|
Mr. Wentz:
<br />
<br />Mr. ~lliott:
<br />
<br />Mr. Wentz:
<br />
<br />Mr. Elliott:
<br />
<br />Mrs. Raymer:
<br />
<br />Mr. Elliott:
<br />Mrs. Raymer:
<br />
<br />Mr. Elliott:
<br />
<br />Mrs. Raymer:
<br />
<br />some new houses. What I'm saying is, we should find another way to get somebody
<br />to come in there to build them where they are needed; we need them all around now.
<br />And they've already to~n down so many, there's plenty of space if we could just
<br />get development some other way. But again, may I say that we are very willing to
<br />go along with this project if it has to be as it is, we all agreed that we would
<br />go along with the project, as proposed by the Planning Com~ittee, if that's the
<br />only way we can get the project."
<br />
<br />"Are there any questions for Mrs. Raymer."
<br />
<br />"Yes I have a question."
<br />
<br />"Mr. Elliott."
<br />
<br />"Mrs. Raymer, are you a landlord?"
<br />
<br />"I am a landlord, I also am a homeowner. I live in the area myself also, and I'm
<br />a member of the Southside Assembly, I work in the community, and so I feel I'm
<br />very representative of the community and the area."
<br />
<br />"And are you saying that you would recommend that they build more multi-family unit.
<br />
<br />"I would say both. I think. We need housing. But I don't think they're ever goin~
<br />to want to live in multi-family houses at all; and there's always been private
<br />homes up and down Fourth Street and Third Street, so I think what Mr. Eason was
<br />saying, we need housing very badly right now, see, but the thing is this, it can
<br />be either or both, so what I'm saying, is, we should build some more instead of
<br />tearing so many down; and before they pull any more up, and board them up to be
<br />torn down, some building should be started. And I'm saying there is plenty of. are~
<br />to build them in now. We have where it has already been torn down."
<br />
<br />"Not to have any dialogue going between the two of us, but does your committee feel
<br />that building many more multi-family units will only create conditions such as we
<br />have in our public housing areas now, Jeffry Wilson, Ida Barbour, you're crowding
<br />many, many people together ink,one little small area, and this is what has brought
<br />this so-called decrease in appreciation of property and the landlords in many
<br />cases, it seems, they are bringing in many, many people in a small area, where as
<br />if it were multi housing, private ownership, each individual would be responsible
<br />for his own house."
<br />
<br />"That's right. Personally, I much, much prefer the private homes, or homes maybe
<br />where possibly two side by side, some of those are not so crowded, but I think
<br />that individual home is better, so we discussed both, and I think the way it was
<br />left that it would be open for whatever the developer himself wanted to have, but
<br /> I fully agree with you, most anybody that lives in those areas will tell you that
<br /> as nice as the project may be when they're built, it gets too many people in one
<br /> close area, and what I'm saying now is, there's plenty of space if you drive down
<br /> those streets, to build the houses, and build them individually, and have room,
<br /> I feel, for all the people that should be living there and all the people who want
<br /> to live there. But there w~'~e no definite lines drawn on. What we were told by
<br /> Susan Whitley, was that, what the~plan was...open for any type they wanted, multi
<br /> or individual. But there are so many people from the Navy Yard again, that don't
<br /> want to live in a multi-family housing, they want an individual house, and so I
<br /> think we definitely need more of the individual than the other. But what I'm say-
<br /> ing is, we do need housing very badly, and houses that are kept up and are in
<br /> shape to rent, it's a shame to tear them down. For instance, in this one block,
<br /> particularly the Webb home, it's a beautiful home, it's about ten years old, and
<br /> there's one on the opposite corner of Jefferson and Fifth Street that's a very
<br /> nice home, the Rush home, that's...and there are apartment buildings too, that are
<br /> kept up, but those are the newe~ ones, and just like mine, I would be very glad
<br /> to sell the house, if I could get my money out of it. I understand that the land-
<br /> lords, especially if you have very much in them, which I do have quite a bit in
<br /> mine, I will be losing if I do, but I'm not speaking as an individual. I would be
<br /> perh~ps defeating my purpose by trying to take out this one block that's so thick-
<br /> ly populated, because right,now, I'm getting old enough, I would like to sell all
<br /> of mine if I could. But I'm thinking of what we are doing with our taxpayers'
<br /> money. I don't believe mn paying for houses to tear them down if they are already
<br /> liveable, especially the new ones; and I certainly don't believe in, for instance
<br /> the Hardware; we discussed that at great length. Wilkins' Hardware ms very badly
<br /> needed in this area. What would be gained by paying good money for the block it's
<br /> in and tear it down? We need the Hardware there, and we want it there. But I fee]
<br /> the same way with the church; for instance, new Mt. Vernon Church ms a very nice
<br /> church, and they're selling, going into Fourth Street Baptist Church the first of
<br /> the year, but they already have theirs sold. Now it seems to me an awful waste of
<br /> good taxpayer money again to pay for that building to bulldoze down. But that par~
<br /> of it will have to be worked out by the committee. I am looking forward to the da~
<br /> when there will be some laws passed regarding having to reimburse the landlords,
<br /> for instance, the same as the individual. I understand when the property is taken~
<br /> if it's an individual home, they're well paid for it, and if it's a church, they'r~
<br /> well paid for it, as far as the individual is concerned, however~ if it's rental
<br /> property, that is not the way. But, whatever it is, if it's a good building, it's
<br /> a waste of taxpayer money to pay for that building to bulldoze it down, when we've
<br /> already cleared it by the laws that are already passed here in the Council, they
<br /> cleared not only most, a lot of the bad housing, but they'~e unfortunately cleared
<br /> some of the very repairable good homes, too. The law says you can't board it up
<br /> for instance, without paying for it; well, if you don't board it up in that area,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|