[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k3Gtd8z_rU[/youtube]
The Spellerberg Quit Claim Deed issue rose again during the aquatics presentation on March 23, 2015. This meeting could have taken place in 2012 with little changes. The city continues to dismiss the need to find out from the VA if they see any legal issues to once again breaking the rules governing the Quit Claim sale of the 1950’s.
To some this is no big deal and it might be just that. The problem is this, if the City continues to break the sale contract as they did with the retention ponds, the VA could demand the property back.
Anyone dealing with real estate law knows this simple fact, if a clause is written into a Quit Claim Deed, the clause can be exercised at a later date. It is so simple. It is so straight forward. In order for the city to retain “ownership” of the land, it has to follow the contract. It does not matter how old the contract is. The contract could have been written in 1650 and it would still be valid today.
Just calling an office and having a friendly chat with the janitor or today’s chief lawyer does not equal a signed written contract giving full ownership of the property. As of today, the VA still controls the land, the City is given the right to use it within murky guidelines.
Watch the Entire meeting below;
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yckdjkVd4[/youtube]
Other issues with the site
As I was attending the end of the meeting last night, I noticed quite a few supporters of the pool actually had some good concerns. Will there be enough parking (204 spots) when meets are held at the location? Why isn’t there a designated turn lane going into the facility? Why isn’t there a road connecting the VA and Pool parking lot (just sidewalks – which further proves the ‘communications’ with the VA are questionable at best). I also wondered why we need bleacher seating for 500 people? I thought this facility was to be used by everyone? Not just the swim teams? Why is the recreational pool so shallow at the deep end (3.5 feet)? It was pretty obvious from listening to supporters of the pool that they now feel they were left out of the process in planning this facility.
Of course, this cynic is not surprised. The city is in full ram-rod mode with $24 million dollars of our money, who cares about the VA or what the public thinks.
Could not have been written in 1650. In 1650, the Spellerberg property was part of FRANCE.
France OR VA, doesn’t matter, we don’t have an MOU with either of them.
We need 500 seats for the privileged parents of those “free school lunch” children on the swim teams. You know as Margaret Sumption always claimed “We need to provide for all those poor children.” And of course the people who funded and supported the plan to defeat a neighborhood pool are mostly country clubbers whose children are on the swim teams and who still have their own outdoor pool at the country clubs.
Web-op you are not even CLOSE to being a cynic
AIM HIGHER ,…I will be proud of you when you become an ICONOCLAST.
You are still a young Whippersnapper give it time.
OBG Art Labor so on so forth
Not sure what the infatuation is with an MOU. You do realize – don’t you – that an MOU is not necessarily “legally binding”?? (according to several legal resources)
Oh wait – I know – it’s a catchy term – and easy to remember and therefor continually gripe about.
Ruf – What is the name of the legal document we should be asking for? Because we will start asking for that also. Every little bit helps.
Why I asked the MOU question is very simple. We have no understanding of the long-term control of usage for the property. This should be a simple thing for the city attorney’s office to accomplish. We ask for clarity so we do not lose our investment due to shenanigans of the current players.
To those who do not understand the need for a MOU consider this from the folks at WIKI:
A memorandum of understanding (MoU) describes a bilateral or multilateral agreement between two or more parties. It expresses a convergence of will between the parties, indicating an intended common line of action. It is often used in cases where parties either do not imply a legal commitment or in situations where the parties cannot create a legally enforceable agreement. It is a more formal alternative to a gentlemen’s agreement.
Whether or not a document constitutes a binding contract depends only on the presence or absence of well-defined legal elements in the text proper of the document (the so-called “four corners”). The required elements are: offer and acceptance, consideration, and the intention to be legally bound (animus contrahendi). In the U.S., the specifics can differ slightly depending on whether the contract is for goods (falls under the Uniform Commercial Code [UCC]) or services (falls under the common law of the state).
U.S. private law:
In private U.S. law, MoU is a common synonym for a letter of intent.
Inside a company or government agency:
Many companies and government agencies use MoUs to define a relationship between departments, agencies or closely held companies. In the United Kingdom, such an MoU is often called a concordat.
I use the VA. There’s not enough parking and the 200 new public spaces will be nice. I wonder where anyone using the aquatics center will park. Notice how the VA remains quiet. They win no matter. They’re guaranted free use of the facility for veterans therapy. When the city enters a budget crunch, this facility is a major service cost. It’ll be sold off to the feds for $1 so the bond debt on the events center can be serviced. Then, for justification, city officials will state ‘We didn’t own the property anyway’. This veteran thanks you Sioux Falls. You’re giving from your heart and making your mayor wealthy from his side consideration at the same time.
About the seating for 500. That seating is in the Snowfox half of the facility. When they, (the Snowfox planners) got their 500 seats, we, the taxpayers, got to pay for not only the added on seats, but the mezzanine needed to accomadate those seats, and the elevator needed to get there. I still contend a major reason for the increase has to do with catering to the swim club. I believe the people will be real disappointed with the amount of time the 50 meter pool area will be inaccessible to the public. And that’s a shame, when you consider how much of this total outlay of funds is going for just the 50 meter pool area. But I guess that won’t matter as long as you can afford the $1556 a year it costs just for a single membership to snowfox.
Good thing the taxpayers are subsidizing the operation of this place, I heard the HUETHER Tennis Machine Shed isn’t doing so well, and they haven’t even opened the doors yet. Membership drive isn’t going so well, no surprise, they are charging more then their competitor, and if you buy a membership from the competitor you can use other fitness facilities. When the utility bills start coming in next winter, they are going to have a rude awakening, I heard the Scheels Ice Center has been experiencing the same issues.
As I have said in the past, if there is a true ‘need’ for these facilities, they will be self-sufficient.
Well looky there. Bruce Googles MOU and discovers and reveals that an MOU is NOT A CONTRACT (I.E., not legally binding). Wow. What a surprise.
An MOU between government bodies can equate to a contract or memo of understanding between government agencies / bodies.