September 10, 2007

Fascinating facts from the Ocean State decision

It's sort of shocking to read in the Supreme Court's ruling on the Ocean State case that the city and the mall's former owners "initialed a draft statement of compensation as a first
step toward the plaintiff’s purchase of the mall" in January 2005.
How could that happen?
There was never a City Council or Board of Finance vote until March 2005 to proceed with the purchase, or even to pursue it. Yet three months earlier, the city was giving some kind of tentative approval to its price.
Though there had been whispers, and occasionally even public comments, that the city would need to buy the mall, or take it by eminent doman, there was never a formal vote of any kind that would normally occur before anyone starts talking price.
According to the court ruling, "Negotiations over the disposition of the mall stalled several times" after that initial agreement on the price, so on March 11, the city "informed the mall’s owners that it would ask various city boards to consider acquiring the mall and to begin formal condemnation proceedings."
Again, who made that statement and on what possible basis?
The city had made no decisions at all about the mall and yet somebody in authority decided to tell the former owners of the mall that the city intended to invoke eminent domain if the sale didn't go through.
Three days later, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending the purchase of the mall, followed by a deal to buy it a few days later for $5.3 million.
While the court's decision certainly is good news for the city, it certainly again raises the question of just what was going on in the months preceding that purchase, when there was way too much secrecy and, apparently, some grotesque stretching of authority to which city councilors at least turned a blind eye.
For those who care about open government -- and the press is inherently keenly interested in just that -- this shows what happens when leaders prefer to operate in the shadows.

*******
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.
Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com

36 comments:

Steve Collins said...

The following is from a Feb. 10, 2005 story in the Press, which shows the city's interest in buying the mall site. Notice, though, that there's nothing said about an initial deal on the price. ----

Attorneys for the city and the mall owners are negotiating now, said Couture.

"We’re talking through attorneys," the mayor said. "There’s legal matters that have to be resolved and talked about."

Couture stressed he has no ill will toward the mall owners.

"We’re not in any kind of a battle with the Gatto family," he said.

Couture said he wants the city’s dealings with the company to be friendly, not a legal fight.

"I want them to work with us," he said.

At one meeting with mall owners, Couture said he mentioned that the city might be better off buying the entire parcel and recalled Gatto’s response.

"He said, ‘Mayor, it’s negotiable,’" Couture said.

"We’re in that thought frame," Couture added.

If the city buys the whole thing, the mayor said, parts of it could be sold off to private investors who would follow the city’s plan for the site.

Steve Collins said...

And here's the first time we knew that a deal was imminent, on March 9, 2005 --

http://www.bristolpress.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=14108846&BRD=1643&PAG=461&dept_id=10486&rfi=8

Anonymous said...

Well, Steve, if your looking for a clue, time to start digging through the old emails of those who were seated on the City Council at the time.
Hmmmm.... now who would be the prime suspect?

Anonymous said...

Let's see who was Mayor at the time and who was on the council?

Bristol can do better. Voters have the opportunity to just start over and vote in a new group.

Clean Sweep!

Anonymous said...

I don't think you can blame Ellen or Art for this new information. Kosta and Couture were the people that initiated discussions and in turn did pre-negitiations. The rest of the council was given the information on an as needed basis, even Art. Even though he was labelled "Deputy Mayor", he didn't have any different a role than the rest of the council and he wasn't given any extra info that no one else was given.

You should remember that Kosta really ran the show on the Mall deal.

Anonymous said...

Steve I realize the Ocean State decision is big news but did you have a chance to get any info about the Public Works budget?

Steve Collins said...

I sent an email to the city comptroller this morning asking him to provide whatever information he could about the public works budget. I haven't gotten a response. I don't even know if there's today.

Anonymous said...

Eleln and Art were on the City Council and voted to buy the Mall..regardless its another sign of the Democrats trying to take this city by emenit donaim.

1st the Bugryn Land..The Mall property and now the Democrats on the Board of education are telling people that we'll take the houses on park Street for the new school by emenit domain..

Where does it stop?

Anonymous said...

Whatever you can find out would be great Steve. What you find out about the PW financial situation right now will be the deciding factor for me tomorrow.

I thought I knew who I was going to vote for but now this PW Budget question has come up and I'm on the fence again.

dadebreis said...

Thanks Steve,"initialed a draft statement of compensation as a first step toward the plaintiff’s purchase of the mall" in January 2005.How could that happen?
No doubt...
"Men of factious tempers... or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means,first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people"-James Madison made in The Federalist, No. 10.

Anonymous said...

He bet he has to get your request ok'd by Ellen first!

Anonymous said...

The $56,000 mistake, the scripting, the FOI complaint, the rudeness to dept. heads, that secured my vote NOT TO VOTE FOR ZOPPO! How many more do you need?
Or maybe what I should ask, is how many more issues are we NOT hearing about?

Anonymous said...

Steve,
You may want to call the comptroller and have him fax the PW Budget to you the city system was down today.



City Haller.

Anonymous said...

Now that we’ve got it, what do we do with it?

Ironic isn’t it? Art Ward and Ellen Zoppo can’t seem to keep their mouths shut lately, yet they were both members of City Council in January of 2005. It has now been adjudicate a fact by the highest court in this state that these two (among others) were able to keep their mouths closed and fly under the radar for 3 months while the prestigious law firm of Couture Diamantis & Nicastro (okay, so one really is an attorney,) were able to orchestrate the purchase of the mall. Perhaps we need ol’ Gerry back in the Mayor’s seat – at least it’ll get Ellen and Art to be quiet again.

Enough about that… the important question now remains – what do we do with this thing, now that we have it. As taxpayers we should feel like dogs chasing a car. We’ve now caught up with the thing – this can go great, we can jump inside and go for a ride, our head hanging out the window and our ears blowing in the breeze or, well, the driver might not know we’re there until there’s a thump and a yelp. For the dog, this is not a good scenario. If you ask Art Ward, it appears as if he feels we shouldn’t do anything with this, since he favors disbanding the committee charged with managing the downtown area – perhaps it’s because he can’t make their meetings. And if you ask Ellen she’ll tell us that we can do what ever we want with the mall – just as long as it’s what she says is ok, because since we’re merely taxpayers, we can’t be as smart as her.

Sorry, there I go again. Back to the decision. In its opinion, the honorable court extolled the summary judgment process as a “Special statutory procedure designed to provide an expeditious remedy.” Fantastic. The initial suit was brought before the trial court in June of 2005. Put the fingers and toes away and grab the abacus kids (no, daddy’s grabbing his ankles – because he pays taxes) – June of ’05 was 27 months ago. Better yet, in May, both the city and Job Lot worked together like grown-ups and agreed that it was time to part ways. Yet all of our attorneys on City Council decided that the “expeditious remedy” was just around the corner. So for those keeping score at home, that’s May, June, July, August – ahhh, September, and the honorable court has finally spoken. Let’s keep it conservative (like me) and figure it costs us $1000/ per day to keep the place from killing someone. That’s in the neighborhood of $130,000 to accomplish nothing other than employ lots of lawyers.

The Court went further and discussed that the language of the lease was clear and unambiguous – the only thing in Bristol politics right now that is clear and unambiguous right now is that we need change. Kick ‘em all out – start with voting for Art in tomorrow’s primary – that ensures Ellen’s departure. Then in November pull your heads out of the sand and vote for Ken Johnson. Is he a saint? No. Is he perfect? No. Is he in any way, shape, or form connected with the acquisition of the Bristol Centre Mall? No. Neither are Joe Geladino, Ken Cockayne, or Bob Merrick. That is reason enough to touch their names on the nice shiny new screens. But there are more reasons – these men want to Put Bristol First. They aren’t looking for their faces on the front page of The Press, and there are no ulterior motives of obtaining long political careers. They’re genuine and they act with integrity. It is their message – like that of the contract, that is clear and unambiguous.


The Court in its wisdom also used the word scheme a couple of times in its decision. I need not elaborate on that any further. Also, I must compliment the Court for its reasoning that “there is no discernible difference between the sale that actually occurred and the condemnation that might have occurred.” It’s just a great line in the opinion, and an aside on my part.

In Section III of the opinion, the Court cites the now famous Kelo decision. This is ironic, and it should also be the battle cry for us as taxpayers. The purpose of the Court’s decision was to allow for the mall property to be used for a public use. That generally means that the property has some “public usefulness, utility or advantage… [and] of great advantage to the community.” The Court went on to state that there is a “right of the public to receive and enjoy its benefit.” It’s time for us to receive and start enjoying. But if we bring more Democrats into office, the mall property is more likely to become a petting zoo than a source of civic pride.

Anonymous said...

Hang on here... stop making this about Ellen (and no I am not a supporter of hers) Be fair here, this is not just an Ellen issue. Art Ward was Deputy Mayor and a member of the council as well during this time as were others. As voters, we should be very upset with the group that was in office at this time... some of whom are still in office. This behind "locked doors" planning and total lack of integrity keeps pointing to the fact that we have a real problem with how our city is being run. The issue of accountability needs to be raised. The citizens of Bristol were sold a bill of goods and deserve better. This is more important that lost signs or DUI. This has cost the taxpayers millions and it is one issue that needs to be fixed... period.

Steve Collins said...

Just to be clear -- Nicastro wasn't on the council at the time, but as a private citizen he argued against buying the mall. In fact, that winter he was easily the most prominent critic of the whole idea.

Steve Collins said...

We should also remember, because it is important, that Republican Ron Burns was also on the council and also backed the purchase of the mall. And state Rep. Bill Hamzy, another Republican, was working with Diamantis on the entire project.
It wasn't just Democrats who pushed this thing onto the agenda.

Anonymous said...

Steve-
Thanks for keeping me honest on the Nicastro remark. I get so confused by the deal that he made to help Uncle Gerry into office that I forgot he was out of the scene back then. If what you said regarding his criticism of the deal is true, then let me move to the 3rd and vote him back in.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is this:

No One stood up in 2004 and said: Don't buy the Mall...

Ward or Zoppo and that's who were voting for...

Anonymous said...

Absoluetly correct Steve, Frank was very vocal in his opposition to purchasing the Mall. The contributor of the previous long post either has some personal vendetta against Frank or Democrats in general, or suspects that Frank conspired with Kosta and Couture and it was all an act.

Anonymous said...

Sam,

All you had to do was sit in on a fewmetstings around that time and you would have heard it. Frank was ahh how do I say this? Hopping mad? Apoplectic? Apalled? Aghast? Stumped? Stymied? You get the picture, and he was telling anybody who would listen to him, in or out of public meetings that he could not believe they bought the Mall. All that being said, what would you do with it?

Regards,
Dog Boy

Anonymous said...

When the mall purchase was being talked about, Kosta, Couture, and Hamzy all gave assurances that it was not going to cost extra local taxes because we were going to get millions of dollars from the state that the Governor promised. With Democrats and Republicans all saying this, there was little reason to doubt it at the time. Nobody was critical of the actual purchase at the time because it seemed like a slam dunk for the city. Critics only emerged afterward when it was clear that the state money might not be there.

Anonymous said...

But thats simply not true. Nicastro saw it comming, and he spoke against it in public meetings before the purchase went down, check in the minutes or check the Nutmeg recordings if you dont believe it. As far as sam is concerned, you sound like one of those wealthy ultra-conservative Chippens Hill types, and I doubt you there would be any house in the third district that would suit your needs. Well.. perhaps one.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Clean Sweep - they all need to go. Spade is off the reservation with some of his remarks, possibly a disgruntled RTC member? If you think you're helping us Spade you're not... you sound like a lunatic. First get the facts straight - that's what Detectives do. And the tounge in cheek "attorney" jokes? The way you wrote your post makes you sound like a lawyer wannabe.

The city should use this decision to move forward, demolish the mall as quickly, safely, and economically as possible, and then use the land to create a place that will bring new life to and impact ALL of Bristol, not just downtown.

I support the Bristol First Team. Let's leave the sarcasam and negativity to the Dems.

Anonymous said...

One last correction for our super sleuth Sam. There was never any love loss between Nicastro & Couture. Remember the Letizia event? In fact, Nicastro was barely allowed to speak at Dem headquarters after the results of the Couture loss became evident and Nicastro was elected back to council. A lot of rumblings that night of how Nicastro helped torpedo Couture. No deal there, just Democratic stupidity on the part of the DTC.

Anonymous said...

People supported the concept of the Diamantis/Couture plan until they realized it was going to contain 10 municipal buildings with no increase in tax revenue.

I agree with red dot. let's move on, tear the mall down and get the property back on the tax rolls.

Anonymous said...

If I remember right, their was never any public input about buying the mall. We all found out about it after a deal was struck and the council voted in support of it. They should all have gone last election. This election lets finish the job and get rid of the rest of them!

Anonymous said...

The Planning Board (sic) AKA the Planning Commission is completely dominated and orchestrated by the City Planner not the commission members or the chairman.

Anonymous said...

People supported the concept of the Diamantis/Couture plan until they realized it was going to contain 10 municipal buildings with no increase in tax revenue.


Where the heck did you get that information from???? That is SOOOOO way off that it's beyond rediculous.

Next thing your are going to say is that they bought the property to build a new and bigger methodone clinic for the place across the street from Home Depot to move into.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"People supported the concept of the Diamantis/Couture plan until they realized it was going to contain 10 municipal buildings with no increase in tax revenue."


The mall being purchased was being discussed in secret three months before the taxpayers ever heard a thing about it -- if not longer than that. I'm curious as to what "people" supported the concept or were given the opportunity to or not - prior to the mall being purchased? Are there any FOI requests out there for emails and such for when Couture was head honcho?

Anonymous said...

It wasn't a secret committee that researched the options. It was Bev Bobroske, Wally Barnes, Tom Barnes, Hamzy, Couture, Kosta, Ziogas, Jack Driscoll, Laviero, Whitt Bette's wife, and a few others whose names escape me. Very bi-partisan.

The actual purchase wasn't a secret, it was discussed quite a few times at council meetings, etc before the Council actually voted on it. However, you are right, the public did not get to vote on it. We did, and still don't have a referendum policy. Art wants to change that.

Anonymous said...

Who or what gave that committee authority to do what they did? I don't care who was on it.

Anonymous said...

"...because since we’re merely taxpayers, we can’t be as smart as her."

No disrespect intended, but you don't have a master's degree in public administration so frankly you probably aren't as smart as her. Or is it "she"?

Anonymous said...

Steve: In your post you say, "There was never a City Council or Board of Finance vote until March 2005 to proceed with the purchase, or even to pursue it. Yet three months earlier, the city was giving some kind of tentative approval to its price."

It is misleading of you to use the word "city" when in fact you mean (and you know you mean) Gerard Couture. It was his duty as Mayor to take the initiative and explore the possibility of buying the property and that is what he did, unilaterally. By saying "the city" you imply that the City Council was having secret meetings to discuss possible terms, and that is dishonest.

Steve Collins said...

It's not misleading to say "city" when that's what the decision says. The plaintiff in the case is the City of Bristo. And the court's ruling says, "In January, 2005, the plaintiff and the mall’s owners initialed a draft statement of compensation as a first step toward the plaintiff’s purchase of the mall. The plaintiff had determined that the property was ideally suited for several community uses such as public parking, a community theater, a municipal field house and a town square area."
Now if you ask, who initialed the "draft statement of compensation" I don't know the answer. I think I know. But I'm not sure.
In any case, it's certainly fair to say the City Council SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what was going on. I don't know if it did because, unfortunately, they tend to go into executive session when they talk about this sort of thing.
I'll have to write someday about what I think that's wrong. But today's not the day.

Anonymous said...

It was not a secret committee that looked at the mall purchase.

Get your facts straight...the committee was formed by the council after the Mayor and Council purchased the mall to get the ball rolling.

Yes it was bi-partisan, and some Republicans supported the original plan until it became apparent that Governor Rell was not going to provide funds until the community backed a plan.