Convention Center

[Motley]

There is nothing wrong with an ED procedure. If the parties have differing opinions as to price, use of an arbitration system is appropriate. There is also nothing wrong with dropping a court case if you see you are on the losing side before you get the decision. Better to drop it than to have an official position on the matter established by the courts. The city does not want to set precedence as to use of ED or to the price of land to reserve those options in the future. The only troubling thing is the initial price estimated by the city seems very low. It would be interesting to see how and why they came up with $13 million as the estimate and did not realize it would be far more.

[Urbanized]

Pete hopefully you can find out when they started trying to close those alleys and streets but I had heard that they were trying as far back as when the dealership was still in use. It never fit well with their plans and the majority of the traffic on them was the dealership traffic.

The alleys were such, but the streets (Harvey, Hudson) provided major points of ingress/egress between I-40 and downtown (Reno), especially prior to the I-40 reconstruction. The alleyway was actually gated at night.

[SouthsideSooner]

Because they didn't want to sell at all. They had zero plans to do so and were sitting on property that is only going to become much more valuable in the very near future.

Remember, the City is the only one that has described this action as 'friendly'. It was a lawsuit; a legal action taken against REHCO where both sides were strongly advocating for their respective positions, which were completely cross-purposes (we want to pay you as little as possible; we want as much as can possibly get). How is any of that friendly?

And what is REHCO supposed to do here? As has been stated, they have tons of property in the urban core to still develop and had always relied on public incentives. Were they supposed to come out in the press and say the didn't want to sell and the City was trying to screw them?

From the very beginning, there was great conflict over the streets and alley issue. REHCO sought to close and annex them back in 2012, long before the eminent domain action. The City had denied their application multiple times even though they had approved similar actions in the past -- in fact, I'm not aware of them ever declining such a request.

They had been talking for 3 years about this transaction and only last summer was the ED action filed. The idea that only recently did the City know they were way apart on price is absurd.

Another quote from Steve's story would indicate otherwise...

"Hints that Rehco was seeking more than the $13 million budgeted by the city for the former dealership emerged privately in September. But it is fair to say city officials were not expecting such a large difference between what they wanted to pay and what Howard and Hall were seeking."

One thing is clear. The city totally screwed themselves by paying such a high price for the Vitagraph propery. It would be interesting to know what the property would have been valued at without that comp. Who did they buy that property from? Was it Hall? That would be another interesting twist...

[Just the facts]

If the case went forward and let's say the value was set at $75 million, would the City be obligated to buy it or could they have just said 'never mind'?

[Pete]

This was from their application on 2/14/12; I'm still not sure if this was the first application:

[Motley]

That would depend of the written offer on the table from the city. Did the city offer to purchase the land at whatever the price to be established by the court? Doubtful.

[Pete]

If the case went forward and let's say the value was set at $75 million, would the City be obligated to buy it or could they have just said 'never mind'?

Once the commissioners rule, it's binding.

The only option is to appeal to a jury but the City Attorney told City Council that juries will almost always decide in favor of a property owner vs. the government.

[Jersey Boss]

Then why didn't REHCO just tell the city up front how much they were wanting for the property? Why weren't they upfront with the city about the amount they believed that they could get through "friendly eminent domain proceedings"? If they had done so, we could have eliminated this property last summer... It doesn't sound like they were being straight with the city about their intentions...

It does not appear to this reader that the city has not been straight with the tax payers or even the city council.

[Jersey Boss]

If the case went forward and let's say the value was set at $75 million, would the City be obligated to buy it or could they have just said 'never mind'?

Would the land owners have had the same option? If this were the case, why would you be in court with an ED case?

[Motley]

If the court decided the price to be $75million and that ED was appropriate in this instant, the owners would have had to sell to the city at that price. The doctrine of ED, says landowner rights are subject to governmental taking. I don't think the final court decision mandates that the city actually take the land if the price is set over what they want to pay.

[jn1780]

It almost seems like the city thought they were going to bluff their way though the ED process and get a lower price then they came to the realization that probably wasn't going to happen.

[Pete]

Another quote from Steve's story would indicate otherwise...

"Hints that Rehco was seeking more than the $13 million budgeted by the city for the former dealership emerged privately in September. But it is fair to say city officials were not expecting such a large difference between what they wanted to pay and what Howard and Hall were seeking."

Let's just say I take great exception to many things in that article and don't believe it fairly represents the facts shown in the court case and other public filings that are in direct conflict.

[Pete]

If the court decided the price to be $75million and that ED was appropriate in this instant, the owners would have had to sell to the city at that price. The doctrine of ED, says landowner rights are subject to governmental taking. I don't think the final court decision mandates that the city actually take the land if the price is set over what they want to pay.

Not true.

Once the commissioners rule that decision is binding and the government body has a very short period of time to pay the identified price.

The only way out is appeal to a jury.

[Rover]

I

Or, we could just build the project that was approved by voters within the established budget and do it in an open and honest way.

That is all anybody is expecting. Why is that so much to ask?

It's perfectly right to expect. And that's what I am saying. That may be all we can afford. The city needs to quit trying to make it better and do no more or less. Just build on already owned land regardless of where it is. Build a building at or under budget. Don't include a hotel since many think it was bait and switch anyway. We can take the path of least resistance and have no questions about overreach, transparency, or anything else. Just build the thing. That's what is expected. Doing the safe thing can be easy and non controversial.

[Motley]

Well if the ED procedure required the governmental body to pay the price no matter what it is, it certainly was correct to terminate the court case before an unfavorable price was set. I thought the court process only set the price and the city could then purchase at that price or walk. I suppose the ED process assumes the government body must want the property no matter what price is set or they wouldn't force ED in the first place.

[Just the facts]

Once the commissioners rule, it's binding.

The only option is to appeal to a jury but the City Attorney told City Council that juries will almost always decided in favor of a property owner vs. the government.

So if it is the purchase that is binding, and not just the price, then this is first sensible CC related item to happen so far. Could you imagine the firestorm if the City blew 1/3 of the whole budget just on a few acres of land. We would have to make the CC out of straw or sticks.

[Pete]

Well if the ED procedure required the governmental body to pay the price no matter what it is, it certainly was correct to terminate the court case before an unfavorable price was set. I thought the court process only set the price and the city could then purchase at that price or walk. I suppose the ED process assumes the government body must want the property no matter what price is set or they wouldn't force ED in the first place.

The process is effectively binding arbitration; it's just that the property owners can be dragged in against their will and can't just terminate the proceedings if things start looking bad for them.

[Jim Kyle]

Or, we could just build the project that was approved by voters within the established budget and do it in an open and honest way.

That is all anybody is expecting. Why is that so much to ask?

After all this delay, with inflation continuing every year, is that still possible to do?

[Pete]

After all this delay, with inflation continuing every year, is that still possible to do?

That certainly remains to be seen.

But before we deviate from the agreed upon plan and parameters there needs to be a public process rather than a lot of behind-doors dealings.

[kevinpate]

After all this delay, with inflation continuing every year, is that still possible to do?

If not, then just like the sidewalks and trails and the park and the senior wellness aquatic centers (which may or may not be aquatic and most certainly will be fewer in number than originally touted), maybe, just maybe, the cc needs to be scaled back like everything else, or the right folks needs to sit down with the press and say ok, we ca not get this done for X dollars, so just like the finish the arena, and then the refinish the arena, we are going to ask peeps to vote for X and use that extra to get it done. If you say no, you say no, but we think you should say yes and here is why. AND THEN, NO BS. GIVE REALISTIC REASONS AND PROJECTIONS.

Sheesh, John and Jane Q might even surprise them if they just talk to them like reasonable adults instead of a wasted out stoner audience at a bad magic show.

[Pete]

Finally got a chance to watch most of the council meeting today and as Ed Shadid asked Brent Bryant and Jim Couch about TIF funding, it was determined that "about 8 weeks ago and certainly in the last 90 days" a TIF proposal from REHCO was completely declined. The refusal occured in the stage when only City staff are involved in the decision making; not at City Council level where TIF awards must be ultimately approved.

Pressing further, it was revealed that that was the first time REHCO had been completely refused.

[David]

Reading between the lines, does this suggest that city staff is acting to punish REHCO for their actions in regards to the convention center site?

[Pete]

Reading between the lines, does this suggest that city staff is acting to punish REHCO for their actions in regards to the convention center site?

I'm sure this was over the Francis Apartments, as has been previously posted and discussed.

I have way bigger concerns about how the lingering effects might impact the land around 21c (Fred Hall) and all the remaining MidtownR projects (Bob Howard).

Hope everyone can just move on, regardless of what may or may not happen on the original cc site.

[Teo9969]

If not, then just like the sidewalks and trails and the park and the senior wellness aquatic centers (which may or may not be aquatic and most certainly will be fewer in number than originally touted), maybe, just maybe, the cc needs to be scaled back like everything else, or the right folks needs to sit down with the press and say ok, we ca not get this done for X dollars, so just like the finish the arena, and then the refinish the arena, we are going to ask peeps to vote for X and use that extra to get it done. If you say no, you say no, but we think you should say yes and here is why. AND THEN, NO BS. GIVE REALISTIC REASONS AND PROJECTIONS.

Sheesh, John and Jane Q might even surprise them if they just talk to them like reasonable adults instead of a wasted out stoner audience at a bad magic show.

So much this.

[Teo9969]

Quick question:

We keep saying "City staff"…who exactly is "City staff"?