- 11/2/5 book 37717 page 51 48 Mason Street 66,853
- 11/2/5 book 37717 page 59 47 Mason Street 43,147
Two months later Mason Winfield transferred 48 Mason Street to one of the minority owner stake-holders (Worcester Common Ground) for $10,1/1/06 book 38185 page 55 48 Mason Street $10.
Since that time Worcester Commone Ground has received a grant in the amount of 170,000 from the EPA BCRLF to remdiate 48 Mason Street. Since Common Ground is a non-profit they (Common Ground)will not have to pay the 170,000 back. It is grant.
Imagine Worcester Common Ground will deed back 48 Mason Street to Mason-Winfield (for profit corp)for $10. Does this sound fair?? If you get a minority partner, who is a non-profit, you can park property in their name and be eligible for Brownfield Clean-up grants that do not have to be paid back even if the project is controlled by a for profit entity.
4 comments:
Not only that, but if you have the inside track and know that you can get free fed'l money to clean the site up and another bidder deosnt have the grease to do similarly........than how can another bidder possibly compete.
Isnt someone who is freindly with or related to Jim Mc Govren one of the principals in Mason Winfield LLC.
From the RFP for Mason Winfield:
Declaration of Restrictions:
"For housing proposals 20% of the housing stock units developed must be sold to FirstTime Homebuyers (FTHB) households earning at or below 80% of area median income adjusted for family size."
Now contrast that language with the language for the other parcels RFP'ed, specifically 90 Bellevue sold to Buckingham Development:
From the RFP for 90 Bellevue:
Declaration of Restrictions:
"Property must be developed and sold to FTHB'ers"
Mason Winfield only says HOUSING STOCK must be sold to FTBH'ers....................Bellevue St says PROPERTY must be old to FTHB'ers.
I think if ran this by a lawyer he'd say it's ok to transfer Mason Winfield to a NON FTHB'er for purposes of remediation, but 90 Bellevue (and the other RFP'ed sites?) you couldnt transfer to other than FTMB'ers.
Mind you i am not rationalizing or justifying this action and what it apears they did they did, I am only pointing out how the language was structured.
Interesting the differences in the language. There was something in those RFP's about who property could be sold to except the Mason Winfield site has different language. Could one assert, almost a shoe in for the lone bidder on that parcel who might be anticipating a transer to a non profit merely for purposes of essentially free remediation?
Also keep in mind 25K home funds was the maximum allowed per unit, yet Buckingham Devoplment, it appears, got 40K for the house built at Bluff and Bellevue Sts and 30k for each of the 2 duplex units at 90 Bellevue. Isnt this contrary the original RFP? Maybe I am reading the Registry Deeds documents incorrectly?
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/controller?commandflag=searchByNameID&optflag=ImageSearchCommand&county=ma009&userid=null&userCategory=7&filename=&server=&namespace=&filePath=&instrumentnumber=169520&docId=5993315&ptrno=5993315&officeid=70&zoomprop=100&year=2006&convtype=2&volume=40139&volpage=378
Also it appears the selling price was supposed to be about 181k on Bluff St house, per the original Buckingham proposal but it appears from Registry of Deeds it was sold for 215K So were both the home funds amount and the selling price increased 15 K and 34 respectively? If so, this is contrary to the original bid and contrary to the language in the bid. Total of 49K additional monies to Buckingham Development ( 34K in selling price + 15K in Home funds). Again, am I reading the Registry of deeds document correctly?
http://www.masslandrecords.com/malr/controller?commandflag=getDetails&optflag=DetailsCommand&county=ma009&userid=null&userCategory=7&nameid=10&ptrno=5993309&instrumentnumber=169518&fileDate=11/09/2006&volume=40139&page=363&partytype=&name=BLUFF%2BST&town=163&officeid=70&fromdate=01/01/2005&todate=07/31/2008&subdetail=yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tembenis, again....in tomorrow's T & G .... not really a good story though so get your keyboards ready...
Harry Tembenis
Worcester, MA
Anonymous:
You are not reading this incorrectly. This is clear violation of the state public bidding laws. Contact the Inspector General.
Bill
If you need any help send me an e-mail at Bill@AdvantageBenefits.com
Post a Comment