However - and more critically for deciding what to do now - I think the city is still trapped in a Basim-with-industrial or Basim-with-industrial-and-housing choice.
Let's take the contract provisions Barb cited singly:
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2001 the Board authorized the Agency to enter into this Agreement to convey the Property to the Developer for development of a 64,000 sq. foot mixed use commercial, office and light industrial facility on the Property;
[DB} A key provision, since the housing plan cuts the industrial space below 64,000. However, if Sabri goes ahead and builds without the condos, he will fulfill this obligation, so the contract's in force. His preferred Plan B is condos, which requires renegotiation, but if he doesn't get what he wants, he still controls the land through Plan A.
pg. 5 Article II Representations, Section 2.02, Representations of the Developer, (b) There are no pending or threatened legal proceedings, of which the Developer has notice, contemplating the liquidation or dissolution of the Developer or threatening its existence, or seeking to restrain or enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Agreement, or questioning the authority of the Developer to execute and deliver this Agreement or the validity of this Agreement.
[DB] Despite Sabri's bribery trial, it's doubtful this provision cancels the contract. Why? 2 reasons.
[DB] First, the whole idea of corporations is to shield owners from personal liability; conversely, if the person goes down, the corporation typically continues. Sabri the Development Corporation likely won't be dissolved by a bribery trial, so there's probably nothing hopeful here for his foes.
[DB] Also, this provision was negotiated with charges hanging over his head. There's no way the parties agree to this provision if it terminates the deal.
pg. 10 Article V Construction of Improvements; Certificate of Completion, Section 5.01, Construction of Improvements. In the event closing occurs and subject to the terms and conditions herein, the Developer will construct the Minimum Improvements on the Property in substantial conformance with the approved Construction Plans. (This is the piece some on the council used to make the point that the developer was fulfilling the terms of this contract)
[DB] This reconfirms that housing is not allowed by the Contract. But again, we already know that. Basim has to renegotiate for that. But if the renegotiations fail, nothing quoted prohibits him from Plan A, the light-industrial design.
pg. 24 Article XI Additional Provisions, Section 11.02, Restrictions on use. The Developer agrees to devote the Property to, and only to and in accordance with, the uses specified in the Redevelopment Plan, the Deed, and this Agreement and shall not unlawfully discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental, or in the use or occupancy of the Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Upon request by the Developer, the Agency shall deliver a written certification of Developer's compliance with the Redevelopment Plan or a statement specifying the basis of the Developers non-compliance.
[DB] I think Barb and others have a point here: Sabri won't be able to restrict ownership to Somalis. But I'm sure he's willing to build the housing anyway, and my guess is mostly Somalis will live there.
Section 2: In the event the Purchaser herein shall, prior to the recording of the Certificate of Completion:
a) default in or violate its obligations with respect to the construction of the improvements (including the nature and date for the completion thereof) provided for in this Deed and the Agreement, or shall abandon or substantially suspend construction work and any default of violation, abandonment or suspension shall not be cured, ended or remedied within 60 days after written demand by the Seller so to do; then the seller shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the property and to terminate and revest in the Seller the estate conveyed by this Deed to the Purchaser, its assigns or successors in interest. Such reversion of the title shall, however, be subject to the lien of any outstanding mortgage authorized by the Agreement.
[DB] Anything here indicate asking for an additional use constitutes abandonment? Has such a request resulted in "substantial suspension of construction work?"
[DB] Again, I don't support Sabri or the project necessarily. But I still don't see evidence that Sabri has violated the original contract, meaning he still controls the site if he's willing to build without housing. If that's the case, you have to decide which configuration you prefer - with him at the helm.
Of course, those with policy disagreements should make their feelings known at the polls and elsewhere. I, too, am scratching my head at the city's low price. However, I still don't see the legal case for booting Sabri from the property, even if it was a bad deal with the personage involved.
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
