Rumor has it that there was a ruling by a judge on Thursday, March 20 regarding the North Hills property. There was a motion to dismiss Ron Campbell and Roy Marple from the lawsuit. The judge denied the motion to dismiss. Further rumor is that the negotiated price of the North Hills property will start at $5.1 million, and damages will be on top of that.
Roy Marple recently purchased the old Sir Loin's Inn restaurant property in North Little Rock.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It seems to me, that every single step that the City Council has taken in this entire matter from its inception until now has not been "above board".
Now, the judge in this case has set the tone with his ruling, and, their actions will be held accountable through awarding damages that could very well exceed the city's own funded appraisal of the property.
At each and every turn, the City Council was given the opportunity to do the right thing, and allow a vote of the people to give them a mandate for their actions in either direction. But, no, they no what's best for us. And, now their own arrogance will cost us.
The city council's actions have landed us in a lawsuit that we will not prevail in, and, seemingly could cost us millions without so much as any consideration for purchase of the property.
The old adage of "you will reap what you sow" is so very appropriate in this instance!
The Citizens Should Have Had The Opportunity To Vote On The Golf Course.
I agree with you. Why didn't the Mayor put that on her agenda the first month she was Mayor. She waited until the Council was going to condemn the property and read her speech to the Council saying they should take this to the vote of the people. How many months passed while she was Mayor, and not once did she say "I am proposing to take this issue to the vote of the people." Where was the real leadership to push for a vote of the people???
Jack & Badkarma -
I do agree with you that we should have had the chance to vote on this. But, exactly when is it that Mayor Hillman could have introduced the proposal for a vote?
Right after they voted for a building moritorium on the property, after they rejected the owners development plan or when they voted to condemn?
Mayor Hillman never waivered in her leadership. You can't get anything done without a vote of the council. They obviously already had their minds made up well before they met in public.
Would that proposal have prevailed if it would have been shot down by the council? NO.
If you want to rant about something, rant about the council that shoved this down our throats and ignored the Mayor and the will of the people.
You can't get legislation passed unless it's ratified by the governing body. And, you can't exercise veto power if it were to be over-riden.
I have heard the Mayor argue that the issue should be brought to a City vote even during her election. She has never waived from her original position.
I really think the Judge will understand the entire process and place financial burden on the parties that created the entire situation.
The federal judge placed a "stay" on the case waiting until the lower courts sets a price. However, the federal judge also had the parties from the city (City Attorney, Municipal League Attorney and City's private legal council) admit that 1. The actions taken by the council interfered with a valid real estate contract. 2. That the purchase price shall start at $5.1 million.
I've also heard that the federal judge stated that individual Alderman (except Alderman Sulcer) over-stepped their legislative authority thereby relinquishing their legislative immunity. The Alderman can now be sued individually. Wow - they might actually have to pay for what they've done!
The property owners will not settle this case with the City. Like I said before...Don't blame Mayor Hillman. This entire situation was in play before she even announced for office. It has been the Alderman that created this fiasco and it is the Alderman that will lay this financial albatross upon our shoulders.
Your intimate knowledge of the particulars of the case is quite astounding. I didn't blame the Mayor for the situation. I was making a simple point that she had many months to promote the issue to take it to the vote of the people. Reading the last several posts, it sure seems like that you want the city to lose and be punished. What if the judge rules in favor of the city? Is that a possibility since a summary judgement was not granted?
I don't want the city as a whole punished, but the actions that the council took up to this point were beyond absurd.
If you want something, and want to purchase it, fine, offer a fair price, and close the deal.
However, if you interfere with a contract that is in play, stimie a financial transaction, halt development, kill a contract, refuse a new development plan and ultimately condemn, don't you think that those actions should be punished?
All one has to do to learn the particulars of this case is to read, make phone calls to the court and speak with those involved. This lawsuit is going to cost us much more than dollars.
Post a Comment