Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. McMahon: The fact that it was available on that basis it <br /> should have been very aware to Mr. Lahey who sat on the historic <br /> restorations board and southhold. <br /> Mr. Nimtz: He sat on the Southhold Restorations and on the Southhold <br /> Heritage board up until sometime last year when he resigned. <br /> Mr. McMahon; The manner in which it would be loaned out and the <br /> manner in which it would be paid off was what the boards were <br /> considering and this is before he was involved with Mr. Raker. <br /> At first, Mr. Raker had suggested that they didn't even know <br /> about the $200,000. and when we pointed out that they knew about <br /> the money, recently, it is a little different now. I think if we <br /> sat down and recollected conversations held with Mr. Lahey that <br /> it might refresh his memory. <br /> Mr. McGann: Going to my letter that I wrote to Mr. Nimtz, based <br /> on what Mr. Raker had said to members of the Council and Mr. <br /> Brademas publically and what we have been informed of all along <br /> with the Executive Session on the 2nd of November, the money in <br /> having no one use it, etc. Basically, we are obtaining information <br /> that is 180 degrees apart and I think it is important with these <br /> things being said while the building is still standing, that now <br /> is the time to get these things straigntened out so that at six <br /> months or twelve months or whatever down the road that we are not <br /> all going to be out on a limb on this. <br /> Mr. Voorde: Mrs. Crone has a question. <br /> Mrs. Crone: I just wanted to clarify with Pat to make sure that <br /> I am understanding the sequence on all of this. During this <br /> period of time during the two years, Redevelopment has never ever <br /> sat down and considered Brademas' proposal as is, or the proposal <br /> or had been given thirty days for other developers? <br /> Mr. McMahon: The first time it was rejected was in the fall of <br /> 1978 with the other proposals. Some of those people came back <br /> and said they were going to change the building, it makes more <br /> sense, and generates more money. He came back in with another <br /> office proposal similar to his first and he did that in I believe <br /> March or February of this year and we reviewed that proposal and <br /> rejected it. We informed him in writing and sent him a letter <br /> saying that maybe some point in time that we would talk with him. <br /> There are a number of factors why the Commission chose to bring <br /> this to a conclusion at the end of October or November. The <br /> biggest one was the deterioration of the building in respect to <br /> the terra cotata and most of the people looking at it now are <br /> trying to save the terra cotta. It merits a substantial investment <br /> this fall. <br /> Mrs. Crone. During that two year period of time the only ones <br /> that you were having serious discussion with was Kalman from <br /> California, the people with the hotel , and Mr. Raker? <br /> Mr. McMahon: That is correct, and all three of those people have <br /> said to put them in a position for sole negotiation, as did Tom. <br /> Mrs. Crone: Those are the only three that you ever did sole <br /> negotiation with? <br /> Mr. McMahon: That is correct and each one of them took between <br /> three and six months to run that gambit. <br /> Mrs. Crone: You are saying that at that period of time that you <br />