More About Burning Connecticut Trash
 |
| Photo: WAMC |
This morning, Gossips reported that Lafarge was denying that the cement plant in Ravena had any plans to incinerate trash from Connecticut. Despite that denial, WAMC has been reporting all day that Capital District leaders are holding a news conference tomorrow morning in the Town of Coeymans: "Official React: CT Garbage to NY Plan." Among the speakers at the press event will be Albany County Executive Dan McCoy and former EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CAROLE OSTERINK
On the subject of trusting this company, the following is excerpted from a letter, dated January 30, 2013, from City of Hudson attorney Cheryl Roberts to the attorney then representing Holcim (US) Inc. - previously St. Lawrence Cement, and now LaFargeHolcim. The subject was a land transfer the City required to complete its waterfront program, a point which all parties had understood for years.
ReplyDeleteThe City was never reimbursed for the expenses listed at the end of the letter. Also, it's likely that the "private entity" referenced in the letter was A. Colarusso and Son, Inc., the succeeding landowner. Whoever it was, they were party to the City's disappointment and had to know that the City was played for a sucker by Holcim (US), Inc.
"Dear Mr. Stever,
"Your phone message of this morning advising me that your client is not prepared to move forward at this time with the land transfer of the Holcim parcel identified on a survey date June 9, 2012, revised as of October 1, 2012, demonstrates nothing short of bad faith on your part and the part of your client.
"You and your client have known about this proposed transfer since at least 2007. ... On October 10, 2012, the City sent you the Title Commitment prepared for [the] parcel.
"During November and December of 2012, I made several phone calls to you requesting a date for closing. You indicated that a possible sale of the parcel was pending. You further indicated that this sale might be causing the delay.
"On January 10, 2013, the City sent you a proposed deed .... You received a proposed final survey which Holcim and O&G agreed to in August. To [now] suggest that the deed and survey did not reflect the understanding of the parties as of January 2013, was and is simply not true. ...
"You responded by phone call on January 29, 2013, and advised that your client was requesting a delay on the closing with the City until after the alleged pending property sale with a private entity.
"In reliance on Holcim's assurances, transmitted through you, the City has expended substantial funds to finalize this transfer, including ordering a title search, conducting a detailed survey, hiring additional counsel, and now, as you know, has signed a contract with an engineering firm to conduct a Phase I in anticipation of closing on this parcel in February [2013].
"More importantly, it seems clear that Holcim's position, if accurately reflected in your voice email [earlier that day], is designed to delay the property transfer to the City until after this alleged sale to a private party. ...
"The City will also seek reimbursement for any and all taxpayer funds expended on this land transaction since January 1, 2012" [etc.]."