12/19/2006 COW meeting

[Count DMC]

Jim, your opinion of each developer (the Bank, Sedgwick, Centrum) is that they are out to cheat the City or whom ever.  I disagree because intent to cheat is a fraud.  You state that a quality developer will have contingencies, that's great as long as those contingencies are agreed upon by both parties.  Then everyone is happy. 

I dont believe Jim ever stated or implied that they were out to cheat the city, but that each proposal will be full of contingencies that are to protect the developer and not necessarily protect the city. Its very simple.

[P-PANTHER a/k/a La Pantera]

and the city can counter with its  own contingencies that protect its own interests.

[Jim Stillo]

Terri,
Your right, it is fraud, go prove it.That's not the reason Applebee's deal failed, it failed because IT WASN' FEASIBLE.
Proposal? You mean there was never a contract? Do you have answer's for Centrum and Segewick, or could we sue them for fraud?
Come On Terri, get real. Maybe I'm just way to synical and these past developers PROPOSALS (again for the upteenth time-segwick/centrum) was a dream of ours.How about the guys who told the city they would build 140 condo's on 35th/Ridgland and then immediately after advertised the property for sale with ZONING. Is this also fraud? See. I'm an honest businessman, when I say I'm gonna do something I put up and tell everyone exactly what I'll be doing. I don't cut corners or bullshit and IT ALWAYS GETS DONE THE WAY I CONTRACTED, PROPOSED, AGREED UPON. Your going to tell me, with the history of the city's negotiation on development you feel good. They city failed, both administrations.
Jim

[Jim Stillo]

Terri,
Sorry, I pulled out for the reasons I stated on another post.
Jim

[P-PANTHER a/k/a La Pantera]

Jim,

The easiest thing in the world to do is prove something memorialized in writing. Piece of cake.

[Jim Stillo]

Panther,
Not sure what you mean?
Also, can't go on, your killing me.

[delbowz]

Folks - I'm not a full blown attorney, but I do have some law school under my belt.  Real Estate Contracts have a contingency clause for inspection of the property.  I am 99% sure that is the clause that Applebee's used to pull out of the deal w/ no damages.  Upon inspection of the property, they realized the cost to rehab/restore it was going to be much more than originally anticipated.  The next contract will also have such clause - and I believe upon inspection, we will see any offer that was contained in a proposal decrease drastically.

Just my 2 cents.

Denise

[mustang54]

Folks - I'm not a full blown attorney, but I do have some law school under my belt.  Real Estate Contracts have a contingency clause for inspection of the property.  I am 99% sure that is the clause that Applebee's used to pull out of the deal w/ no damages.  Upon inspection of the property, they realized the cost to rehab/restore it was going to be much more than originally anticipated.  The next contract will also have such clause - and I believe upon inspection, we will see any offer that was contained in a proposal decrease drastically.

Just my 2 cents.

Denise

You can actually right in any contingency you want in a contract. The question is will the other party sign it.

[OakParkSpartan]

Denise,

The party's have all been through the bank, and have received a structural engineering report.

From what I have read (the structural report and the mold report) and heard the architects speak about, there are problems, but none that aren't correctable (a leaking roof, tuckpointing, repairing part of the facade, remediating mold which was caused by the leaking roof).

Cheers,
Brian

[P-PANTHER a/k/a La Pantera]

Denise,

I don't think there ever was a concrete offer anyway. Simply a proposal. I don't think it got as far as you stated.

[Bonster]

Folks - I'm not a full blown attorney, but I do have some law school under my belt. 

Come on, admit it.  You slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.