City of Toledo mayor, River East dispute property

"The old Verd-A-Ray building on Front Street in East Toledo has become the latest bone of contention between the city and River East Economic Revitalization Corp"

"Now River East says it would like to exercise the option its board agreed to in a 1983 lease. That option allows River East to buy the property for whatever the city has spent on it

No votes yet

Ya know???? sometimes I just have to wonder how this City has ever gotten anywhere. And another thing...that IS a very good question! I cannot imagine it having an explanation to tell ya the truth. What could it possibly be? And another??? Is River East a shinning star or is it a dying ember of another disapointment? I think the problem is, a city with deteriorating infrastructure is a hard sell for anything. New construction should be secondary to restoring what already exists. If you cannot afford to keep up what you already have, what in God's holy name makes you think you can build something new?? Where oh where has common sense gone? Oh where oh where could it be??????

...of finger-pointing to go around on this one, for sure.

Rational individuals should come to a reasonable understanding of both side's positions on this one and make it just go away, but that has no chance of happening, IMO.

The City was negligent in letting the (token) rent go without sending out a notice of arrears

River East should be able to produce the canceled checks and or (token) rent receipts or be willing to make up for the errors by making a "good faith," albeit late (token) rent payment immediately.

Clearly BOTH parties have been somewhat negligent in their fiscal duties.

Now on th the REAL issue:

All of a sudden, both parties see value in this property.

River East has had stewardship of for 20+ years and therefore is the most vested party.

The city can't even prove that they've invested dollar one in the building since River East had taken over stewardship of the property.

Don Monroe, is the Joker in the deck. He's worked both sides of this game and could or could not have been responsible for making and documenting the timely payment of the (token) rent, or not. And, he could have been in a position to overlook or "forget" the payments an/or get rid of the evidence.

And then, there is the original option, which despite all claims and counter claims, due diligence and due neglect, or third party (Don) tampering, I would rule as valid.

Valid, because of the investment and stewardship on the lessee, River East.

I would rule that the agreement and option is still in force and allow River East to exercise the option, based on the merits of their stewardship of the property alone and screw the rest of this foolish bickering.

That said, there are several questions that should have been brought into evidence:

1. What is/was the tax status of the property?

2. Did anyone pay taxes on the property?

3. If so, who?

4. Did/does the city have any additional claim of investing in this property?

5. If so, why can't this be proven with evidence?

6. If River East maintains control, will the property be rehabbed or laid waste?

7. Same question for the City?

8. By granting the option originally, the city's intent was made clear; what has now changed to renew their interest in keeping the property.

Just some things that would make for a clearer picture as to what's really going on here.

However, based on the fact that at least one of the parties involved has often been prone to outright lies, half-truths and mis-truths, one can only hope to watch a very protracted and ugly fight come out of this one ;-)

Hooda Thunkit

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.