THIS POST HAS BEEN BUMPED UP BECAUSE OF NEW UPDATES BELOW.
At Monday’s meeting the Council majority (Smith, Comegys & Shields) voted to purchase for $50,000 – calling it “a gift” – property believed to be a contaminated former oil terminal without first getting what is a standard item in such a situation, a “Phase 2” environmental analysis of the property. Council members Campbell and Cohen, who were opposed to proceeding without that routine precaution, indicated that they were not against acquiring the property if it were determined to be remediable at reasonable cost. Ms. Cohen pointed out that before the City purchased the nearby site on which it built the new firehouse, it got a Phase 2 study of that land.
The common sense approach (to look before leaping) was flatly rejected by the three stooges, whose vote was accompanied by their now familiar and asinine pontification, Comegys being the leader as usual, and Shields the erstwhile buffoon with Smith’s support. Bubba accepts as accurate an appraisal that was made in the absence of information about the extent of the contamination and its effect on the value of the property. That’s brilliance by someone who has taken personal bankruptcy.
The stooges felt that no delay or demand on the seller could be made to protect the City. As usual, Ms. Shields tried to play the race card against the members who wanted to proceed in an appropriate and businesslike manner by exercising due diligence.
Ms. Cohen offered and Ms. Campbell seconded a series of amendments that were defeated by 3-2 vote. One of them – to strike the assumption by the City of the seller’s debt – would have converted the transaction to a true gift rather than a sale, and the others would have afforded various protections to the City against the risk and expense of the contamination. By his silence on the amendments as well as the resolution itself, the City Attorney, Paul Wilber, in effect, advised the City to proceed without getting the Phase 2 analysis or any real protection against the risk of a clear and present danger. The same can be said of the City Administrator, John Pick.
But the shocking aspect of the matter was the conduct of Mayor Ireton, who sat there mute as it unfolded before his very eyes, although apparently he had sent an e-mail earlier in the day stating his view of the matter.
UPDATE: A company called SALCAP LLC purchased this property in 2002 for, get this, $10,000.00. It has been reported that it took almost a year to go to settlement because of environmental issues. Nevertheless, in 2003 they had a closing on the property and the Deed was signed by Chris Mason. OK, so why is that of interest? Because Chris Mason works for Paul Wilber's Office.
At one time there was oil actually leaking from the property directly into the river. The MDE came in and spent something like $150,000.00 to put equipment onto the property to absorb the oil in the ground.
Now, since it's an actual purchase by the City, it would have to be done by an ordinance and NOT a resolution, as proposed last night.
On another note referencing this matter, did Mayor Ireton give Paul Wilber permission to give an "opinion" to the Daily Times?
Who owns the property?
ReplyDeleteI guess you forgot that the mayor is actually supposed to stay silent at these meetings unless he/she is asked to comment. Don't you remember everyone getting upset at Tilghman for saying stuff? Council meetings are just that--council meetings, and the mayor is there as a guest. I do wish Ireton would get more aggressive behind the scenes, but his behavior at council meetings is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, Joe, I watched the show last night and Mrs. Cohen asked that the mayor be allowed to speak. After cutting Mrs. Cohen off, it sounded like Mrs. Smith would let him speak, but then she wouldn't call him. The mayor can't speak up unless called on. Butt-in Barrie was just rude and broke rules.
ReplyDelete9:18-
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong! There is no law, rule or custom that the mayor must not speak unless requested. And he does not need to be called on in order to do so, although it is good practice for him/her to ask, either orally or by passing a written request to the chair.
The Mayor deserves much credit for not barging into the conversation because he has no standing at teh council meetings. However, Smith's level of unprofessionalism was at its peak last night. That's for sure.
ReplyDeleteSure sounds like you are trying to control the mayor. You keep blasting him for not doing what you tell him.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at history the owner of this property after the sale is still liable for any enviromental issues. This is fact.
ReplyDeleteHelp Is On The Way!!!
ReplyDeleteNOT if it's considered a "gift." Nice try Gary.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that the mayor can't speak "because he has no standing" at a council meeting is absurd. Ireton should have used the "bully pulpit" last night -- that was another missed opportunity. Maybe he can have another big press conf. now.
ReplyDelete9:50 --
ReplyDeleteThat's one of theose "oldies but goodies" NOT!
9:49 -- the owner is an LLC you idiot.
ReplyDeleteThe gist of all this is that the City residents are screwed again by these 3 idiots. It's not a "gift" if you have to pay $50,000 to get it, and NOBODY purchases property with that history of operations without checking the contamination levels and the clean up costs. Did Wilber consult with an environmental attorney before allowing this to go through? Federal clean up laws can be VERY costly. Smooth move you morons!
ReplyDeleteIt's very plain to see - anything that is good for the city, that the mayor is for, that the 2 C's are for, the rest of the buffoons are going to be against, period. And Shanie using the race card last nite was absolutely uncalled for and yes, I'm saying something about it because if a white person got up there and spouted off like she did last nite, they would be a racist for the rest of time but it's o.k. for her to do it, nope, I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteJoe, since you seem to think you have all the answers why don't you just run for mayor next time around? OR do you really just prefer to sit on the sidelines and stir up trouble? I think it's time for you to either put up or ......
ReplyDeleteanonymous 10:24, while I have answered that question many times in the past, you clearly missed it, so here goes.
ReplyDeleteI stated in the past that I would not relocate into Salisbury "this go around." The former Mayor had screwed up the City so bad, there was no way I was going to step in this go around and instead I'd let others do the job for 4 years and in time we'll see what they're capable of. Besides, it couldn't be any worse than Barrie Tilghman.
Then I started to realize that I had far more influence and power on this Blog than I would ever have as Mayor, City Council, County Council and yes, even County Executive.
So for now I will sit back and pass judgment on whomever I so choose and as we continue to grow each and every day, I'm making a positive difference, period.
Now you may not like my answer but that's how it is. IF Ireton doesn't grow a pair, I may just consider running. I'm a proven businessman who has experience taking charge and FIRING those non uniformed and liars out of their jobs. Hell, I'll never forget Jim Rapp's face when he kept asking me, seriously Joe, what would you do. I replied, Jim, if you worked for me I'd fire you. That was the second time I ever met him but it was the truth. I could see right through his BS and he knew it. I didn't lie and I got the job done, like it or not.
Back to the site in question...
ReplyDeleteIt could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up a piece of property, and by voting to accept it without first finding out how extensive and expensive a clean up would be IS INEXCUSABLE.
What kind of fools are these guys??
(Elected fools is probably the answer. Sadly.)
This is incredible and inexcusable -- Wilber is now spouting legal opinions to the Daily Times -- see the text, below, from today's issue:
ReplyDelete"If Ireton chooses to veto the resolution, as implied in his e-mail conveying his opposition to the donation, it may not be as simple as not signing the agreement. Wilber said only resolutions which relate to significant action may be overridden. Recognition as significant city business is an opinion by the city attorney made on a case by case basis due to vague language in the city charter, Wilber said."
* * * * *
In the past his opinions were always "privileged and confidential."
Anon 10:40 asked...What kind of fools are these guys??
ReplyDeleteThe kind that follow Barrie Tilghman around like the whipped dogs they are. This whole thing has Tilghman written all over it.
Jim Ireton you would be wise to veto anything coming from that group.
The donation is going to cost a lot more than $50,000. Clearing the trust deed will cost $50,000. The phase 2 assessment will cost between $10,000 and $20,000. Dmolishing the storage tanks will cost between $40,000 and $60,000. So the total cost of this gift will be between $100,000 and $130,000. If the lot is polluted it will cost a hell of a lot more.
ReplyDeleteCouncil was playing the new reality show, Who's Dumber? They started out with a piece of real estate that is probably contaminated. Then, they showed how clueless they are by playing lawyer, ignoring the facts, following blindly and finally saying the West Side's got to have this cause they need something. All of them should stay home and give the people a chance to get a real government. What a joke!
ReplyDeleteHey 9:53 idiot, I haved work for a LLC and been involved with the sale of a LLC. We were responsible for pulling our underground tanks and replacing them idiot.
ReplyDeleteActually, acceptance of land with questionable environmental status WITHOUT obtaining an independent evaluation subjects the City to potential cleanup liability. For oil, MDE typically only pursues those who own or operate at the time the spill/leak/release occurred. However, if the tanks (above or below ground) are still leaking or a release is ongoing (such as oil gradually migrating off site or into surface waters), the City WILL BE an owner at the time a release is occurring and therefore incur full liability.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, technical liability is only half the problem. What good is the land if not used? When the City wants to use the property, it will have to make sure it is cleaned up first, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY LIABLE. The taxpayers will incur that cost.
Accepting this land, IF it is polluted, without an independent evaluation is malfeasance and a violation of the public trust. Both of which are cause for removal from office.
So lets remove them...Bubba, Weasle and the shanie the follower
ReplyDeletewant to do that. You do a great job just where your are!
ReplyDeleteI have never seen such asinine performances as demonstrated by Comegys, Shields and Smith last nite. Terry kept plugging along like the trooper she is, but it was obvious that the fat cat (Comegys) wasn't going to agree or go along with anything she said and Smith wasn't going to shut him up either. Smith gets very, very rude with C & C but she has no problem with Comegys and Shields going off the deep end. Ireton, you now need to do your job and veto this mess these idiots got the citizens of Salisbury into.
ReplyDeletePaul Wilbur. That explains everything.
ReplyDeleteJim please don't be afraid of the terrible trio. They are NOT as scary as they look.
ReplyDeletejust another SWEETheart deal!
ReplyDelete2:17 - they may not be scary, but they have a majority. His hands are tied unless he can lure one of them away from the dark side
ReplyDeletehaha, my verification word is palin.
The idiots that appoved this deal
ReplyDeletewill be on the $hit list.
I don't believe that they realize
the problems they will have in the very near future. People are tired of this crap and someone will pay.
From Wikipedia: A gift or a present is the transfer of something, without the need for compensation that is involved in trade. A gift is a voluntary act which does not require anything in return. Even though it involves possibly a social expectation of reciprocity, or a return in the form of prestige or power, a gift is meant to be free.
ReplyDeleteHow is paying $10000 for something free?
5:01
ReplyDeleteGo back to sleep or say something half intelligent.
5:01: Maybe I missed something that you saw: "At Monday’s meeting the Council majority (Smith, Comegys & Shields) voted to purchase for $50,000 – calling it “a gift” – property believed to be a ..."
ReplyDeleteA gift is FREE. How is paying $50,000 for something considered FREE? Your(?) Council voted to pay this money for some FREE property from people that only paid $10,000 for it without regard to the total cost of ownership that could result from an (after sale) EPA analysis that would make the property WORTHLESS.
This is not FREE nor is it responsible.
WTF? That quote in the paper says the city attorney gets to decide what vetoes count and which don't???????? And his office was involved in this???????
ReplyDeleteThis STINKS!!!!! Ireton needs to get rid of that guy who makes the law up as he goes along.
Same old, same old!
ReplyDeleteWhen's the last time you had to purchase a gift? A gift is a gift, or it's not. If you have to pay for it, it could be & probably is some sort of scam.
Why SPEND THE MONEY now, in these troubled times.
ReplyDeleteBuild a library, rescue downtown, BUY this gift...?
Will it NEVER end?
Clean & Fix our streets why don'tcha?
Rather plant trees no one will care for till time to cut them down?
Like the 100 or so planted in front of Bennett a few short years ago?
USE YOUR HEADS! Jackbutts!
This is a very interesting thread, having lived in the Salisbury area for most of my life, and now in Los Angeles working as an environmental scientist, on the assessment and remediation of contaminated industrial sites. Despite the heated opinions, from a technical and legal standpoint, several of you are absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though some degree of assessment has likely occurred over time if the parties involved understand the historical use of the property in question, and the potential for contamination at the site. Unless there was an indemnification agreement "gifted" to the City, as well, the City would be held 100% responsible for the remediation of the parcel and any clean-up costs incurred. Blantant disregard for the issues surrounding the subsurface conditions site will not make them go away, and certainy will not help speed the redevelopment of the property.
With oil terminals, not only do we typically encounter total petroleum hydrocarbons(TPH)in the soil and/or groundwater, but often methyl ethyl ketones(MEK), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), kerosenes, lubricating oils, and sometimes even creosote, which results in concentrations of DNAPL. It's difficult, if not impossible to accurately guesstimate the subsurface investigation and laboratory costs without an understanding of number and depth of soil and sediment borings, number of water samples to be collected, drilling company, etc.
If the site is found to be contaminated with concentrations above regulatory reporting limits, then it is the environmental engineer's duty to report the information to the MDE or appropriate regulatory oversight program agency. Remediation could take several months to several years, depending on the degree of contamination and the nature of adversely impacting media. Perhaps they could apply for a Brownfields Program grant.
Either way, it sounds like this property will not be suitable for immediate use and could be contaminating neighboring sites or the underlying aquifer. Off-site contaminant migration is another issue that the City would be responsible for addressing and ultimately funding.