Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 06/20/05 <br />Minutes - Page 20 <br /> <br />Phase II, in addition to owner of other properties. <br />Mr. VanDeis thanked the City Council for the proposed <br />ordinance related to rezoning and their past requests that <br />their properties not be rezoned until they could be rezoned <br />in response to economic forces. Mr. VanDeis addressed <br />the structure of their buildings, opining they were not <br />blighted; and objected to and would resist any potential use <br />of condemnation to force development of properties in the <br />redevelopment area. Mr. VanDeis referenced a recent <br />letter to the City Council opposing condemnation of Area 8 <br />properties, opining those properties were and remained <br />compatible with residential properties, were well-kept and <br />economically viable; potential job loss from existing uses <br />to proposed redevelopment uses; acquisition costs putting a <br />financial strain on the remainder of the development; and <br />concluded by requesting that the City Council remove any <br />provision that would allow use of condemnation for Area 8 <br />properties. <br /> <br />Todd Guerrero, 2474 Hamline Avenue; and for <br />disclosure purposes, an Attorney in private practice in <br />Mpls <br />Mr. Guerrero echoed the comments of Mr. Houck; agreed <br />that the property should be redeveloped, but without TIF <br />funds. Mr. Guerrero provided his perspective and <br />interpretation of public purpose tests under the TIF Statute <br />meaning something other than private development for big <br />box retail and private housing development; blight <br />removal; replacement of substandard infrastructures; and <br />questioned the use of public monies to increase the tax <br />base, and benefit a private developer. Mr. Guerrero opined <br />that the City didn't need additional retail space, given the <br />per capita percentages already in place; and questioned <br />how the City proposed to limit their liability for <br />environmental remediation. <br /> <br />Steve Burwell, 2422 Albert Street <br />Mr. Burwell opined that this project was not a "good deal" <br />for the City of Roseville; expressing specific concern <br />related to senior residents on fixed incomes; providing <br />unfair advantages to potential retail competitors; and the <br />