Thursday, July 8, 2010

Slip and slide under the radar

Buried in a side bar column in today's SP (July 8/10) is an article of the sale of River Landing property to a developer who is going to build the live/work project. The land was sold at less than half of the appraised value and no mention is made of the conditions attached to the sale other than the purchase price must be paid in full within a year. There is no mention of due diligence, financial stability or a time line for completion.

I find it rather interesting that neither the press or the groups opposed to any private development on RL raised any concerns on this sale of land or development itself. Was the property tendered? What happens if the developer can't complete the project? Does the land revert back to the city? So many questions, so few answers.

I never believed the appraisals that were put forth recently when council was dealing with Lake Placcid so I understand the sale price. What I don't understand is why one group is jumping through hoops and the another developer gets a green light.

Different strokes for different folks.


  1. Did you bother reading the council minutes Elaine??? It doesn't seem like it...unless you are just complaining about the press coverage? but I don't think you are...

    From briefly skimming the council minutes, it seems that all you are wondering about is was less of a spectacle because PEDCO didn't miss as many deadlines as Lake Placid. I think it's as simple as that. Lobsinger shoots his mouth off and claims to have money he doesn't have, that he is just a signature away, but kept missing deadlines.

    I'm actually more surprised that you have no idea of the Eco-Village project, it went to public debate a couple years ago and was in the press. Council voted to sell the land to PEDCO, just like the did for Lake Placid. Similarly getting financing took longer than expected, but they requested extensions and it seems they followed the protocol outlined for them and have come up with the required money. Pretty straight forward. It looks like it'll be a fantastic project.

  2. but...I am actually surprised it didn't receive more press. It's an interesting project that could make a big difference in Riversdale. I too would have liked more coverage of the sale. I was surprised with the half-assed mention of the project.

  3. I believe the Mistress's point holds true. The CofS is definitely playing favorites and has all kinds of different rules when playing the game with different businesses. But that seems to be the norm in this country. CAn anyone say BAIL-OUT!!! As to this project getting off lightly by the press that doesn't surprise me one bit, they are in love with anything that comes close to an "Eco Project". Something that I believe will in the end cost tax payers millions. To save what??? a couple of drops of water and maybe some fuel. These types of projects end up wasting more energy in construction than the payback is worth. Oh and just because you put nice things around the Riversdale Community doesn't mean the folks living there and causing all the problems will change their stripes. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink the cool-aide.

    So where do I get all these reduced prices from the city anyway? I bet my taxes are still going to go up while our city Fathers and "Mothers" hand out millions in corporate tax breaks and cheap land.

  4. So if PEDCO kept being unable to meet deadlines why was there no press about this? Why wasn't their rights to the land scrutinized? I imagine because the term 'Eco" was attached to the projects and immediately the imbeciles (see first poster above) think 'Eco' must mean good for the environment so we must move forward with it at any cost. Can't question the 'Eco-village' or you are anti environment.

    Anyone with a semblance of understanding can see that Lobsinger and PEDCO were playing by two different sets of rules. This further exposes council as the frauds they are, meandering to those they choose. All public land should be handled in the same way, regardless of who the bidders are. This was not the case here.

  5. Anon 11:02 - No I did not read the council minutes. My comments reflect more on the lack of coverage about this group vis-a-vis Lake Placcid developers. This group did not meet its deadlines over the past five years yet were given extensions that were not easily granted to Lake Placcid. The SP article also stated that this developer has faced delays and continues to seek financing. Yet the land continues to be held for this developer and extensions granted. Why this developer and not other developers?

    As for the anti-development group expressing concern about private development on RL, they just seemed noticeably quiet about this developer.

  6. Mistress, the reason the anti-development group is noticeably more silent is because it is nothing but an interest based lobby group looking out for their own, and their friends, interests under the guise of being for a natural riverbank.

    They are silent because they know the Eco-Village will benefit their friends and therefore want it to go forward. The Lobsinger bid does them no good, hence their opposition.

  7. wow. so much bitter paranoia here. yup it's an eco-leftist conspiracy!!!

  8. If you google these notforprofits. Brenda Wallace is the founder. Isnt there a city manager with that name. Hence the under the radar. I wonder if this project will be tendered publicly or given to other not-for-profits. There are No accountability mechanisms in place for CBO's, NGO's in this province. Have fun with your 30 million. Dig a little deeper folks....this is politically stinky like the cat house story.

  9. the person who hasn't read the council reports on this development is saying dig a little deeper?????

    that's where I would usually start if I was afraid of a development process being hidden from public eyes!

  10. Anon above, what interest are you seeking to protect and where does is say that Anon did not read the council reports?

    What are you trying to hide? I would think that giving straight up answers as opposed to responding to questions with questions would be more transparent from you.

    What is your agenda? Are you linked with the Brenda Wallace?

  11. well ok..any of the paranoid anon's here....did you read the council reports? you seem really concerned about information not being public, but you've yet to reference anything specific or comment intelligently on the deal that was given to pedco.

    no one is trying to hide anything, just maybe get you (all?) to read the terms of the agreement with pedco and comment on whether it seemed fair.....not whether the star phoenix provided enough coverage of it or whether there was enough public outrage to satisfy you.

    there is a nice summary here:

    that might make it easier for you. otherwise there is no point in debating you.

  12. anon above,

    it's not so much about the information not being public, nor do i think david hutton's personal opinion on the matter is particularly relevant.

    what i do think is important is that all city land and tenders are conducted in the same manner and by the same rules, which clearly does not seem to be the case here, and for which david hutton notes is probably because "it's a comparatively smaller project on a piece of land that doesn't have the same history or importance". that again is not the point, the point is why is the city able to subjectively treat some tenders and entities differently than others.

    if we allow this, even if it is on a smaller scale project, then we begin potentially opening pandora's box. that is the main issue here. what if on another smaller project say similar size to the PEDCO, a member of Atch's family wins a bid? or if the city, able to subjectively treat different projects with a different microscope unfairly treats one construction company differently than another.

    that is the big question that supporters ofn PEDCO continue to dodge answering is that why at any time should there be a different standard to which the city should be held based on the project size?

    I am not saying that the press and attention to detail should be the same for all projects, but I am saying that if you run a red light on dead street with no traffic and a cop sees you he should be issuing you a ticket just as he would if you did it on 8th Street in rush hour. if you fail to meet your obligations under a tender with the city the consequences should be the same regardless of whether it is a 40 million dollar tender or a 2 million dollar tender.

  13. Anon 10:39 comes closest to nailing this one, folks there was NO tender process on the PEDCO land deal it was done by direct sale! If you think for a moment this is somehow fair please speak up. I don't think there is some sort of ecoleftist conspiracy but I do think there are two different sets of game rules afoot here.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.