In the Fall of 2006, the Geneva Hispanic Church of God submitted a purchase offer for a few parcels of city-owned land (totaling 150’ x 120’). The church, located on Kirkwood Ave in the City of Geneva, consists of about 25 young families, most of whom are Puerto Rican Americans. The land they are interested in is immediately behind their church and is not accessible by any existing, paved city street. (Click here for an enlarged map of the parcels in question.)
City Council discussed their purchase offer in executive session, otherwise known as “the back room,” and rejected it. They told the church the City wanted to hold the property for future economic development.
In March 2007, a City Councilor brought forward another purchase offer for the same parcels. Council filed into the backroom again to consider the offer. The new offer was from an unnamed buyer, for an unspecified amount, for no particular use— at least none of that information was given to all Councilors. This time, though, Council said they were ready to sell the land, the process for “sale of city property” was activated, and a public hearing has been scheduled for May 2nd.
Mark Venuti, attorney for the church, has come forward with concerns about the way his clients have been treated by the City. In an open letter to City Councilors, officials, and Kirkwood Ave residents, he tells the story of the church since its founding and raises serious doubts about the way the City has handled this matter.
(Click here to read the letter in its entirety, posted with Venuti’s permission.)
To Venuti, it looks like the church may be getting the run around from the City, and that they may be victims of discrimination on the basis of their race and ethnicity. To Capraro and Augustine, it looks like the City may be using backroom sessions to pull off another deal out of the public eye.
Venuti and Council have been told there was a petition circulated three months ago that shows unanimous opposition to selling the property to the church. Venuti, Capraro, and Augustine have all requested a copy, but no one seems able to produce it. A few neighbors contacted say the only petition they recall being circulated on Kirkwood involved a convicted sex offender taking up residence in the area.
A few months ago it was said that the land was not for sale at all, that it was being saved for unspecified future development. Now it’s up for sale again with no mention of an economic development project (click here to see the ad). What is going on?
City Council discussed their purchase offer in executive session, otherwise known as “the back room,” and rejected it. They told the church the City wanted to hold the property for future economic development.
In March 2007, a City Councilor brought forward another purchase offer for the same parcels. Council filed into the backroom again to consider the offer. The new offer was from an unnamed buyer, for an unspecified amount, for no particular use— at least none of that information was given to all Councilors. This time, though, Council said they were ready to sell the land, the process for “sale of city property” was activated, and a public hearing has been scheduled for May 2nd.
Mark Venuti, attorney for the church, has come forward with concerns about the way his clients have been treated by the City. In an open letter to City Councilors, officials, and Kirkwood Ave residents, he tells the story of the church since its founding and raises serious doubts about the way the City has handled this matter.
(Click here to read the letter in its entirety, posted with Venuti’s permission.)
To Venuti, it looks like the church may be getting the run around from the City, and that they may be victims of discrimination on the basis of their race and ethnicity. To Capraro and Augustine, it looks like the City may be using backroom sessions to pull off another deal out of the public eye.
Venuti and Council have been told there was a petition circulated three months ago that shows unanimous opposition to selling the property to the church. Venuti, Capraro, and Augustine have all requested a copy, but no one seems able to produce it. A few neighbors contacted say the only petition they recall being circulated on Kirkwood involved a convicted sex offender taking up residence in the area.
A few months ago it was said that the land was not for sale at all, that it was being saved for unspecified future development. Now it’s up for sale again with no mention of an economic development project (click here to see the ad). What is going on?
6 comments:
Bids on the property are open to everyone, so have the Church submit a bid for the property. The City should be motivated to get City owned land on the tax rolls. Market economics should take care of the bidding process, without politics or racial prejudice. The land should be offered to the highest bidder. A petition from neighbors should be meaningless. If the neighbors are that concerned, they too can submit a bid. I wish the Church well. I hope the Councilors, including the two that have posted this message, get up to speed.
I love how Councilors Capraro and/or Augustine refer to the City Coucil Body, as they are not included in the body themselves ("To Capraro and Augustine, it looks like the City may be using backroom sessions to pull off another deal out of the public eye.") Note to Councilors Capraro and/or Augustine: you are part of the back room. It has been a common practice to handle the sale or lease of City-owned property in Executive Session. Your post will not change the process. Each of you are responsible for fairness once you enter the room.
My hat off to local attorney, Mark Venuti, an outstanding Genevan. I am proud of your integrity, Mark.
Was the Church's offer not considered by the City because it would be transferred from City owned property to the Church and stay off the tax roll because of it's tax exempt status? I can see the presures for the City to get property on the tax rolls. But what meaningful development could happen on that site. The Church would probably continue to clean the site up.
How do you propose to change the system, Councilor's Augustine and Capraro?
Part of the problem with anonymous comments is that it's hard to distinguish which anonymous poster we're responding to. But here goes:
#1: Aren't we part of the back room?
You are right that "it has been a common practice to handle the sale or lease of City-owned property in Executive Session." To that, we would refer you (and the majority of City Council) to the State law regarding open meetings. The link isn't showing correctly in this window, but you can find it in our Document Library (that link is on the main page of the blog). There are a few things about Executive Session that people aren't aware of. First, that it is optional, not required. Second, that the topics are very limited. Third, that a very specific accounting of what will be discussed is required to be disclosed to the public before a vote for Executive Session is taken. Lastly, what is discussed in Executive Session is confidential *only* if it was legitimately confidential. That means that when we discuss whether or not to offer a parcel for sale we are not discussing items that would substantially effect the property's value and therefore the discussion is not legitimately held outside of the public meeting. To the extent that what happens in 'the back room' is legitimate, we *are* participants. When it goes off track, however, we have a two-fold duty as elected representatives. First, we must try to steer the topic back on course; second, we must witness the discussion so that the public can be informed.
#3: And what do we plan to do about it?
Again, there is a lag in these posts. So, a post about Councilor Capraro's effort to reform executive session is not slated to appear until the end of the week. But in that post, you will see that Capraro demanded that the City follow the law with regard to Executive Session. The City Manager and City Attorney conceded his point and have agreed to provide an agenda of executive session topics prior to the vote. This allows the public to know that the topics to be discussed are legitimate to occur 'in the back room' and for us to know if we stray from those topics. We would argue that this very blog, with the accountability it brings to Council activity, is part of the solution.
#2: The City's position, as communicated to Attorney Venuti, is that the city was holding the property for future development. We might assume that such future development would be taxable. However, the City did not specify that the current sale is for the purpose of residential development, nor did RFPs for the property go out to potential developers in the way that the RFP for other city-owned land (such as Ridgewood) did. Assuming that the undeveloped lot is currently assessed at $3,600; given the current tax rate ($18.22) then the annual tax revenue generated from a sale of the land without additional improvements would be $65.60. If the collection of that $65 is the reason for discounting the church's proposal (submitted many months ago) perhaps there is a way to enter into a PILOT for that amount. Additionally, as our post on tax exemptions pointed out, we are not in a position to control properties acquired by organizations that fall under the mandatory exemptions (this includes churches).
When we purchased city owned property we had to fill out a proposal for use of the property and were given a time line to fulfill these obligations. After closing we were given a tax bill based on an assessment of $36,700.00. This was confusing as the city admitted the property was basically worthless and they wanted to tear it down.
I am very concerned that the prospective buyer for the Maryland Street property remains annomious along with their intentions with said property.
This is another example of the city doing as they wish without the public's knowledge.
They tried the same back door tactics with front yard parking on Exchange Street and I guess they still haven't resolved these parking issues with North Exchange Street residants.
What has transpired concerning the cookery block that you mentioned in the blog ?
Post a Comment