasonably, consideration should include par- ticipation by Sombrero Street. This has never occurred. One must therefore conclude that any such consideration is suspect and deficient. "