OCR Text |
Show Citizens Protest Redevelopment Agency i have liked to have had the public hearing before the agency was even formed. They questioned whether it was now all cut and dried, and nothing they said would matter. Ed Winters, member of the council and of the agency, assured the owners that that was not the case. He explained ex-plained that at the time the agency was created there wasn't really anything to have a public hearing on. Many felt also that the council was trying to sneak something through by not giving proper notice in the paper. They said the council had put the notice under "PG Legals" so that it would go unnoticed by the Lindon property owners. In attendance at the meeting also was Lynn Davis, representative for the county commissioners. He said the commissioners did not oppose the plan and felt redevelopment to be a good way of generating funds for a city, but they were questioning the large area included in the development develop-ment project. The project area includes essentially essen-tially all of lower Lindon below 800 West and, also, both sides of State Street; it covers most of the area currently zoned for commercial and industrial use. That the area was being called a "blight" area also aroused strong emotion. The owners felt this was an insult to their properties. The mayor explained that they defined blight as an area of economic stagnation. As the end of the meeting neared, emotions had simmered some. Kenneth Howard said, "I feel like council has been trying to solve a problem. ..I don't think development of the industrial park will effect rural "As a result nf ( Sldered in the are I redngthetiSV K rnt area- the scone nf 6of (- domainV advisory t'.() requirement t auV" J within the agenJ "W the agency's gover w than by its Ta l a Durham. HA0 U "Unde- Utah law if ) J majority (one-half) ', ft Public property 11. a-a object to1 d J before or during t H h' redevelopment Jk? S E adopted unless fe t Lmdon voters at In Mr. Durham. S, alldi "If owners of two-thi , Tt 'of the non-publi t. written objections sli the hearing the prJJ toW nt project mayjH a reconsidered for , J-1 com years," he added . ''Thosewishingtoobjecu. eov Because several resid J , I hearing expressed a desir,",'' the hearings continue Cl in order to have timet ii P"! study the plan, it is J J will be at least one or Jl , hearings to follow the Julya d By LINDA HARRIS The life of the Lindon Redevelopment Redevelop-ment Agency was brought into clear question last Thursday evening when a group of extremely angered citizens voiced their protests to the formation of that agency contesting it on the grounds that "it was formed behind our backs" and that "it gives them power to condemn areas, tear down buildings, take families out of homes, and relocate them." In a public hearing held at Lindon Elementary, Mayor Kenneth McMillan, Mc-Millan, city councilmen, and attorneys at-torneys for the recently-formed Lindon Redevelopment Agency, were hit with strong criticism of that agency and more specifically, the planned project of that agency. The meeting was opened by Mayor McMillan who explained that the major impetus for adopting the proposed redevelopment plan is to facilitate development of Lindon's stagnant commercial and industrial area. The mayor indicated that under a redevelopment plan, financing tools would be available which could make it possible to install sewer lines west of Geneva Road, thus opening up a large area of Lindon for industrial development without increasing tax burdens on local residents. He quoted examples from the Utah Foundation publication of how other - cities have set up similar agencies ' and this has brought about economic '-. growth to those areas, citing projects '.- that Salt Lake, Murray, and Provo '. have been able to complete through a " redevelopment program. " Then, anticipating some of the objections that might be raised, at- torney for the agency, Gene Jacobs, by further explanation sought to dispel some of the negative feelings that had been voiced about the project area, such as the designation of it as a "blight area". About a week before the meeting both members of the agency and their attorneys had received complaints about the project and were, therefore, expecting some opposition to it, and the intensity of that opposition was clearly demonstrated in the hearing. Complaints received by the individual in-dividual members and attorneys before the meeting fell into four general categories: Dfear that the agency would have power to take away land from property owners within the designated project area; 2)misconception that the plan had already been adopted; 3)fear that power would fall to one man, the administrative officer, who could then do what he wanted with the land ; and 4)concern that it would increase taxes. Some of those same reservations were aired at the meeting, as well as some others. After Attorney Jacobs' remarks, the meeting was opened to comments by the audience. Opposition was expressed from the outset by Darrell Frampton. "I want you to know I'm definitely opposed to the plan," he said. Dennis Gray, owner of a business in the project area, then rose to the podium and said, "I'm against it all the way." He then quoted Thoreau, "Government's best where government's govern-ment's least." Elizabeth Tanner also voiced strong opposition when she said, "I'm sick of big city government being shoved down our throat by a hired professional." She asked for a show of hands of those who want to keep Lindon rural. The majority raised their hand. She concluded by saying, "I think they ought to sack it (meaning the project)." The atlorney responded by saying, "If you don't increase your tax base and continue to increase your population, you will go bankrupt." He said the only way they could prevent that from occurring without increasing in-creasing individual properly taxes was to set up such an agency to capture increment funds. And in a later comment, Jacobs said, "Some downtown cities have gone absolutely to the bottom" because they did not have any way of increasing their tax base. A lady in the audience replied, "That's the way we want it." The main purpose for formation of the agency, the attorney explained to the audience, was to provide a means of broadening the tax base. "By law the city council does not have the right to develop tax increment funds," said Mr. Jacobs. "The agency is necessary to generate those funds," he said. Many of the people voiced fears that it would give government even more power over their land. The panel contended that city council already has land use controls and that that power invested in the agency, should the plan be adopted, would not be substantially more, and, in fact, if the people desired, it could be worded such that it gave them no new powers of eminant domain. The proposed plan, as it is now written, states, "The Agency is authorized to acquire property by gift, devise, exchange, purchase, eminent domain, or any other lawful method." The power of eminent domain generally held by a city council, said Cole Durham, the other attorney for the agency, allows them to condemn roads or property that are needed for public buildings or public parks, though he did not know what the exact scope of Lindon city council's power was as it now stands. "Normally they would not have power to condemn an area for development without the adoption of a redevelomcnt plan. As the plan is currently drafted, eminent domain power cannot be used against any property that is in residential use," he said.d Many at the hearing wanted the power of eminent domain stricken from the plan. The council agreed that could be done, but Mr. Jacobs warned that it would be advantageous to property owners to leave it in for tax purposes. Throughout the meeting members of council continued to emphasize that the plan had not yet been adopted. "It's not in effect. It is not in effect. You can still kill it," the mayor assured them. A three-year moratorium on the plan was suggested by one lady, "until we can study this thoroughly and understand every facet of it." The proposed plan is a 27-page document that deals with such things as proposed redevelopment action, uses permitted in the project area, methods for financing the project, and administration and enforcement of the plan. Another complaint was that proper notice of the formation of the agency and of the hearing had not been given. Property owners said they would |