Laserfiche WebLink
At a regula~ meeting of the City :Council, held on July 8th, 1947,there · <br /> <br />Leslie To Fox, George Lo Grimes, Arthu~ P. Henderson,~J~mes N. <br />Stu~tevant, C. E. Warren, Pestle J. Wilson, A~thur S. Owens, <br />R.C. Ba~¢laM, City Attorney. <br /> <br /> Howard, E.Robie <br />City Manager, and <br /> <br />Minutes of regular meeting heldJune 24th were read and approved~ <br />The following report of the Planning Commission was read: <br /> <br /> rAt a meeting of the Planning Cormnission held on June 19th, 1947, the <br />following applications_to rezone property were approved: <br /> <br />Mr. Willimn C. Gteason, Jr. to rezone from Residential te <br />Commercial the property at 2613 Detroit Street, 40 feet adja- <br />cent te alley 30 feet on ~etroit Street. <br />Mr. R. Earl Byrd tc resone from Residential to Cemmereial the <br />preper~y at the n~thwest corner of Cambridge Ave. and Hartford <br />Street, lets #560-861-862. <br />N~.H.G. MeCready, torezene from Residential ~o Con~nercial, the <br />property at the southeast corner of E~m Avenue s~d London St.~ <br />ll3 feet on Elm Avenue and 143 feet 2 inches on Lenten St. <br /> <br />The following applications were denied: <br /> <br />M~s. Eo M. Wooda~d to rezone f rom Residential to Commercial the <br />property at 916 LOndon Street. <br />W. H. Reid to rezone f~om Residential to Commercial property at <br />811-13-18-17 South St." <br /> <br />The Chair opened the meeting to the public - no response. <br /> <br />On motion o f l~$.H0wa~d, Item I was a~pted. <br /> <br />On motion of ~r.~Howa~d~ Item 2 was adopted. <br /> <br />0n motion o f Mr. Wilson, Item 3 was adopted. <br /> <br />approved. <br />was approved. <br /> <br />On motion of M~. <br />On motion of Er. <br /> <br />~ilson, the Planning Commission's action o n Item 4 was <br />Stu~tevant, ~he Planning Commission's action on Item <br /> <br />The following communications~frem the City M~uager were read: <br /> <br />1st - The Manager presented the following: <br /> <br /> "0u~ attention has been called to recent news stories published in the <br />Portsmouth newspaper which indicate that (1) you~ Co~poration contemplates the resale of the <br />demountable houses allocated to you to a local contracting fizm~, and (2) that the Corporation <br />contemplates the re-erectionof these houses on one site developed on a portion of the fo~mer <br />government trailer project in the Highland Park section. <br /> If these newspaper stories a~e t~ue, we feel that you~ Co~oration i s <br />violating the letter, spirit and intent of the contract dated May 29th, 194V, between trois <br /> <br />Authority and you~ Co~poration. <br /> In coEaectionwith the proposed <br />tracting fi.~m, w e cslt your attention t o Paragraph 8 ef <br />these dwellmng ~nits shall be resold~bythe Co~poration <br />fsmilies. <br /> In connection with the propose~ <br />tracting ~i~m, we call your attention to Paragraph 8 of <br />these dwelling units shall be resold by the Corporatio~ <br />their families. <br /> <br />resale ef these units to a local con- <br />said contract, which requires that <br />only to a veteranc~ serviceman or thei. <br /> <br />resale of these units to a local eon- <br />said contract whieh requires that <br />only to s veteran or serviceman or <br /> <br /> In connection with the proposal to re-erect approximately t00 ~f these <br />units on one site immediately adjacent to Alexander Park, we must remind you of the several <br />conferences held in the Atlanta office attended by representatives of you~ Corporation, of the <br />City and others. You~ progz~m at that time contemplated offering these dwelling units to eli- <br />gible repu~ehasers, re-erected on new sites of their own choice eithe~in the City of Ports - <br />mouth or Norfolk County. It was understood that one of the pr~ reasons for entering into <br />this progrmm w~s to make it possible for &Rdividual veterans to acquire homes at a reasonable <br />cost in sections of the a~ea in which, fo~ various reasons, they preferred to residee Represen- <br />tatives of this Authority explained at that time emphatically that we did not look with favor <br />upon the use of these demeu~table houses for the creation~ residential develepments on distinct <br />sites ptt~chased and improved for that p~,se. Your representatives, h~wever, pointed out that <br />there was a s~bstantial demand on the p~a~t of Negroveterans and that it was practically impos- <br />sible for Negro veterans to acquire individually satisfactory lots in the Portsmouth area. This <br />Authority, therefore, agreed that approximately 60 of the demountable u~its p~chased could be <br />erected on one site for resale to Negro veterans under the te~ms of the contract, but it was <br />distincttyunderstood by all of the representatives of this Authority who took par~in these <br />conferences that the traits which were earmarked for resale to white veterans w~uld b e placed o~ <br />in~div~idua~l. ~ot~.throughout the general ~a~ea selected b~ the %ndividual Veteran. It is patti- . <br />eu~.a~£y~d~s~u~omng to us that not only ~s t~is general ~nderstanding a~d agreement bei~ appa~- <br />en~±y c~uged without the concurrence of this Authority ~Gt that the single site selected fc~ t <br />th~se~u.ni.'ts~is immediately ad~acenp to Alexander P~k. It is definitely not in .the best inter~ <br />es~ cz the ~overnment to permit this to ~e done. ~f there is need for veterans' housing in the' <br />Alexander Pa~k section of the county, then the dispositic~ committee and the local governing <br /> <br /> <br />