 |
| Dianne Bellamy Smalls Contract Motion |
"...what this was – not construction, but facilitating redevelopment."
Mujeeb
.
.
§ 160A‑457; Acquisition and disposition of property for redevelopment says; ...To sell...real property or any interest therein in a community development project area to any redeveloper at private sale for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial or other uses ...provided that such sale, exchange or other transfer, and any agreement relating thereto, may be made only after approval of the municipal governing body and after a public hearing; a notice of the public hearing shall be given once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, and the notice shall be published the first time not less than 10 days nor more than 25 days preceding the public hearing; and the notice shall disclose the terms of the sale, exchange or transfer. At the public hearing the appraised value of the property to be sold, exchanged or transferred shall be disclosed; and the consideration for the conveyance shall not be less than the appraised value.
.
.
As there wasn't a public hearing, there wasn't a published notice, which makes the vote illegal.
City Council's vote on the contract wasn't after a public hearing, which makes the vote for the contract illegal.
The appraised value was never disclosed, which makes the vote illegal.
As City Council's vote on the contract didn't include an appraised value, the vote was illegal.
.
.
$490,000 does not equal $2,964,100;
.
Hello Mr. Hartzman:
Please find attached the appraisal on the Bessemer Shopping Center.
Sincerely,
Public Information Desk
City of Greensboro
300 W. Washington Street
Phone: (336) 373-CITY (2489)
.
.
What the city said was an appraisal, wasn't.
What the city disclosed was an Economic Feasibility Study.
Says so on page 3.
The study says Dick Foster did an appraisal on page 12, dated November, 2011, which was not presented on the record of council before the vote.
Page 22 says the shopping center could be worth $552,000.
Page 23 says $826,500 and $1,100,000.
Page 24 says $1,512,000, and page 25 says $1,907,000.
.
.
§ 160A‑457 also says; ...any city is authorized, either as a part of a community development program or independently thereof, and without the necessity of compliance with the Urban Redevelopment Law, to exercise the following powers:
...to dispose, through sale, lease, or otherwise, of any property so acquired to any person, firm, corporation, or governmental unit; provided, the disposition of such property shall be undertaken in accordance with the procedures of Article 12 of this Chapter, or the procedures of G.S. 160A‑514..., which says "Such conveyance shall be for such consideration as may be agreed upon by the commission and the association or corporation, which shall not be less than the fair value of the property agreed upon by a committee of three professional real estate appraisers currently practicing in the State."
.
.
This law says there are supposed to be three appraisals.
If there were not three, it was illegal, as there was no appraisal disclosed.
An appraised value was not agreed upon, which makes the vote illegal.
.
.
Article 12. Sale and Disposition of Property of § 160A‑265; Use and disposal of property says; ...a city may: ...sell or dispose of real and personal property, without regard to the method or purpose of its acquisition or to its intended or actual governmental or other prior use.
§ 160A‑266. Methods of sale; limitation says ...a city may dispose of real or personal property belonging to the city by:
(1) Private negotiation and sale;
(2) Advertisement for sealed bids;
(3) Negotiated offer, advertisement, and upset bid;
(4) Public auction; or
(5) Exchange.
(b) Private negotiation and sale may be used only with respect to personal property valued at less than thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for any one item or group of similar items.
.
.
As the sales contract is worth more than $30,000, 1-5 are operable, meaning voting for the contract was illegal.
.
.
§ 160A‑269. Negotiated offer, advertisement, and upset bids.
A city may receive, solicit, or negotiate an offer to purchase property and advertise it for upset bids.
When an offer is made and the council proposes to accept it, the council shall require the offer or to deposit five percent (5%) of his bid with the city clerk, and shall publish a notice of the offer.
.
.
If 5% wasn't deposited, the contract is illegal.
Another offer was received by the city which has not been disclosed.
A city council member request for a proposal for the city to do the work has not been disclosed.
.
.
The notice shall contain a general description of the property, the amount and terms of the offer, and a notice that within 10 days any person may raise the bid by not less than ten percent (10%) of the first one thousand dollars ($1,000) and five percent (5%) of the remainder. When a bid is raised, the bidder shall deposit with the city clerk five percent (5%) of the increased bid, and the clerk shall readvertise the offer at the increased bid. This procedure shall be repeated until no further qualifying upset bids are received, at which time the council may accept the offer and sell the property to the highest bidder. The council may at any time reject any and all offers.
.
.
The city received a bid from a non RFP entity, and didn't advertise an upset bid for a better offer, which was illegal.
Some council members voted for this illegal deal to gain the Simkins PAC endorsement.
Expect little to no coverage on this topic from our for profit press.
Expect little to no accountability.
Expect for this kind of behavior by our public officials and power brokers to continue as long as our for profit press is compromised.
No comments:
Post a Comment