It would appear that the renegotiating of the Preferred Developer Agreement (PDA) which former Mayor Marc Garofalo negotiated and signed with Ceruzzi four years ago was unable to be accomplished as the Board of Alderman voted to terminate the agreement and seek a new preferred developer. Termination will not be a simple matter, based on comments associated with the city attorney,  yet Aldermanic President Ken Hughes’ comments and the Mayor’s seem to indicate that they’ve just had enough when it comes to the lack of progress on the part of the preferred developer. 

On the heels of this action Rick Dunne chose this time to resign his position on the commission and as a result its chairmanship, citing conflicts of interest with his position as the Executive Director for the Valley Council of Governments. This means the commission will need someone to take the reigns and guide the process from here on.

Your thoughts?

The Valley Gazzette ran an article this past week where attorney Charles Willinger representing the developer, Ceruzzi-Derby Redevelopment LLC.,  stated “The existing agreement is not benefiting the city, it requires the city to put up the money to acquire the property. The developer has decided to offer substantial benefits to the city and is willing to re-negotiate the agreement. We think in a week or two we should have an amendment agreed.”

This is the first time I have ever heard or read comments from the developer admitting that the current PDA, negotiated by the previous administration, is working against the city’s best interests and that they are willing to address that impropriety.

Your reaction?

The Redevelopment Agency met last night to discuss the downtown redevelopment plan and voted to permit the use by the city of eminent domain to take the remaining four properties in the designated redevelopment zone.  (See CTPost Online this morning (Thurs.) at http://www.connpost.com/valley/ci_7464917 for complete story. This action did not initiate the process but simply made it available to the city as an instrument for acquiring the last parcels necessary for the redevelopment plan to move forward.

At this point eminent domain is a tool the city CAN use to acquire private property for public use. The purpose of eminent domain is to not allow a private property owner from impeding the public  purposes of government by refusing to sell their property. Redevelopment has traditionally been found to be a valid public purpose of government in the courts.

The 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires “just compensation” be paid to the land owner. The 14th amendment extended that clause to local and state governments.  Under eminent domain, the owner must be given “fair market value” and any “consequential damages”.  The “fair market value” is the current value of land and improvements, based on what price the property would bring if the owner did not have to sell and the buyer did not have to buy.  The purpose of these amendments was to ensure fair compensation to the property owner for the loss of their property.

The usual process is a resolution by the acquiring agency, followed by an appraisal, offer and negotiations. If the two parties cannot agree upon a sale price the government initiates the legal process of eminent domain by condemning the property in the courts. 

In court, the government must prove they carried out “good faith” negotiations and they must prove the taking of the property is for a “public purpose.” If this is found to be so by the courts the process moves on to the next phase of determining “just compensation” which involves interviews with the parties, hearings, etc. at which point an “award value” is established. Once the government deposits with the court the value of the award it is given ownership to the property. The private individual at that point can ask for a trial  by a jury to determine the “award value” but they cannot retain ownership of the property.

What do you think of the Redevelopment Agencies actions?

 I will not allow comments regarding negotiations or the actions of the parties involved to be published unless it is from one of the parties involved i. e. a property owner or a city official and they clearly identify themselves as such in their comments and provide a method for follow up independent verification.

It looks as if there is serious interest from an outside organization in the old Sterling Opera House. You can read about it in the Valley Gazette’s on-line edition at 

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm

I know we have heard this type of thing in the past, but lets try to get past that and talk for a minute about what that might mean for Derby, and / or the Valley, whether you think it could be viable (and if so how) and finally would you support it via your patronage?