The Parkside Shuffle
ByThis, in a nutshell, is what yesterday’s city council work session was all about:
Developer: Condos may block City Hall
ASHEVILLE (Joel Burgess) – Developer Stewart Coleman told City Council members Tuesday he would move his controversial condominium complex closer to City Hall should he be denied permission for a road on public parkland.
Without the road, Coleman said he would have to use Marjorie Street to the south for fire truck access and move his building toward the northern edge of his property line, blocking some views of the 1928 Art Deco City Hall.
So Stewart Coleman went before city council and told them that one of their legal avenues for stopping this project would only make things worse. What else is new? From the very beginning, Coleman has been playing chicken with the council and the commission. You’re going to vote against my project? Fine. I’ll remove the parking decks from the square footage, and then I’ll only have to face the TRC. (Work yourself into a lather. Rinse. Repeat.)
For myself, I view Coleman as a neutral actor here. He owns the land, he wants to build somewhere in the vicinity of Pack Square, and he’s prepared to use every ounce of leverage he has to make a profit. If you’d plunked down over a million dollars for an unappetizing slice of history like the Hayes-Hopson building, you’d do the same. Really. You would.
The problem is that, in contrast to Coleman’s no-holds-barred pursuit of his private interest, our local elected officials seem a little – well – shy about defending the public interest with the same tenacity. Check out what happened in the rest of the session:
Council members were not scheduled to vote on the issue but went into closed session for more than 30 minutes. The private session was intended to allow discussions of a lawsuit that descendants of parkland donor George Pack have brought against the county for selling the land to Coleman and a possible deal involving land to the south of Parkside.
When they returned, Mayor Terry Bellamy reiterated the city’s position that the county should reacquire the parkland. She added that the city was still open to other ways to stop or alter the project, including letting Coleman build on other city land.
Coleman said Monday that he has spent millions of dollars so far on the project and any deal could prove expensive. He hopes to begin demolition in November.
So, to recap: Stewart Coleman comes to council, and says “Let me pave over more of Pack Square. If you don’t, I’ll ruin the park even more, though I know it’s hard to believe that’s even possible.”
Then council says: “Hey, don’t look at us. We passed a resolution insisting that the county pay you off. But of course, if that doesn’t work, we’ll pay you off instead.”
Coleman (on Monday): “Well, they better bring the money. They have until November.”
Personally, I don’t see Stewart Coleman as a neutral actor here. His whole strategy has been to not-so-subtly manipulate and intimidate. He knew that the City was busy setting OTHER priorities for the Marjorie Street property before he bought any of that land. He knew the outrage that would ensue if Council turned down his secret proposal to chuck their priorities for his luxury condos, and he then threatened to build IN the park. He is not a neutral actor. He has played this “I’m just a victim here” card to great effect. Use eminent domain & show him the door, that’s what I say.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I guess my point is that it’s time for city council to start taking this as seriously as Coleman is taking it. He’s fighting as hard as he is because he stands to lose a lot of money; it’d be nice if the council and the commission woke up and started fighting equally hard to prevent the city, the county, and the taxpayers from losing money on this deal. Instead they’re drifting toward either a buyout (county) or swap (city).
The bottom line for me is that Coleman’s motives are irrelevant. The question is: what are the council and commission going to do to get us out of this mess? And how much are they prepared to pay in public money and public assets to avoid a fight? And why won’t they give serious consideration to eminent domain or joining the Pack heirs’ lawsuit?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
And how come no one in City Council knows who Mr. Coleman’s partners are? Or are they just not saying?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Y’know, try as I might, I just can’t view Coleman as the ultimate bad guy here. Granted, he’s a developer out to make a buck by building upscale condos. This is bad enough in the eyes of most.
The ultimate bad guys, obviously, are the county commissioners who should have fucking known better to begin with.
I certainly agree that Coleman is milking this thing for all it’s worth, buy why shouldn’t he? He wanted to build downtown and the county sold him the land to do it with. Now folks are trying to tell him he’s evil. How do you expect him to react? He’s going to buck against his opposition with all he’s got, because technically he’s done nothing wrong.
You’ve got to give it to the guy, he’s got a huge brass pair.
And by the way, using eminent domain would be the stupidest thing that the city or county could do IMO. Not only do I find it blatantly unconstitutional, but the lawsuits that would stem from that act would probably cost the taxpayers much more than trying to negotiate out of the deal. Does anyone really think that using eminent domain would just make the problem disappear and Coleman will slink away?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Twitter: BuggHere
says:
Bobaloo, I said the same thing on the radio yesterday. I spoke for an hour about it on the Take a Stand With Matt Mittan show. The best part was my screaming tirade about voting everyone involved in this out of office this November- including City Council for not having the balls to stand up and scream louder about this.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Bob,
When you say Coleman isn’t the “ultimate bad guy,” I’m guessing that you do see that he bears some responsibility for what has happened. I certainly do: I said “neutral actor” because he isn’t motivated by malice but by profit. At the same time, both the city and the county agree (according to their resolutions, at least) that he should never have been able to buy the park land, that it was a tragic mistake that it was ever sold to anyone.
It seems to me that he should at least knock a few hundred thousand, or maybe a million, off his asking price in the name of civic pride. His refusal to do so speaks ill of his character. So he isn’t blameless, but spending too much time thinking about Coleman can distract us from holding the two governments accountable.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t anticipate his moves. And the “any deal could prove expensive” line – which has been his constant starting point for negotiations – suggests that negotiating out of the deal could be expensive and humiliating for the governments involved, not to mention city and county taxpayers.
Say the county does cough up a couple of million for the land and the H&H building. What programs or departments will get shortchanged as a result? What public investment might be deferred? And to what end? The reacquisition of a small parcel of land, and lasting proof that if you’ve got the chutzpah and a little money, it’s easy enough to bring Asheville and Buncombe County to heel. And make a nice profit in the process.
Obviously, eminent domain brings its own problems. But a compromise that gives Coleman everything he wants brings problems of its own.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Jason, I was listening. It’s always fun to hear you on Take a Stand.
Doug,
Technically, no, I don’t think he really bears some responsibility for what has happened. He obviously is greatly responsible for what will happen, but he’s an investor in a free market and purchased land. It’s ultimately the commissioners fault for what happened.
And no, the county doesn’t agree that he shouldn’t have been able to buy the parkland. Otherwise they would never have done it. They just realize that their political lives are in peril, so fuck them. It wasn’t a mistake. Do not let them off the hook in any way.
As far as some civic duty to the community, that would be great, but let’s not forget he’s a developer, not an activist.
But I do see his point that he and his investors have certainly spent a good deal of money in the development of this project on this particular parcel of land. If there is to be any deal made, surely this must be considered, and hopefully Coleman will be honorable about it.
The best thing at this point, if any of the commissioners or council members has any fucking balls, would be to request Coleman basically give them a breakdown of the money he’s spent and to reimburse him for it.
But they won’t, I predict. Council will wring their hands and act outraged and the commissioners will feign regret and pretend to give a fuck and, come November, Coleman will probably bring down the Magnolia with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Dixie Deerman.
Forgive me if I sound pessimistic, but this round and round and back and forth bullshit is pissing me off.
Somebody in charge please fucking take some action already, or declare that you aren’t going to do shit.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Here is something that I don’t understand – perhaps someone here who is more legally savvy than I will know.
It seems to me that it is very unclear if the parcel in question was really legal for the county to ever sell in the first place. In my understanding of the matter, the Pack family left that particular land to “the people of asheville” for the publics’ use and good.
That would seem to be what the Pack family heirs are suing over – that the land in question was only in the Buncombe county official’s “care” – not to be sold for an individual’s (or several individuals’) profit. So the Pack family is suing, and the outcome of that lawsuit is still undecided at this time.
Why is it, then, that a temporary moratorium on pre-contruction work or demolition cannot be sought until this lawsuit has been determined in the Courts?
It seems to me that Coleman is pushing so aggressively ahead on this in the hopes that, once he bulldozes ahead and there is no parkland left to preserve, the lawsuit will simply go away. And he might be right.
Depending on the City officials to step in with some extreme action like eminent domain seems a very long shot to me. That is certain to be an extremely controversial and contested decision were it ever to happen (which I seriously doubt).
I do understand that there is an issue of the legal ownership rights of an individual, even a greedy developer, to consider here…but considering that the very legality of the initial sale is under dispute…it just seems to me that a postponement-type measure, until things can be properly sorted out in the courts, should be the first measure under consideration.
Is there truly no legal way to temporarily put some brakes on any further proceedings until it can be legally arbitrated?
thanks in advance for your replies.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Bob,
You’ve just described the Parkside Shuffle in ten words or less. I wish for your sake that we were running a contest.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
the free market is dead: we privitize profits and socialize bailouts to the taxpayers.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
contentpersephone says:
Good question. And I’d like to see a list of the options for legal and, more important, immediate remedy?
One option that is already being exercised is: Litigation. The Pack Family, as you know, has entered into a suit against the county for breach of contract. (However, the county maintains that the second of two deeds nullifies the specific conditions set in the first.)
The lawsuit also seeks an injunction. This would be the only time-sensitive measure that could be implemented to prevent the developer from fulfilling his permits to begin and continue construction. (Once construction has begun — possibly in Nov. — the developer begins to gain ground in any legal contest, including appeal. And this gain accrues with every day that passes where a network of resources are being committed to the project.)
The city has passed a resolution essentially condemning the land sale. If this is their position, they should join in the Pack Family suit against the county and press for an injunction.
Brownie Newman is quoted in the AC-Tsaying that, “Asheville should join a suit brought by descendants of parkland donor George Pack against the county…”
This seems like the best option at this time.
Another option is a buyback of the land. The developer purchased the property for $306,000. The county tax office assessed the market value of the property to be exactly that amount: $306k. The county offered $1.5 million for a buyback. Coleman countered with $4.1 million.
The problem here is that the county is statutorily prohibited from purchasing properties for anything greater than market value; which in this case would be $306,000 in contrast to the $4.1M asking price.
A buyback of the land appears not to be a good option to pursue. It would require that the owner, Black Dog Realty, sell the land for current market value as opposed to its potential best-use future value. Combined with sunk costs, this option is highly unlikely.
Another option is confiscation through eminent domain. Again, the developer would be compensated at market value in exchanged for compulsory sale.
While eminent domain is commonly used for public utilities, highways, and railroads, recent court decisions have expanded the powers available to local governments to convert private property into public property for cause.
In this case, the eminent domain option would not be effected to facilitate any public utility project, or even to facilitate revenue generation for government, but simply to restore the parkland to its original status: that of being conserved as public parkland in perpetuity.
While the exercise of this option might be available to local government, I’m not confident that this action can be justified and might not hold up on appeal. All the while the project moves forward. Without an injunction, the prospect of recapturing unimproved land may become irrelevant once major work on the project has been completed.
Perhaps we should wait for Parkside to be completed and then confiscate it and then return it to its original condition.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim,
I would have thought that you, of all people, would be adamantly against a tactic such as eminent domain.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim -
Thanks for your thorough answer to my question.
Now one more – even if the City of Asheville, for whatever reason, doesn’t join in the Pack Family lawsuit, is there any way for the people themselves to add their voices/power/money to the cause? Like some sort of “class action lawsuit?”
Also, does anyone know how to keep tabs on how the lawsuit is proceeding? Especially in regards to the potential injunction?
Best-
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Seeing how all of the county commissioners but one are democrats and all of the city council members but one are democrats, they will talk the talk, but when it comes time to do anything forget about it!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Mumpower + Russell = 2
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I forgot about Russell, still the majority democrats on County Commission are the ones who got us into this mess!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Tim,
You did not include the purchase price of the H&H building @ ~1.5 M, but it is included in the buyback price of ~$4.1 M.
You probably won’t be able to read this because of disemvowelement, too bad for everyone reading the incorrect information.
TS
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Here are the relevant parts of state law regarding eminent domain, from the state website:
§ 40A‑3. By whom right may be exercised.
(b) Local Public Condemnors – Standard Provision. – For the public use or benefit, the governing body of each municipality or county shall possess the power of eminent domain and may acquire by purchase, gift or condemnation any property, either inside or outside its boundaries, for the following purposes:
(3) Establishing, enlarging, or improving parks, playgrounds, and other recreational facilities.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_40A/GS_40A-3.html
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I agree that exercising eminent domain is one of the most drastic things a government can do, but there are cases where it is warranted. This is one of them. When a developer refuses to recognize that his actions are opposed by the local government, and that his plans are so detrimental to the public good, adults have to step in and say, “You can’t build on park land – that’s just crazy. Here’s fair compensation. Now go away.”
I hope that everyone now holding public office, or running for public office, or thinking of someday running for public office, is watching and realizing how this issue is radicalizing a new generation of citizen activists. This will be a determining issue in the next elections.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
bobaloo says:
Yes, I am usually against eminent domain as it is typically exercised. (I think that property owners should, in the main, remain unmolested by government whenever government seeks to coercively relieve those owners of their property for public utility purposes. Government should seek to enter into a voluntary agreement with the owner to acquire any property deemed critical to some utility project. If it cannot meet the asking price then a bond referendum should be introduced to raise capital and raise the bid.)
But what recourse is available when it is the government that has willfully violated the terms of a contract engaged in by a private property owner? I would prefer that our county commissioners not be corrupt graverobbers. In the absence of ethical standards for local elected officials, at least in this case, I will opt for eminent domain.
As I stated earlier, I do not think this is not a strong position.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Twitter: randallt
says:
Thank you all for such an educational diary. Hooligans never cease to amaze me with their grasp of this issue.
You can learn more here in an hour than you can learn from weeks of local traditional media.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
When you talk about Coleman’s “property rights”, let’s not forget what his intention was when he acquired this property: he bought this land in order to pressure City Council to give him OTHER property, which he couldn’t acquire otherwise. This, by his own admission.
I think I understand the political, emotional, and philosophical underpinnings of the property rights debate, and there’s merit there. However, does that argument still hold up for you when it’s blatant and cynical land speculation, bordering on blackmail? At some point, my sympathy for his “property rights” evaporates.
Use eminent domain, pay him off, and “give him a copy of our home game, Johnny.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0