I agree with the Daily News. Makes sense for the city.
What I don't get is why the last minute filing? Are you telling me this wasn't on NED's radar until recently, and it took a last minute bit of cramming to get the appeal in? What the heck?
The city filed an appeal of the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps on behalf of New England Development on Monday, the last day possible to fight the imposition of new flood maps that will impact hundreds of properties in the city.
Mayor John Moak had said earlier this year that the city would not appeal the new maps, which will take effect June 1. However, the mayor said last week that the city is the only party that can file an appeal and did so this week on behalf of the development company.
Everyone wants to point at the White Hen Pantry as being the first chink in NED's armor, suggesting the move to expand the CVS represents some sort of communal tone deafness. Wait, I think I said that too.
But this to me raises even more questions. Is there a legitimate reason why the appeal went down to the wire. Seems to me the city's been warning about these maps for a long-time. Did NED take a look just recently?
Honestly, what possibly could be more important to NED's plans this the flood maps?
Oh and the second odd thing--interesting really--is the suggestion that the flood maps might require NED to elevate building on the site to compensate for any flood waters.
The maps would cause any new buildings to be built at a higher elevation than they would have been, which can be a "multiple feet" difference, Green said.
If new buildings are a higher elevation, it wouldn't match what is currently in place, [Local NED Rep Tony] Green said.
From my understanding, NED already had issues with the height limitations laid out by the Overlay District. So, if the flood maps really require the buildings to start at a higher elevation any building's that NED has eyed for that parcel could really squeeze the square-footage of any project cown there.
What these means for the feasibility of the entire project, I just don't know.
8 comments:
so you don't find it odd/strange that the city is filing on behalf of NED? I think that stands out as the most glaring part of the story.
Well,
No, I guess I don't.
The Daily News reports that the city is the only entity that can file the appeal. It did so on behalf of NED.
If NED called the city and suggested this would impact the development of some prime property, I think the city would be wise to commit some dollars toward protecting its stake, which would come in the form of potential tax dollars if the waterfront properties were every developed.
i don't like the idea of spending tax dollars to protect one mans investment, its strange that the city is the only entity that can file an appeal. very sketchy.
Actually, it sounds decidedly unsketchy.
The Federal Government probably doesn't want to handle 1,000 different appeals. It's much easier and cheaper to reject one appeal per municipality.
If that's the case, then it's really the city's job to file on behalf of a taxpayer, and like it or not Karp is a major taxpayer in town.
I know some suggest that Karp should reimburse the city, but I'm not really sure if there is a precedent. If the city spends money on a lawsuit that ultimately protects my property from an encroaching neighbor, should I be on the hook for paying the city back?
a dispute between two neighbors is a bit different than a dispute between the federal government and a billionaire. if the appeal was filed on behalf of everyone effected that would be different, but being filed on behalf of karp doesn't smell right.
Well I suspect the appeal was of the entire map, not just the NED portion, but I'm not sure.
Interesting scenario though...a property owner goes to the city saying it has evidence that the flood maps are in error and will have dire impact on the value of the land, does the city have a responsiblity to act.
And if it doesn't can it be liable in someway? Would that constitute a type of unlawful taking?
Bottomline though, if NED could appeal on its own why wouldn't it? You think they're just too cheap to pay the legal fee? That seems like the sketchier scenario.
Tom,
It's my understanding that NED paid for the scientific study that serves as the basis for challenging the maps, so I'm not sure what tax dollars have been spent. For this reason, I also believe that the challenge applies only to NED's property.
Lastly, property owners can challenge flood maps even after they are adopted. The current flood maps effective 1985 have several LOMAs (letter of map ammendment) dating as recently as 2006.
Ooops one more thing, the Mass Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that unless the wetlands restriction renders the property worthless, the owner is not entitled to any compensation - at least as it applies to a vacant lot.
Bubba's bringing the heat.
Salisbury appealed on behalf of Ring's Island residents, so this isn't really a sketchy situation.
Post a Comment