| Author |
Message |
    
tsingle999
Citizen
Username: Tsingle999
Post Number: 16
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 10:42 am: |     |
Taranto CT is a quiet dead end street. The 2 family houses (40 years old) on Taranto were evaluated at $222000 and i believe they could fetch $400000.
A new 2 family could get $500000 when you subtract $82500 for the land and $250000 to build it that is a very nice profit. At that profit level i believe people would be willing to pay more for the land.
I voiced my concern as soon as i found out about it directly to the people involved. I am not looking for sympathy. The sale was legal - but violated ethical standards.
I am voicing this now so people in this town know what happened and can vote on the type of person they want running their town. I have no idea if Vic DeLuca were mayor that anything different would have happened but he wasn't the mayor. |
tsingle999
Citizen
Username: Tsingle999
Post Number: 17
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 10:49 am: | |
"FWIW, regarding the properties that the town sold; I read the NR, I thought about bidding but didn't, I attended the meetings where the matter was hashed out, and yes, I agree the neighbors should always be notified personally when any government activity could effect their property"
I'm curious: Did you personally look at the lot at 16 Taranto Ct? Why didn't you bid?
I feel if someone looked at the lot they would be hard pressed to understand why the neighbors weren't notified. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 11:18 am: | |
The neighbors need to read the paper like everyone else. End of story. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3856
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 12:07 pm: | |
"The fire chief being the only bidder on an auction of town land is not right when I know lots of people who would have snapped it up at a much higher price."
Tsingle999,
OK, so name some... Listen, I never got an apology from anyone at town hall for not being personally notified about the removal of all the street parking in our neighborhood. I was told if you snooze, you lose.
BTW, I own 12 properties, my wife owns 4 more, and at some point, enough is enough. On the other hand, I'm sure I'm not the only other person in town who knew about the auction. So are you implying that me and everyone else in town that didn't bid on that property is stupid?
I'm sorry, but the idea that no one in the neighborhood knew about the sale of that property is unbelievable...
The property is one thing, blaming your issue on the Mayor is very different. One thing has nothing to do with the other. I guess you must think everyone reading your comments about changing your vote is stupid too.
|
tsingle999
Citizen
Username: Tsingle999
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 1:37 pm: | |
"So are you implying that me and everyone else in town that didn't bid on that property is stupid?"
No I'm sorry I didnt mean to imply that anyone was stupid. I was just curious if there was some flaw to the property you saw or if you felt it was overvalued. I understand your reasons for not buying it - it would be a big project to develop it. Did you personally look at the lot?
I think they should have notified you about the parking spaces. I just do not understand why the neighbors have always been notified about lots for sale in the past but not in this instance. At least their was a long standing precedent in this case.
As far as people wanting to buy it - my local financial planner told me it was a steal and if I didnt buy it he would have. A local real estate agent said she would have bought it. 5 people I work with said they would have bought it after I told them the story. These are just the people I personally talked to. Ask a real estate agent or financial person what they think.
Nobody in this neighborhood knew about the sale - I was the one who told them after the fact and I can say each one of them was shocked.
The mayor is the one who is ultimately responsible for this. He was in charge when it occured and he didnt correct it. Just the same as your parking space issue - it was the mayor's responsibility. However in the parking space issue there was no conflict of interest. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3857
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 3:21 pm: | |
"However in the parking space issue there was no conflict of interest."
That's not true, IMO there were conflicts of interest, but that's another matter I rather not get into at this time or on this thread.
There are always great deals out there for business minded people. Like anything else you need to find them and develop them. The Chief was lucky, and smart enough to take make the investment. Was it a killing? I don't think so, truthfully there are much better deals being made all the time. Let me give you an example of one I made a few years ago.
I bought a small vacant lot in Newark along the GS Parkway a few years ago at a tax sale for $500.00. Two years ago I got Sprint to least the property for $2,000 + per month for the next 25 years. Now that's a deal...
Back to your problem, don't try and blame this on the Mayor because it's NOT a Maplewood Scandal, and it just won't fly! |
r2boy
Supporter
Username: R2boy
Post Number: 227
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 3:27 pm: | |
Art,
You must have had Mr Stark for Economics..That was a great class because he was such a great teacher... |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6540
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 3:34 pm: | |
Mr Stark. And his dog, Humphrey. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7199
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 4:01 pm: | |
Art, what happens with your property taxes on that parcel when Newark does its reval? Just kidding.
tsingle999, a scandal is when someone's reputation is ruined by his actions (or the perception thereof). You're speaking of Fred's actions, not his reputation. There is no scandal. You're trying to create a scandal. OK, this is nothing more than a vocabulary lesson, but still... |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 135
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:29 pm: | |
hmmm, Tom. Not sure I agree. I don't have any opinon about the issue, but in terms of usage, it's perfectly acceptable for someone who feels they've uncovered scandalous behavior in high places to say "This is a scandal!" -- even if later facts prove otherwise. (Actually, you don't need facts to have a scandal.) |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7207
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:33 pm: | |
I suppose you're right. M-W's entry for scandal agrees with you in the fifth definition.
|
tsingle999
Citizen
Username: Tsingle999
Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:35 pm: | |
"a scandal is when someone's reputation is ruined by his actions "
Tom, what are you saying about Mr. Profeta? His reputation is so bad that his actions in this case don't ruin his reputation?
Art, I should come to you for investment advice! I think the fire chief made a smart move. I just think town employees should hold a higher standard of ethical conduct and the town should have strong guidelines for such.
Art, are you saying that you do not see any problems with the way this is handled or are you saying that the mayor should not be blamed for the poor way in which it was handled?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7208
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 5:55 pm: | |
I think Art is not disagreeing with you but saying you have to take your lumps.
I wasn't saying that what Profeta did was bad or good. I was saying that bad action isn't a scandal. If his reputation were ruined by his action, it would be called a scandal. His reputation isn't ruined, at least not yet.
But as Kathleen pointed out, and I cited above, bad action itself can be called a scandal, if you use the fifth definition.
Picky, ain't I? I shoulda been a lawya.
|
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:30 pm: | |
I agree that the neighbors should be reading the paper like everyone else. However, the thing that concerns me is that a town employee was allowed to bid on town property.
Even if everything was legitimate, it looks very bad.
Can you imagine if the Fire Chief in New York City won a bid on some property in Manhattan? It would be the lead story on the evening news. I know the example is a little extreme but the conflict of interest is overwhelming in this case. |
Woodster
Citizen
Username: Woodster
Post Number: 125
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:17 pm: | |
I remember when Fred put this property up for auction(you know sell everything we have for more one time revenues)and there were no bidders. He then said I have reason to believe if we lower the price we would have a bidder. The chief bid and won. But I also seem to remember something went wrong (I don't know if it was on Fred's end or the chief's end) but I thought the deal was cancelled and the chief got his money back. I could be wrong but this is what I remember. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5718
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 7:18 pm: | |
The Fire Chief in New York City would not be permitted to bid on property at a City-held auction of City-owned property. To do so would be violate the City's Code of Conduct. Maplewood has no such code of conduct. Thus there would have been no violation in this case.
I believe the adoption of such a code is one of the things Fred has been pushing for. |
tsingle999
Citizen
Username: Tsingle999
Post Number: 20
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 8:06 pm: | |
Woodster, The Taranto Ct property was only put up for auction once. Another property was put up at the same time and that one did not sell and the town lowered the asking price. I don't know if it sold.
The fire chief does own 16 Taranto Ct. |
Woodster
Citizen
Username: Woodster
Post Number: 131
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 9:30 pm: | |
If that is the case, I apologize. See that, even when I try to defend Fred I can't. |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 957
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 10:08 pm: | |
Tsingle pls sue someone or anyone, or go away.
A public notice is a public notice.
You have an awful lot to learn about m's civil history |
tsingle999
Citizen
Username: Tsingle999
Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 12:06 am: | |
LOL I guess I do have a lot to learn about Maplewood's civil history. I am seeking legal avenues. I just wanted to make sure other residents knew what happened so they can make good choices on June 7th. |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 490
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 1:02 am: | |
T
I think it's more then you wanting to let other people know what happened so they can make good choices on June 7. You want to try to trash Fred, otherwise you would have posted about the situation last year when it happened. Give it up. Nobody's going to change their vote because you lost out on the lot.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page