ELKHART — It is time for the Elkhart Redevelopment Commission to revisit its deal with investors who won the bid for the former Alick’s property on Jackson Boulevard last year, according to the Elkhart Rowing Club, who lost the bid.

Both groups interested in the land bid $100,000, but members of the commission favored Portage Place Development because the group would add 21 new high-end condominiums and about $100,000 in annual property tax revenue for the city, while the rowing club wanted to build a boathouse that would not directly address the city’s housing shortage or add to its coffers.

Follow Rasmus S. Jorgensen on Twitter at @ReadRasmus

(2) comments

Joe King

wait....so the condo's can back out of a deal until Dec 10, but the city can't? The condo's can change what the initially offered: the number of units AND the amount of tax revenue, and the city can't back out or at the very minimum hold them to the original plan? They even had the adacity to come back and say we need the city to help build this and install helical piers for us.... And STILL the board accepted..What if they come back and say, thank you, we are going to build 2 homes instead? The city can't or WON'T do anything... I think the redevelopment commission has shown how they were and are biased towards their condo friends... Even after the 2 delays , they needed help from the city to help build and install helical piers or they were going to walk away, and the 2 things they offered at the meetings were the number of units and higher tax revenue have decreased....Would they have gotten the bid if the board knew this was how they were going to conduct business? Since they are going smaller, does this mean the city doesn't have to help build and install helical piers for them? Since it's smaller, are they going to add a park or walkway for the taxpayers that helped pay for this? Come on... why does this look so bad at every angle?

RasmusSJorgensen Staff
RasmusSJorgensen

Perhaps I didn’t make this clear enough in this article: It is my understanding that the RDC has agreed to the changes in scope. Whether the original contract would have allowed them to back out had they not agreed with a change in scope, I’m not sure. But they could have declined to approve the deadline extension this week, and I think that would have been that, since, to my recollection, the first extension lasted through July.

I hope this clears things up.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.