You could read this several different ways (DOC:Spellerberg Park info from Deed files-2 ) but I decided to pull out the finer points of the 23 page document that covers the original purchase by the VA and the city’s purchase of the park.
Honestly to tell you, if I was reading this as an attorney or judge, I would be on a fence. While you could easily argue as long as the city was using this park for recreational purposes (indoor pool) and not interfering with the business of the VA, they have a 100% right to build an indoor pool at Spellerberg, AND I would see NO legal issues or conflicts with the deed if the city builds an indoor pool at that location.
I’m sure I surprised everyone with that statement 🙂
I have never been against a public indoor pool, I just think there should be a larger private partnership with it and at a different location. Which brings me to item (b)
Who ‘determines’ if the city is using the park properly in reference to the deed? The Veteran’s Administration? They could almost make any case as to why the city build the indoor pool with interference to the VA.
This is why I think it is very important that both the city and the VA come to a legal agreement OR an amendment to this deed before dirt is moved. It would be the wise and prudent thing to do before building a $20 million dollar facility.
Image was cropped and highlighted for ‘specifics’ reasons, no text was edited or changed.
It sounds like ‘Build it and see if they come’. As a veteran, when this facility turns into another city budget burden, it’ll revert to a swim therapy facility for veterans only. Even if it carries itself, the VA can reserve it for extended periods of swim therapy without paying lease or maintenance. Thankyou citizens for your taxes contribution into federal veterans affairs. There’s 20 acres here and we’d also like a free bowling alley.
I thought your mayor was an economics major. A free facility for thousands of veterans doesn’t make cents.
I think a little hanky panky went on with this whole deal. The city just seems to think they can walk all over any property in the city.
Really Dan – you don’t think an indoor pool meets the criteria of being a “recreational purpose” – or that it doesn’t interfere with the care and treatment of patients in the hospital? Really?
Time to extinguish the fire in your hair over this.
Rufus, the point is that the feds can take back this property on a whim. They may do it now before new construction. Reason, it’s not being used for stated purpose. Actually, I’m now in agreement for an indoor facility here. It’ll benefit citizens and veterans with emphasis on veterans in winter months. Realistically, the city has the money and it’s burning a hole in their pocket. They’d find another more foolish sink hole if we don’t let them spend it here. The present cleptocracy wants to spend anywhere so they get their cut before the end of Huether’s term.
Wrong Dan. As with anything and everything “the feds” (the administrative branch of the federal government) do – any action they might take here is subject to JUDICIAL REVIEW. I.E., they CANNOT just take the property “on a whim”. The city would SUE the feds, and A JUDGE will determine whether or not the REALITY on the ground meets the criteria defined by the CONTRACTUAL LANGUAGE. And guess what, even YOU agree it is a recreational use AND it BENEFITS the patients at the VA. Case closed.
Where is Taxpayer-Voter, Stuck on 85th, Bruce and Anon (telling us how he is going to vote on the indoor pool via cut and past for the 401st time) and the rest of the 30-70 gang?
I would refer readers back to Sy’s excellent posts this past Spring on the issue.
Titleast, I will remind you once again, the Indoor Pool was not on the ballot. I compare it to the governor’s race to where Denny tromped Susan then we make Lowe governor.