Readers may remember that this building had been sold at public auction once already, on June 1, 2013. Martha Martinez, legal assistant to Galvan attorney Mark Greenberg, who was representing Galvan Partners at the auction, bid the price up to $354,000 from a minimum opening bid of $264,041.87. Since June, although two closings have been scheduled, Galvan never followed through on the purchasing the property.
When the resolution was introduced on Monday, the question was asked if the legal issues surrounding the building had been resolved. City attorney Cheryl Roberts indicated that the issue was still in court, but "private parties would like to purchase this property even though there is a court date."
Alderman Nick Haddad (First Ward) asked if the down payment made by Galvan was going to be returned. He was told that it was "still an open question."
Alderman John Friedman (Third Ward) said that he wanted to see language in contacts for foreclosure auctions "to indicate that the binder will be forfeited if the winning bidder walks away." He also wanted to "prohibit winning bidders from being people who are hoarding property," saying that hoarding property "deteriorates the city's value."
Haddad suggested that a winning bidder should be required to have "a window during which rehab must begin." Council president Don Moore concurred, saying that the City has a responsibility to its citizens when it sells City-owned property. He went on to speak of "covenants on the use of property, consistent with strategic plans and vision plans, as well as zoning," and a time line in which property should be developed and put back into use.
The resolution, which will be before the Council for a vote on Tuesday, January 21, indicates that the public auction will take place on February 14, which is a Friday. Foreclosure auctions typically take place on Saturday. The minimum bid for the property has been set at $305,774.11--more than $40,000 more than minimum bid required when the building was auctioned in June.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
There's no reason for anyone to get hot under the collar. If language about forfeiting binders isn't already in the law, then finally putting it there must be chalked up to the city's growing pains (heh).
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile all around us we see demolition by neglect, which is certainly forbidden in the code.
So if the city is going to establish "a window during which rehab must begin," then the obvious double-standard facing potential investors - that the code is ignored regarding purchases of properties on the open market - may be too painful for words.
Can't anybody look on the tax roll to see if it is actually exempt?
ReplyDeleteObviously anyone can. It's not exempt on the tax rolls, but Forbes maintains that it should be. This is why the City has been issuing tax bills over the years, and Forbes has not been paying them.
DeleteIsn't one man's hoarding another man's real estate investment portfolio?
ReplyDelete-- Jock Spivy
One man's hoarding is another's real estate portfolio.
DeleteSure, until public safety becomes an issue.
I'm assuming we're talking about Galvan. Has Galvan's real estate portfolio become a public safety issue?
DeleteYes, I am talking about Galvan in at least one situation, but I'm especially talking about someone else.
DeleteAs to the latter, recently a plate of glass falling from a third story window missed my wife and I by less than 3 feet. It was nearly a direct hit.
Thank you for asking.
No, it's someone else's hoarding actually. And the safety issue has already surpassed the merely potential.
DeleteI guess I can't talk about it here, but thanks for asking for that clarification.
Don't recall a tax auction of the Riverloft property on front street.
ReplyDeleteReaders might recall that the city had to acquire a grant of land formerly under water for like land, in order to upgrade the treatment plant.
Might the "development" corporation have been trying to slip the sale of riverfront property under the table?
1 Riparian
Ah, but the HDC can do that!
DeleteThat's how the Power Boat Association bought the shoreline from the state boat launch to Dock Street for $1.00. That was perfectly legal.
But you already know this. I think what you're asking is whether the HDC is used to "launder" shorefront owned by the city.
Another good question you asked was about those state-owned underwater lands south of Dock Street. How can anyone other than the state sell those?
All due respect, my question is: How did the tax delinquent riverfront property (legally) transfer to HDC and then to Riverloft?
ReplyDeleteThis dirty deal took place at the very same time that tricky Rick (just after an election) told the North Dock crew “those guys have nothing to worry about unless we find a buyer”.
Attorney Ken Dow of the Valley Alliance and the National Organization for Rivers both say that can’t be done.
If their intention was to promote river access, that property should have been used to promote additional commerce through the wharf.
1 Riparian
The last remnant of the Lady Faithful's skirt.
ReplyDelete