Parkside – More Questions Arise

Background on the shady Parkside condo deal here, here, and here.

Summary: Stewart Coleman started talking with City staff about swapping public parkland for City owned property before January of 2006. He had at least two meetings with Scott Shuford and city staff after January, 2006 to discuss the swap. The topic didn’t come up before City Council until November 21, 2006, when Shuford mentioned the Parkside property, but didn’t tell Council he’d been talking with Coleman. The transcript from that day, however, says that he mentioned Coleman and the Marjorie Street property. The same day, County Commission added the parkland sale to the consent agenda at the beginning of their meeting. Bill Stanley motioned it, and Carol Peterson seconded. The Commission voted unanimously to sell the parkland. There are ten obvious questions about this dirty deal that remain unanswered. The project is scheduled to go before the Asheville Planning and Zoning Board on April 2, 2008.

I haven’t uploaded this thing to the internet yet, but here’s an excerpt from an audio recording of a presentation given by Stewart Coleman to the Pack Square Conservancy on Oct. 22, 2007:

Carole King – “…and the building you’re proposing, of course, is moving into the park, um, by that distance, you know, from the “I” into, in front of, the circle around there…”

Coleman’s architect – “It’s closer to the park. I don’t know if it’s necessarily in the park. But…”

Carole King – “Plain words. Have you ever, um, or, have you considered talking to the city about just moving that site back and swapping park land with them for land across Marjorie Street to make that building move out from the park somewhat?”

Coleman’s architect – “I haven’t personally, but this gentleman has, so I’ll let him answer that question.”

Stewart Coleman – “Uh, I began talking with, uh, Scott Shuford and his department, uh, on doing a land swap, uh, square foot for square foot, uh, with land off the Site B, and, uh, we had, we had many meetings, but before I started keeping record of them – the, the first meeting we had that I kept a record was on January of 2006. Uh, we had another meeting with them on July the 11th, 2006. We had another meeting with them on December the 6th of 2006. Uh, and in that meeting they said they were hiring a consultant for the city owned properties and were going to determine what they wanted to do with that piece of real estate, so they had no interest at all in moving, uh, or exchanging any real estate. Uh, they wanted to keep Site B whole I think. Uh, then in May and June of 2006 we had two meetings [architect whispers, "2007"], and they had indicated that they had, had, had placed , uh, um, a RFQ, which is qualification, uh, request for qualifications. And in July of two thousand and, uh, seven, the city contacted our firm, uh, the city manager, uh, and asked if we would consider preparing a document that represented a property exchange. Uh, we did so. Uh, we gave it to him on July the 24th of 2007, ’07. City Council reviewed the, uh, the proposal in a closed session, uh, which included an eight page illustration, uh, demonstrating the exchange and how it would be developed and, uh, we were denied at that closed session, uh, for us to participate in a, uh, property swap. Of course we weren’t at the closed session, so we don’t know exactly the dialogue of that, but, yes, we spent a lot of time trying to work with the city in trying to make this exchange.”

The first mention of the project at City Council appears in the transcript from a November 21, 2006 work session in which former City Planning Director, Scott Shuford, discussed City property that could be offered up to developers in a Request For Qualifications (RFQ):

“With regard to including non-City-owned properties in the RFQ, potential RFQ responders may be interested in expanding the scope of their responses to include sites not owned by the City. For example, the Hayes-Hopson building owned by Stewart Coleman, the property owned by Buncombe County between City-County Plaza and Marjorie Street, and the Harrison family property may be appropriate to include due to their proximity to Parkside properties. At the November 14, 2006, Council meeting, the Eagle Market Street Corporation expressed interest in this approach as well.”

Then I noticed something very strange. In reviewing the video of this Nov. 21, 2007 work session, I found that Shuford did not once mention Coleman, Hayes-Hopson, Marjorie Street, the Harrison family property, or the Eagle Market Street Corporation. This information was added to the transcript despite having never been spoken during the Council’s work session.

During the work session, Scott Shuford says things like this:

“We think that there’s a great opportunity with the interest we’re seeing with the, um, the so-called Parkside property.”

November 21, 2006 was also the day that the Buncombe County Commission consented to sell Stewart Coleman’s Black Dog Realty the piece of public parkland. This item was added to the consent agenda at the beginning of the meeting instead of being given a public hearing. Here’s the original agenda. Here’s the added item. The invocation by Father Gary Coffee offers a spectacularly ironic introduction to the sale of our public land:

Father Gary Coffee – “Let us pray – Lord we’re so grateful for this beautiful area in which we live, and we recognize the responsibility that goes with that stewardship. We pray your blessing upon this meeting, those who take counsel, particularly the Commissioners, but others who will participate, that those decisions that are made would further your purposes in this world and benefit the people for the common good. And this we pray in your Holy and Blessed Name. Amen.”

Chairman Nathan Ramsey – “Thank you so much, Father Coffee, for being with us. Uh, the Board Members have the agenda before them and the consent agenda items. I would like to note, we will add a resolution authorizing the execution of a non-warranty deed for 320,000… 322,000 to sell the, uh, property that’s adjacent to City/County Plaza. It’s where the, uh, Day Reporting Center was located. We will add that to our new business items, so is there a motion to approve our consent agenda items and to follow our agenda?”

Commissioner Bill Stanley – “Moved.

Commissioner Carol Peterson – “Second.”

Chairman Nathan Ramsey – “Motion and second, all in favor signify by saying aye.”

All – “Aye.”

Chairman Nathan Ramsey – “All opposed. Motion passes 5-0 to approve those items.”

Again I’ll ask, who will be the first to call for an investigation of this shady boondoggle? It’s clear that Scott Shuford was in private conversations with Coleman about a City land deal. It’s clear that the land County Commission sold to Coleman is public parkland.

These questions remain unanswered:

1. Why was former City Planning Director Scott Shuford in meetings with private developer Stewart Coleman, discussing how he might leverage public parkland against city owned property for a potential “swap”?

2. Why did Coleman’s “independent” appraisal of the land not turn up the fact that it is parkland?

3. Why are there two deeds to this property, and why didn’t Register of Deeds, Otto Debruhl, raise an alarm about the deal?

4. Why did Coleman’s “independent” appraisal value the land at $322,000, while the County appraisal valued it at $600,000?

5. Why was the land then revalued at just $306,000 for tax purposes, saving Coleman about $3,200 in yearly taxes?

6. Why was this slipped onto the Commission’s consent agenda instead of having public hearing?

7. When did County staff know this was public parkland? When did they tell the Commissioners?

8. What were the circumstances surrounding Scott Shuford’s resignation just months after the land deal?

9. Mountain Xpress, “Pay a visit to the Register of Deeds office in the county courthouse, however, and they’ll show you an aerial photo with a map overlay that clearly shows a pink property line extending well into what is now parkland—including the big magnolia and other trees in front of City Hall. Did anyone in county government look at that image before the sale was made?”

10. Why are Coleman and the Marjorie Street property written into the minutes from the November 21, 2006 City Council work session when Shuford did not actually mention them?

We’re still waiting to see who’s going to step up to the plate and make it clear that the City will have nothing to do with this slimy deal until an investigation is completed. The Asheville Planning and Zoning Board is scheduled to take up the Parkside Condo project in its meeting on April 2, 2008, and then it will move on to City Council.