CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . I . - like to see us demolishing and starting nom scratch to create a safe neighborhood for that area." Councilman Ruskin said that "on the one hand I have grave questions about the wisdom of the federal law stating that we must provide so much support.... my concern is how to - deal with the real public safety problem. How to solve that. We may just have to accept.... (it) is more than we think is just to pay, or fair to pay, in order to solve a very serious public safety problem for Redwood City." Councilman Leipzig referred to the proclamation declaring Constitution Week and the concept of limited government stating "that we are on the other end of the spectrum right now. I am totally opposed to moving forth with this. I think we should have a heart to heart discussion amongst ourselves, with the citizens, with the real estate community, with property owners everywhere in Redwood City, whether we want to move forward. We've already spent according to the report, $2.25 million on purchasing property on this almost one city block. We are talking about purchasing and demolishing, the additional costs, may be another $1.25 mi!!ion. That doesn't even look at construction costs. The Rolison Road purchase we are looking at tonight, if approved, we wi!! be paying more than the appraised value. We'll be rewarding a slum lord for not maintaining his property, merely defaulting on the loan, not adhering to the rehabilitation loan the City gave him. We'll be rewarding tenants that are breaking the law by living in overcrowded units. That is unfortunate that they have to live that way, but they are breaking the law, they are breaking their leases. That contributes to the deterioration of many of our neighborhoods in Redwood City, not just this neighborhood. Hopefully next week when we talk about code enforcement we'll look at this. People living in - garages, overcrowding, that has an effect on the quality of life in the City. We are rewarding these tenants. We are paying them for that. The Agency's property, the City's property if you look at these pictures, pictures are worth a thousand words. The Agency's properties versus the slum lord's property that we are anticipating purchasing for more than the appraised value, those pictures show the City not maintaining its property nearly as well as the slum lord. The trash, the garbage, the weeds, that's what many of the residents have been complaining about. We're going to take a giant step forward apparently tonight in getting into the housing business. I think that is a mistake. I think we need to supply low and moderate housing to our citizens. I think Redwood City has been in the forenont of that effort. I think the numbers ABAG gives us are quite nankly a lot of hot air, they just dictate nom over there in Oakland, wherever they are headquartered, what Redwood City will supply. Let's take a look at some of the other cities in our County and see if they have done anything near what was up here on the board with what Redwood City has already done. We haven't looked at the cost of refurbishing these units. It is not in the report that I saw. We have no idea what we are comparing, tearing down units that we are paying more than appraised value for versus refurbishing. We have no clue. I can't tell you how strongly I feel that we are moving in the wrong direction. We are rewarding people that are not participating in the community. We are trying to help the neighborhood, but we are sending the wrong message. What's to stop other slum lords that own property in Redwood City from letting them go. The City will come iri and pay more than its worth. We are getting into - the rental housing business. We have no idea who we are going to turn this over to if REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 SEPTEMBER 16,1996 MINUTES Page No. 488 PAGE 23