| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.mlive.com/news/fljournal/index.ssf?/base/news-41/117025704739820.xml&coll=5
"The first one was to get utilities and services in the subdivision. In the second, they settled with the city of Flint in December 2005 for a combined $630,000. These lawsuits also included homeowners Freeman and Renee Greer, who opted out of the third lawsuit before it went to trial."
"A separate lawsuit by developer Marvin Riley against the city is pending in Genesee Circuit Court. He claims the city is wrongly hindering the development by refusing to issue building permits and tax abatements." |
_________________
Adam
-
Mysearchisover.com
-
FB
-
Jobs
|
|
Wed Jan 31, 2007 9:35 pm |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
quote:
Adam schreef:
"The first one was to get utilities and services in the subdivision. In the second, they settled with the city of Flint in December 2005 for a combined $630,000. These lawsuits also included homeowners Freeman and Renee Greer, who opted out of the third lawsuit before it went to trial."
"A separate lawsuit by developer Marvin Riley against the city is pending in Genesee Circuit Court. He claims the city is wrongly hindering the development by refusing to issue building permits and tax abatements."
And your point or comment is  |
|
|
|
Thu Feb 01, 2007 7:46 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
| The point was to inform the people about the money for lawsuits the city is paying out. In addition this development would have been a key step forward for the city of Flint. These would heva been brand new, nice houses for the city of Flint that would have brought in additional revenue to the city of Flint. Instead of moving Flint forward we are instead moving backwards. |
_________________
Adam Ford
|
|
|
Fri Feb 02, 2007 9:46 pm |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
| I hear that the sewer lawsuits are pushing $7 million now with less than 75 to go...... |
|
|
|
Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:37 am |
|
|
Steve Myers
Site Admin
|
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
I hear that the sewer lawsuits are pushing $7 million now with less than 75 to go......
Genesee Township is providing the water and sewer services, not the City of Flint.
Where are you getting you facts?
From what I understand water and sewer is taken care of. |
_________________
Steve Myers |
|
|
Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:06 pm |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
| Different set of lawsuits... the previous thread spoke of how much lawsuits are costing the COF... I was talking about the class-action sewer lawsuits, not the sugar maple lawsuit.... |
|
|
|
Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:17 pm |
|
|
Adam
F L I N T O I D
|
| Josh, I understand the city of Flint is self-insured right? With our basic infrastructure in shambles doesn't that put us in a precarious position from a legal standpoint? I wish we'd put our sewer fun to better use than as a fund to loan to other department. |
_________________
Adam
-
Mysearchisover.com
-
FB
-
Jobs
|
|
|
Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:41 pm |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
quote:
Adam Ford schreef:
In addition this development would have been a key step forward for the city of Flint. These would heva been brand new, nice houses for the city of Flint that would have brought in additional revenue to the city of Flint.
A proper title search
should have
disclosed outstanding taxes and liens on the property. Those need to be paid. Maybe by the title company? Or if title search wasn't done, then who is responsible for paying the liens? That's where the lawsuit(s) come in, right? |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:28 am |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
| There is nothing owed on the property by the current developer to the COF. When Riley bought the property from the bankruptcy court it was free and clear of any liens. The purchase price was put into escrow by the court. All the COF had to do to recover some of that money was put a claim into the court. The Attorney's office never did. It was Riley's attorney that put the claim in for the COF so that they could be paid their share of the money in escrow. The City has been the first lien holder on that property all along... and they have continually failed to act. Even when I was on Council we were asking why the attorney's office was not acting to forclose on the property... they never did and eventually lost out when in was purchased from the bankruptcy court. |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:00 am |
|
|
Josh Freeman
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Adam schreef:
Josh, I understand the city of Flint is self-insured right? With our basic infrastructure in shambles doesn't that put us in a precarious position from a legal standpoint? I wish we'd put our sewer fun to better use than as a fund to loan to other department.
We are self-insured.. we set aside about $3 million every year for lawsuits. I would imagine that in a large judgement like this it would be settled in a structured way.. we would pay so much one year and then so much the next over a period of years. If I'm not mistaken, I think that we can use the sewer fund monies to pay this.
Our infrastructure is horrible. I remember when they were doing work in the Smith Village area (I think that is where it was) and were putting in the new water and sewer lines. Those areas were still being served by wooden water mains. I always thought that we should engage in a large public works project and bond for it... Systematically pick areas and replace the entire infrastructure for that area, sewer, water, streets, curbs and sidewalks. Something has to be done. Otherwise we are going to continue to pay for these sewer claims that will end up costing us even more over time because we still have to fix the root cause |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:08 am |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
There is nothing owed on the property by the current developer to the COF. When Riley bought the property from the bankruptcy court it was fr-- and clear of any liens. The purchase price was put into escrow by the court. All the COF had to do to recover some of that money was put a claim into the court.
You're contradicting yourself. If the property was fr-- and clear of liens the City of Flint would not have to "recover some of that money." What money? As I understand it, taxes are a priority in any bankruptcy action, i.e., they get paid first.
So the question is what money is owed to the City of Flint and when did the obligation arise. If as you say the property was fr-- and clear of any liens when Riley bought it, then debts owing on it after his purchase would be his obligation. Can't have it both ways.
quote:
Josh Freeman schreef:
The Attorney's office never did. It was Riley's attorney that put the claim in for the COF so that they could be paid their share of the money in escrow. The City has been the first lien holder on that property all along... and they have continually failed to act. Even when I was on Council we were asking why the attorney's office was not acting to forclose on the property... they never did and eventually lost out when in was purchased from the bankruptcy court.
Again, you're contradicting yourself. If the property was fr-- and clear of any lien there would be no reason to file a claim in the bankruptcy court. |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:54 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I sure wish people would identify themselves. It reminds me of the saying about even a fool is counted as wise when he holds his tongue. Or that other one about being foolish and opening your mouth to prove it.
It just may be that I have actually read up and have studied this. I don't see any contradictions. Actually seems pretty clear. However, if you don't have a clue as to what you’re saying I guess it could be confusing.
1st, There is no DEBT owing on the property after Mr. Riley purchased it. The courts had control over the property. If the city wanted what was owed to it. They would have needed to get it from the court! Or the former owner when the case was held in court!
On the second NON POINT! Mr. Riley purchased the property from the court! NOT FROM THE CITY! The prior owner had the lien on it from the city. When notice was given, that the former developer was going bankrupt, and all those having interest need to appear or make claim that they are owed. The city failed to respond. When you fail to respond to the court. They assume you don't want to make claim. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:02 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
I caught part of Ted Jankowski's show on cable today, where he and Alex Harris were reading portions of transcripts, one a conversation between Riley and Williamson, and I believe the other was portion of a deposition of Williamson. Alex giggled like schoolgirl after reading, does he want people to take him seriously?
What bothers me as a Flint resident taxpayer about this situation is that Riley is represented by counsel in pending litigation and he took the matter to the Flint City Council which is now considering having an "investigative hearing" into the matter. City Council should stay out of it and let the litigation process prevail. Attorneys advised that it would not be good to take this matter before City Council while litigation is pending and Harris and Riley did it anyway.
Is it true that Alex Harris is an employee of Riley? He doesn't have any business interfering with the litigation process either. If he has information that would benefit Mr. Riley he should present it to Mr. Riley's lawyer(s). |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:14 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
What bothers me as a Flint resident taxpayer about this situation is that Riley is represented by counsel in pending litigation and he took the matter to the Flint City Council which is now considering having an "investigative hearing" into the matter. City Council should stay out of it and let the litigation process prevail. Attorneys advised that it would not be good to take this matter before City Council while litigation is pending and Harris and Riley did it anyway.
Ok So what part of that bother's you and how does it bother you?
Why should council stay out of it? They are the ones that are going to have to approve the payout to Mr. Riley because of this mayor's childish behavoir!
If they can knip it in the bud before we get another multi million dollar settlement against the city.. MORE POWER TO THEM!
Give the man his building permits! There si no legal reason that eh shouldn't be given the permits. Somebody needs to investigate this! We can't get the County to, or the State. And the court has proven itself to not want to get involved and wants the council and the Mayor to play nice and work it out! |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:33 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
Ok So what part of that bother's you and how does it bother you?
Somebody needs to investigate this! We can't get the County to, or the State. And the court has proven itself to not want to get involved and wants the council and the Mayor to play nice and work it out!
If Marvin Riley is being represented by an attorney in pending Sugar Maple Farms litigation, any necessary investigation should be handled through his attorney and the litigation discovery process. Flint City Council shouldn't allow itself to be manipulated into foolish waste of taxpayer dollars duplicating that which should be discovered during the course of pending litigation, or undertaking an investigation that the County and State won't even get involved in! What reasons did the County and State give for not getting involved? |
|
|
|
Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:12 am |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
