|
DOWN60 REDEVELOPMENT (Cont'd)
<br />the <ind of questions that, I am sure, will be asked today and in the future.
<br />Thos2 questions; °'if not asked, might not be`asked by us here. We 'need total
<br />comminity input.
<br />First of all, with respect to the clarification of the Associates bid situa-
<br />tion and the bid security,' commonly referred to as a-.Letter 'of Credit, .I would
<br />like to explain the procedure briefly. There has been a general misunder-
<br />standing about this. First of all, the Commission could not, at any time,
<br />during thE:'past.two years and a couple of months since the Associates' bid
<br />was submitted execute on a Letter of Credit A Letter of Credit "'is an excel-
<br />lent security as a bid security. A bid security is required to be submitted
<br />with any bid, but it is not enforceable or collectible until the Commission
<br />awards or approves the bid; in this case, until they approved or awarded the
<br />bid to Associates. The Commission, at no time, could have made an award
<br />of that bid, because Associates had not finalized its plans. As a matter
<br />of fact, very shortly after they submitted the initial bid, they indicated
<br />quite clearly, and publicly, that the concept of their development was chang-
<br />ing, and so the Commission could not act upon that Letter of Credit, simply
<br />because the Commission never had awarded the bid, and could not have awarded
<br />the bid. At the same time, another area of misunderstanding, is that Associ-
<br />ates has never had a 'hold' on the property. The Commission has never granted
<br />an option to Associates. Associates, as well as the Commission and many
<br />other people, have been very aware of this. Associates has, at times, even
<br />exp essed some concern during the past two years and a couple of months con -
<br />cer ing the investments that they have made in the planning which has exceeded
<br />a Q arter Million Doll ars,preci`sely because they did not have an option on
<br />the property.
<br />With respect to the disposition procedure, and I know that some of you here
<br />are very aware of that -- Allen Schrager, you have been involved in this in
<br />a couple of your projects - -so I ask those of you who are aware of the pro -
<br />ced res to bear with me, but, I think, that this is .really the basis of the
<br />mis nderstanding.' The public, and perhaps the Press to a certain degree, do
<br />not understand fully the disposition procedures, and I feel, therefore, that
<br />we hould explain those procedures now in some detail.
<br />Mr. Dan Caesar, reporter for WSBT -TV, refuted the Counsellor's statement and
<br />rep ied: "Excuse me, sir. But, I did ask you last week and publicly you
<br />refused to-make any public statement. It is the criticism that you are laying
<br />on the Press." Mr. Butler acknowledged that Mr. Caesar did question him
<br />in he Special Commission meeting of April 29, but stated that his intent
<br />is pecifically not to criticize the Press, but what he is simply saying is
<br />tha there is a misunderstanding, ard that is why he now wants to run through
<br />the procedures, so that we a1T' understand how the disposition works.
<br />Mr. Butler, in outlining the program, continued and stated that everything
<br />has been laid out. Basically, we I have been doing our job here. The Com-
<br />mission is trying to dispose of property.in the downtown area, and I guess
<br />we have just assumed that everyone knows what our procedures and our require -
<br />men s are, but it became clear to me, in.the'Commission Special Meeting of
<br />the 29th, that those procedures aren't really that well understood.
<br />32
<br />
|