My original question to those opposing the mayor's veto was this: If Sabri owns the land and can properly build his light-industrial project anyway, do you reject the housing, and with it, the property taxes, or not?
Barb (whom I thank for not speculating on my motives or agenda for merely asking a forum question) and Jim reject the assumption, and therefore avoid answering the question. Fair enough - if somehow the city can get out of the land sale, then it's a new ballgame. However, it's also possible that the deed is proper. If that's true, I reiterate my question: do you reject the new housing component and with it the added property taxes, or not? As to whether the city has the power to re-take the property: Jim says he's read the deed. I've reread Jim's list posts for specifics about why the deed is invalid. My good-faith search turned up this Sunday post: >>The property was to be used for the industrial uses described and in the deed and if it were not used in that manner, it was to revert to the City of Minneapolis. Unless those conditions were released in a legal manner they continue. Basim Sabri demonstrated that he had dealt in "bad faith" when he immediately applied for a zoning change to use the property in a way that violated the terms and conditions of the transfer document. As such City officials (if operating in a proper fiduciary manner) should have retaken possession of the property.<< In short, Jim says Sabri "immediate" application for housing cancels the land transfer because it represents "bad faith." In other words, the city should potentially go to court and argue that Sabri asked too quickly for the housing use. That sounds like a pretty thin reed to hang a legal fight on. Does anyone know of a legal "speed limit" for asking for a land-use change - one that the City Council is free to reject, and did? (Question for the forum: do you want your tax dollars spent on such a challenge?) By asking these questions, I'm not endorsing Sabri's business practices or even necessarily supporting the project. As I said in my earlier post, that's ultra-fair game to hold decision-makers responsible for getting us into this pickle when they sold the land in May. However, IF that sale proves legally valid, THEN we have a policy decision to make: allow housing on that site, or not. IF the condition exists, THEN what would you do, and why? David Brauer Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
