|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:15 am |
|
|
BlahBlah48439
F L I N T O I D
|
| So File a compliant Mr. Mabbott. If he is in the wrong someone will prosecute him. |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:21 am |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:28 am |
|
|
FlintConservative
F L I N T O I D
|
| I say, again, when has the law ever mattered to The Don? |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:56 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
maybe i'm missing something but why is it anyones business who he
loans money to???? the city didn't loan it, he (personally) did. |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:27 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:41 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
That law exists, in part, so citizens can find out if, for example, a mayor's squandering of millions of federal HUD dollars had anything to do with his $53,000 personal financial arragement with the federal HUD official who lives next door.
Name the federal HUD official and the significant dates of interest for the property you're concerned with.
Note the dates in the HUD audits below. I don't think you can fairly say the current mayor squandered the HUD funds.
HUD AUDIT REPORTS FOR FLINT, MICHIGAN
http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/mi.cfm
Issue Date: September 23, 2005
Audit Report No.: 2005-CH-1017 [ http://www.hud.gov/utilities/intercept.cfm?/offices/oig/reports/files/ig551017.pdf ]
File Size: 659.04KB
Title: The Commission Improperly Managed Its Section 8 Program; Flint, Michigan
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Inspector General audited the Flint Housing Commission’s (Commission) Section 8 housing program. The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2005 annual audit plan. We selected the Commission based upon a risk analysis that identified it as having a high risk Section 8 housing program. Our overall objectives were to determine whether the Commission managed its Section 8 housing program effectively and followed HUD's requirements. We determined whether the Commission had adequate procedures and controls over its inspection of units, abatement of housing assistance payments, and rent reasonableness determinations.
The Commission did not effectively manage its Section 8 housing program. Our inspections noted that 52 of 56 units did not meet HUD’s housing quality standards and/or local housing code. We determined a total of $80,457 in housing assistance payments and administrative fees were improperly paid for units not meeting HUD’s standards and/or local code. The Commission also did not abate $50,506 in housing assistance payments based on units that failed inspections performed by the Commission’s inspector. In addition, the Commission did not properly complete rent reasonableness certifications and maintain adequate records of market rate units for rent reasonableness comparisons.
We recommend that the director of HUD’s Public Housing Hub, Detroit Field Office, require the Commission to reimburse its Section 8 housing program for the inappropriately used funds, and implement procedures and controls to correct the deficiencies cited in this report.
* * * * *
http://www.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/mi.cfm
Issue Date: January 24, 1997
Audit Case Number 97-CH-241-1005 [ http://www.hud.gov/utilities/intercept.cfm?/offices/oig/reports/files/ig751005.pdf ]
File Size: 58KB
Title: Flint Hope III, Flint, MI
We concluded, with the exception of the unsupported expenditures identified by the City, Flint Neighborhood Improvement and Preservation Project, Inc. adequately supported its expenditures; however, the use of funds was not always according to HUD's requirements. Flint Neighborhood: (1) did not complete rehabilitation work timely; and (2) made ineligible sick pay disbursements of $2,669. During our audit, the City of Flint reimbursed HUD $27,049 for the unsupported expenditures identified in its review.
* * * * *
(copy and paste from http://www.flinttalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=14249&highlight=hud#14249) |
|
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:10 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| now that was informative!!! |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:32 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
You’re absolutely right, 00SL2. Williamson is by no means the first Mayor in Flint to receive a less than favorable HUD project implementation report from HUD. He is the first, however, to respond to such a HUD report in the manner he did, and under the unique circumstances he alone created for himself. Williamson’s response to HUD’s conclusions was not to fix the implementation problems it outlined, but to refuse to spend dime one of that year’s federal HUD funding for low-income housing in Flint. Again, don’t fix the problem – act like a stubborn fool sitting on a pile of money meant for some of Flint’s most in-need citizens.
But wait, there’s more! The author of the less-than-positive HUD report that prompted this reaction from the Mayor was then Flint HUD director, Jason Gamlin. Gamlin was Williamson’s next door neighbor, having been relocated to Flint from Louisiana for poor oversight of HUD spending in Baton Rouge and New Orleans prior to Katrina. At the time of the report in question, Gamlin had not paid Williamson back for a $53,000 personal ‘loan.’
So what happens? Gamlin does his job, writing the critical report. Williamson responds by sitting on millions of dollars meant for low-income housing – and takes out a claim of interest for $53,000 on Gamlin’s house. As the deadline to spend the HUD money nears, Williamson offers a last ditch plan to spend the money on displaced Katrina refugees, not displaced GM/Delphi/Etc. refugees in Flint.
This is prime example of how Williamson’s personal interests, ego and mismanagement impact (or fail to impact) the citizens in Flint – in this case, the poor.
More detail here:
Part 1:
http://69.73.139.27/~jpublicd/view_video.php?viewkey=c2f636f067f89cc14862
also @
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4218997
Part 2:
http://69.73.139.27/~jpublicd/view_video.php?viewkey=ce2fe28308fd9f2a7baf
also @
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4219340
Part 3:
http://69.73.139.27/~jpublicd/view_video.php?viewkey=3e71d9181a67b7542122
also @
http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4219890 |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
|
Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:28 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
sounds like all he needs is the right person to run it!  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:06 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Public D schreef:
It's easier to prove this violation *** As of July 1 2007, public records still show that Williamson has a "claim of interest" of $53,000 on the property and that he has repeatedly failed to disclose this financial interest by July 1 of each year as mandated by the city charter.
You've got
way
too much time on your hands, you're obsessed, or you're a paid political hack. Which is it?
What form should he disclose the interest on? Claim of Interest you speak of is dated 8/29/05. The next July 1 is 2006. With the claim of interest recorded he would have received copy of foreclosure notice, and foreclosure notices are posted on subject property well in advance of sheriff's affidavit. Sheriff's Affidavit was prepared 8/16/06 and city tax rolls currently show property owned by Chemical Bank. What do you suppose his interest was on 7/01/06 or 7/1/07? You want to get involved in that legal maze, get a formal title opinion to see where DW's claim stands on foreclosed property. |
|
|
|
Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:54 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
ha ha ha...them folks are whinin' and scratchin for way to
demonize williamson..if it ain't one thing it's another..
"he's mean!!" 
"he violates campaign finance laws!!"
"he dumped cow manure on the pickets!!"
"he disrespects black churches because he doesn't bring a bible!!"
"he buys preachers!!"
"he hires without testing!!"
"he fired my cousin!!"
"he makes me work in city hall!!"
bunch of friggin babies |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:50 am |
|
|
Dave Starr
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
ha ha ha...them folks are whinin' and scratchin for way to
demonize williamson..if it ain't one thing it's another..
"he's mean!!"
"he violates campaign finance laws!!"
"he dumped cow manure on the pickets!!"
"he disrespects black churches because he doesn't bring a bible!!"
"he buys preachers!!"
"he hires without testing!!"
"he fired my cousin!!"
"he makes me work in city hall!!"
bunch of friggin babies
Ya left out......
He's old
He doesn't smile
His wife is fat
He doesn't have a college degree
He's ugly
His wife is ugly
He doesn't use perfect grammar
 |
_________________
I used to care, but I take a pill for that now.
Pushing buttons sure can be fun.
When a lion wants to go somewhere, he doesn’t worry about how many hyenas are in the way.
Paddle faster, I hear banjos. |
|
|
Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:16 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
| You wanna see who lives where and who owns property where this works pretty well. Why theirs folks on this forum worth checking out.
http://www.zabasearch.com/
|
|
|
|
Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:28 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
[quote="00SL2"]You've got
way
too much time on your hands, you're obsessed, or you're a paid political hack. Which is it?
What form should he disclose the interest on? Claim of Interest you speak of is dated 8/29/05. The next July 1 is 2006?[/quote="00SL2"]
Not a “paid political hack.” Just a citizen trying to hold elected officials accountable. Is there any money in criticizing that? No matter. I appreciate your advise on finding the formal opinion on Williamson’s claim of interest, if there is one. Due to the role the County Register of Deeds has in such property issues, one would think their documents, including claims of interest, would reflect current property status. Given the foreclosure, I’m wondering if any of the below would explain why Williamson’s claim remained listed against 3636 Hawthorne as of this year’s July 1 deadline for disclosure (pardon the jargon) :
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(13ja5p452dee4dbyaexhmw55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-211-78k&queryid=20519433&highlight=78k
(8) The foreclosing governmental unit shall record a notice of judgment for each parcel of foreclosed property in the office of the register of deeds for the county in which the foreclosed property is located in a form prescribed by the department of treasury.
(9) After the entry of a judgment foreclosing the property under this section, if the property has not been transferred under section 78m to a person other than the foreclosing governmental unit, a foreclosing governmental unit may cancel the foreclosure by recording with the register of deeds for the county in which the property is located a certificate of error in a form prescribed by the department of treasury, if the foreclosing governmental unit discovers any of the following:
(a) The foreclosed property was not subject to taxation on the date of the assessment of the unpaid taxes for which the property was foreclosed.
(b) The description of the property used in the assessment of the unpaid taxes for which the property was foreclosed was so indefinite or erroneous that the forfeiture of the property was void.
(c) The taxes for which the property was foreclosed had been paid to the proper officer within the time provided under this act for the payment of the taxes or the redemption of the property.
(d) A certificate, including a certificate issued under section 135, or other written verification authorized by law was issued by the proper officer within the time provided under this act for the payment of the taxes for which the property was foreclosed or for the redemption of the property.
(e) An owner of an interest in the property entitled to notice under section 78i was not provided notice sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process required under the state constitution of 1963 and the constitution of the United States.
(f) A judgment of foreclosure was entered under this section in violation of an order issued by a United States bankruptcy court.
(10) A certificate of error submitted to the county register of deeds for recording under subsection (9) need not be notarized and may be authenticated by a digital signature of the foreclosing governmental unit or by other electronic means.
____________________
Or maybe the register of deeds is slacking. Quite possible. Still, you asked, “What form should he disclose the interest on? Claim of Interest you speak of is dated 8/29/05. The next July 1 is 2006?”
Yes. The discloser of property interest is for candidates
and
elected public officials:
§ 1-145 ANNUAL DISCLOSURE BY ELECTIVE OFFICERS OF EMPLOYER, BUSINESS AND REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS, GIFTS AND OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME.
Every elective officer shall, on or before July 1 of each year, file a sworn statement with the City Clerk which shall list the following information:
(a) The name of every employer who has reported earnings of the elective official.
(b) The source of certain earnings from self- employment to the extent that the amount received from single sources during the elective official's previous taxable year exceeded the amount of annual compensation provided for a member of the City Council during the current year. If the disclosure of the name of a person would violate a professional confidence, the elective official shall indicate that the information is privileged and shall place the privileged information in a sealed envelop in the custody of the City Clerk where it shall be kept for one year and one day before being destroyed. The envelope shall never be unsealed unless so ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) The name of every corporation or other business in which the elective official is a director or officer, or has an interest worth more than $25,000.
(d) The address or legal description of every parcel of land within the city valued at more than $2,500 in which the elective officer has an interest.
(e) The source of loans of more than $1,000 or gifts of more than $100 received during the previous 365 days form persons other than persons who reside or at some time resided in the same household as the elective officer and other than state recognized lending institutions in the case of loans.
(Ord. 2635, passed 5-8-78)
_________________
Maybe Williamson argued (b)? Or that the foreclosure ruling happened prior to (d), though the intent of (b) seems to suggest any interest throughout the “taxable year.”
All that aside, it is the idea that Williamson had an undisputed financial relationship with the Flint HUD director at all, even if it can be jerked out of public view and/or enforcement around deadlines for disclosure, and that that relationship may have impacted his handling of HUD spending that is the
only
issue here – and most indicative of his acting definition of ‘financial leadership.’
Remember, this undisputed financial relationship with Jason Gamlin,the Flint HUD director, began on January 27 2003 according to Williamson’s own claim of interest. We are only aware of this relationship because Gamlin didn’t live up to his end of the deal, forcing Williamson to make the claim of interest in real-estate he signed on August 29 2005. If it walks like conflict of interest, talks like conflict of interest . . .
All that aside, the mayor failed to spend millions of federal HUD dollars meant for low-income housing and new home buyers who were not able to move to the city because he didn’t think it really mattered if that money was utilized or not. Message sent. This did nothing but accelerate Flint’s status as a city moving out, not up, and making investment less likely to come in.
Again, is that the ‘financial leadership’ we want from our Mayor?
Any additional input, advice and resources anyone would like to share or contribute to any of these issues is appreciated and encouraged. It takes a village. Hacks and specialists alike. |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
|
Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
