Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer
Are you folk reading the article ??? The shock to me is that the AAC board and the spectators were given the absolute wrong information from those providing answers and advising the AAC Board. Some of these advisors are paid a lot of money and of all people, they should know what is in a $350.000 sales contract. It is in the minutes that when asked the question are there any restrictions preventing the building from being used as a restaurant, the response was that there are no restrictions. I don't consider this a rehash of old news, before the POA article, did anyone know for a fact that the AAC board, when considering the purchase, was acting with false information?? The POA has directly placed the blame on certain persons shoulders. I personally have serious reservations about how the entire purchase procedure took place.
|
Why would a seller get to dictate how a building they are selling gets to be used in the future, as long as no zoning violations are involved. We all know that it operated as a restaurant for several years. It was the developer that allowed the building to set empty and deteriorate, thus leading to it's need to be torn down. Nobody knows, at this point, that Ms Tutt wasn't instructed to give a false statement about the building's usage.