New Search
My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
New Search
Maurie Jacobs Improvements
COE
>
PW
>
POS_PWM
>
Parks
>
Specific Parks
>
Maurie Jacobs Improvements
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/6/2014 7:57:12 AM
Creation date
8/6/2014 7:57:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PW_Operating
PW_Document_Type_ Operating
Correspondence
PW_Division
Parks and Open Space
External_View
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Date: 12/10/92 CERMJFE - RIS1 <br /> From: John Etter <br /> To: Les Lyle CEWELAL - RIS1 <br /> Bob Hammitt CEWMJRH - RIS1 <br /> cc: Johnny Medlin CEWMJRM - RIS1 <br /> Subject: N. Polk Street Paving at Maurie Jacobs Park <br /> I went back to reread the terms of the matching grant that the State is making <br /> on Maurie Jacobs Park. The fifth provision states (and I paraphase here) that <br /> the land is to remain for park and recreation purposes, and not to be deeded <br /> away for some other function without state approval. Given the legal opinions <br /> that have been prepared on this issue, I sense you want to clear up the ambigu- <br /> ities here by getting the R/W properly deeded, in which case it would cease to <br /> be liberally interpretted as a park road. To avoid having to certainly spend <br /> time defending our position on this as it moves to R/W status I propose drop- <br /> ping the project. <br /> The funding to allow construction as we discussed, especially if the low - <br /> income subsidy aspect was to come into play, is no problem. If the deeding <br /> of R/W were to De postponed for 10 years ( "indefinitely ") so that we could <br /> make the park road interpretation, then we might be on safer ground with <br /> the state. It might put us on shakey ground with the low income assistance <br /> program, however, which is why I am inclined to drop it. Unfortunately <br /> this leaves us with an unpaved street. <br /> If you have no comment by 12/14 noon, I will assume you concur in not giving <br /> this any further consideration. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.