Laserfiche WebLink
City Cauncil Regular Meeting — 06/20/05 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 20 <br />ordinance related ta rezaning and thefr past requests that <br />their prapertzes not b� r�zoned until they could be rezoned <br />in response to economic forces. Mr. VanDeis addressed <br />�he structure of �heir buildings, apining they were not <br />blighted; and objected to and would resist any potential use <br />of candemnation to �orce development of properties in the <br />redevelopment area. Mr. VanDeis re�`erenced a rec�nt <br />�et�er to the City Council opposing condemnation of Area $ <br />properties, opining those properties were and remained <br />compatible with residential properties, were well-kept and <br />economically viable; po�ential job loss �rom existing uses <br />ta proposed redevelopm�nt uses; acquisition casts putting a <br />financial strain an �he remainder o� the developmeni; and <br />concluded by requesting that the City Caunczl aremave any <br />provision that would allaw use of condemnatian fnr Area S <br />properties. <br />Todd Guerrero, 2474 Hamline Avenue; and for <br />disclosure purposes, an Attorney in priv�te practice in <br />Mpls <br />Mz. Guerrera echoed the commen�s of Mr. Houck; agreed <br />that the property should be redeveloped, but without TIF <br />funds. Mr. Guerrero pravided his perspectiv� and <br />interpretation of public purpose tests unde�r the TIF Statute <br />meaning something o�her than private development fnr big <br />box retail and private housing development; blight <br />remaval; replacement o� substandard infrastructures; and <br />questioned �he use of public monies to increase the t� <br />base, and benefit a private developer. Mr. Guerr�ro opin�d <br />that the Ciiy didn't need addi�ional retail space, given the <br />per capita percentages alr�ady in place; and questioned <br />how the City proposed to limit their liability �or <br />environmental remediatian. <br />Steve Burwell, 2422 Albert Street <br />Mr. Burwe�� apined that �his 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 />un�air advantages to potential retai� competitors; and the <br />excess retail already existing in the cammunity. <br />