[Warren Kiefer]

Todays POA Buletin has some shocking revelations. See page 8. AAC Meeting Summary. Article 10. This article should bring about a lot of comments.

[Villager Joyce]

What did you think was the shocker?

[Bogie Shooter]

March Bulletin

http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_file...etin201403.pdf

[Russ_Boston]

I must be looking at the wrong page. You mean the restaurant (or no restaurant) item?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Todays POA Buletin has some shocking revelations. See page 8. AAC Meeting Summary. Article 10. This article should bring about a lot of comments.

About the El Santiago building being leased as a restaurant or NOT? This has been discussed at length on this forum.


What do you find shocking?

[chuckster]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Todays POA Buletin has some shocking revelations. See page 8. AAC Meeting Summary. Article 10. This article should bring about a lot of comments.

You're kidding...right? Like Gracie said..."old news"

[Villages Kahuna]

Not only old news, but who is the POA criticizing? The resident AAC were the ones voting to buy the building. And before buying, their lawyers due diligence should have quickly determined that it could not be used as a restaurant. If $2 mil seems a lot for a neighborhood rec center, it seems like it the resident AAC that should be the target of any POA criticism. If it was too expensive, they shouldn't have bought it!

[ROCKETMAN]

I beleive that is who the poa is critisizing, the lawyers and the members of the aac who voted to do this.

[karostay]

It was fun place hope it returns

[justjim]

OP, I am guessing you mean MS. Tutt statement ( as quoted by the POA Bulletin) that "there were no restrictions regarding the facility being a restaurant.".

Apparently there are.

So, Ms. Tutt made a mistake---Something we have all done at one time or another.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Villager Joyce

What did you think was the shocker?

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.

[janmcn]

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

HOW would it benefit or hurt the developer or not HOW the property was used? I would have to think that the developer TRIED to lease it as he does restaurant facilities that he owns. .....or it doesn't make him any money. He is in the business of building and selling or building and leasing. I doubt he wanted it to sit empty. How would it hurt or HELP the developer or the community if it were used or not used as a restaurant?




Why do some people always think that it is the bad developer and some people always think it is the good developer? The latter would be me of course.


Up until now I had never encountered anyone who looked down on people in business to make money.


I just can't put my arms around the issue here???????

[justjim]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

It is not unheard for a seller to put into a contract what the property can or can't be used for in the future. There are many examples. A church building is sold and the owners don't want it to be turned into a nightclub. The owner builds another new restaurant nearby and doesn't want the building to be competition, etc. etc.

As to "why" in this case, it would only be speculation.

I don't believe that Ms. Tutt would knowingly give a false statement for the Developer or anybody.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by justjim

It is not unheard for a seller to put into a contract what the property can or can't be used for in the future. There are many examples. A church building is sold and the owners don't want it to be turned into a nightclub. The owner builds another new restaurant nearby and doesn't want the building to be competition, etc. etc.

As to "why" in this case, it would only be speculation.

I don't believe that Ms. Tutt would knowingly give a false statement for the Developer or anybody.

Only Janet Tutt knows why she told the AAC board and the spectator there were no restrictions on the facility being used for a restaurant. I will say this, she and the Board's attorney should have known what was in the sales agreement, especially when thet are in a advisory role. Someone did not do the job they are being paid to do, simple as that. And for it to take seven months for the Board to be informed of the restriction is not good. In addressing the comment of another OP. It is not unusual when a business is sold, to place restrictions on the new owner not using the previous name and also at times the former owner may be restricted to ever opening another business within X miles.