CC_Minutes_2005_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

o~':1e~-<>Q,\ Date: 07/18/05 Addendum to Item: 8. To: Roseville City Council From: Neal Beets Re: Councilmember lhlan's Suggestion About an Eminent Domain Ordinance Date: Friday, July 15, 2005 City of ~-~ I write to make sure you are aware of the many provisions in a typical redevel- opment agreement dealing with eminent domain. (See the following excerpts from the Twin Lakes Redevelopment contract; some key provisions are under- lined.) These types of contract provisions are in addition, of course, to an extensive body of both federal and state case law and statutory law already governing eminent domain. I doubt a city ordinance could be so comprehensive. I also question the wisdom of one particular set of 5 councilmembers defining by ordinance in advance and binding all future elected councilmembers as to what is in the "public interest" sufficient to justify use of eminent domain. ........................................................................, From City-Rottlund Redevelopment Agreement, approved June 20, 2005 ACQUISITION AND CONVEYANCE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Section 3.1. Acquisition. (a) The Redeveloper agrees to diligently pursue acquisition of the Redevel- opment Property according to the following timelines: (1) By the date of execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper will at a minimum have control of Parcels 1-1,1-2,1-3,1-5,2-1, 2-2a, 2-2b, 2-2c, 2-3, 4-1, 4- 2,4-3,4-4, and 4-5 identified on Exhibit A. (2) By August 31, 2005, in addition to the Parcels listed above, the Redeveloper shall also have control of Parcels 3-1, 3-2, and 5-1. No building permits will be issued until the Redeveloper has control ofthe Parcels listed in both (1) and (2). (3) No later than eighteen (18) months following execution of this