Legalectric

Years ago, a gun range was proposed at the Central Research site, using the building:

Here’s what information the Port Authority requires for a land sale:

At the outset, what’s required?

I wasn’t tracking it, but what I learned while looking for verification of the Riverbend Market Cooperative default on Port Authority loan, I found this that sounded all too familiar:

LACK OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION. Note that snippet, it’s #4 on page 3 of the Port Authority agenda:

See the trend? LACK OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION.

The trend continues:

Council rejects land sale for gun range

From that article:

Council sends gun range proposal back to Port Authority

First the City makes the decision in 2007 to “buy” the property for $1.2+ million; and then in 2007 lease to Osemi, with eviction in 2011 and court cases and appeals going until 2014; the gun club folks not providing info as required by the Port with demands for “transparency” and then fierce DEMANDS that the Council approve against

findings and recommendation (see above)… and now we’re in the same situation with the Blue Water Farms project, denied by Port Authority for the same reasons as the gun club, with the same loud DEMANDS for the Council to approve and circumvent the Port Authority and due diligence review:

Thankfully the Council didn’t fold, then or now.

However, there’s a disturbing trend here! What is going on that people think that they don’t need to follow established Port Authority procedure, that they don’t need to provide the most basic information, information that the Port Authority requires, and that they can then go to the City Council and DEMAND approval? Is it entitlement? Privilege? Delusional thinking?

From the report at the May 8, 2023 Council meeting:

There’s no mention of lack of water service to the site, and that should be listed in “Remaining and key challenges…” I’d think.

So much that isn’t verified, so much that isn’t discussed…