City councilors agreed Tuesday to buy a former gas station at the entrance to Rockwell Park for $185,000 as part of a package that includes snagging $150,000 in federal stimulus funds to clean up contamination on the site.
The 316 Park St. property needs the costly cleanup to remove wastes that have leaked from underground fuel tanks in years past.
Robyn Bugbee, the city’s grants coordinator who has spearheaded a five-year effort to purchase and clean up the site, said the work has reached “a pretty exciting stage” where the end is in sight.
The council endorsed the deal on a 4-1 vote, with Republican Ken Cockayne in opposition. It merely ratified terms already agreed on back in 2006.
Cockayne said the property will enhance the entrance to Rockwell Park, but the price is too high. He said prices in 2006 were higher than they are now.
“This was dumped in our lap,” Cockayne said.
Mayor Art Ward said he agreed, but pointed out that the city backed the terms four years ago and shouldn’t undermine the deal at this point. Click here for the full story.
*****
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Contact Steve Collins at scollins@bristolpress.com
12 comments:
Doesn't this belong to the same republican's that own the stone house?
Why didn't Ward renogiate the deal if if it was so bad?
Where has Cockayne been ALL THIS TIME?
How did Ward vote originally?
Bunch of Monday morning quarter backs?
"Like it or not the city is in the real estate business"
-Kevin McCauley
Taxpayers: remember that in 2011.
7:15 AM: Don't know, don't care, don't care.
Lone Wednesday morning jerk?
Just because the City agreed to the price FOUR years ago doesn't mean it's a fair price now. I suspect that given today's real estate market, Cockayne is right that the City overpaid. And then they cry poor and raise taxes!
Well , I guess there are four folks that have no concern of how they waste OUR $$$$. Why didn't they just have there hitman contractor just go in there and demolish the place . Maybe the owner wasn't helpless enough .
Why did they wait four years?
Oh, that justifies extending the mayor's term.
7:15 poster
Cockayne has been saying this everytime it came up. Maybe if you spent sometime in city hall you'd know this!
8:28
Thanks Ken!
Why not let the people know what you are doing, or aren't
There was a contract in place, which dated back to the previous administration. The City could not back out without facing increased liability. It had little choice but to finalize the purchase of that property.
Ken's "no" vote was irresponsible. If he had convinced the council to vote with him, it would have cost the taxpayers in the way of legal fees, etc., and we still would have had to purchase the property.
12:55
Not necessarily correct. Virtually all contracts, especially real estate contracts, have contingencies and timelines built in to them which would allow the parties to renegotiate or cancel the contract. Even a standard residential purchase has such safeguards. Some real journalism would be to FOI a copy of the contract and any other related documents to investigate this possibility. Was a legal opinion ever sought from Corp. Counsel by anyone to see if a 4 year old contract price could be renegotiated to current market and/or the deal withdrawn? Very likely, something could have been done if the right questions were asked.
Apparently Ken doesn't know what is going on,and doesn't bother to check.
I would imagine that the negotiated price was reasonable at the time; this administration just dragged their feet.
Post a Comment