There is an LCDC meeting today, Wednesday, July 15, at 4 p.m. in the City Library’s Community Room. As I put up this post, the June agenda is still on the LCDC website.
July 15, 2009
LCDC Meeting
6 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Why would LCDC vote to demolish a house and eliminate rental income in favor of adding another piece of vacant land to lie fallow for an indeterminate time? I makes no sense to me.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 17, 2009 @ 7:13 am
Obviously the LCDC has a long-term plan in place regarding the homes. They have not published the plan and, if it exists, they are keeping it secret.
This is the essence of what makes the LCDC so frustrating to the public: Either they are just complete fools regarding what they do with property, or they have plans that they refuse to share with the public. Which is it? Given the calibre of people on the LCDC board, I don’t believe them to be fools. Therefore, they keep their plans secret from the public.
If the purpose of demolishing the house is to extend River Drive, then that must be in a plan somewhere. It must have been discussed in some meeting, but not a public meeting. No solid plans have been released by LCDC or NIC on the corridor, but obviously they do exist. And they’re opting to extend River to Northwest Blvd. before their traffic study? That makes no sense, unless the traffic study is yet another government paid joke that comes to a predefined conclusion.
Anyone with a brain sees these obnoxious inconsistencies. So the question remains: Where is the plan and why is it being kept from the public?
Comment by Dan — July 17, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Susie,
I think it was the June meeting when Deanna Goodlander acknowledged that the LCDC is, in fact, perceived to be a slum lord. The commissioners and Berns harrumphed about how underperforming financially that particular house is, and Berns said he had received a “drive by” demo and remove estimate from the company who ultimately will be awarded the contract to demo and remove the debris.
What I found somewhat interesting in amongst the LCDC’s self-serving babble was the need to now have the property surveyed for hazardous materials such as asbestos, and that haz-mat abatement might need to be factored into the demo and cleanup costs. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for the LCDC to have done a haz-mat danger survey before buying the slums and renting them out? It sounds as if the LCDC was in such a hurry to buy and rent those properties they forgot to consider they might be subjecting their renters to unsafe living conditions. Incidentally, those very large deciduous trees on that property are very likely to go away as River is punched through to Northwest Boulevard.
Comment by Bill — July 17, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Interesting pickle should the LCDC remove the city’s trees in the right-of-way without City permission. Is the LCDC the alter ego of the city or not?
Comment by Dan — July 17, 2009 @ 10:53 am
Dan,
It sounds as if LCDC has been talking with Karen Haskew. She says one of the trees needs to come down anyway. That was discussed at the July LCDC meeting. Nevertheless, the LCDC decided to wait on any tree removal associated with that house. I suppose the LCDC would prefer the City remove the tree since if LCDC contracts the removal out, the LCDC would have to use its (our) money.
Comment by Bill — July 17, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
LCDC has a history of feigned interest in maintaining some of its properties. Let us not forget the lovely condition of the LCDC lots on Fourth Street. Tony told me that they mow the weeds. I would add not often.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 17, 2009 @ 7:55 pm