The agenda for the March 2, 2015 town council meeting has been published. While both the 25-year and the 10-year extension documents are on the agenda and notarized signatures are not required, a 10-year extension of the 1997 Area 96-1 Annexation/Development Agreement (“AA”) is the only extension on the agenda with an accompanying formal motion and document attached for the mayor’s signature. Documents requiring the mayor’s signature are normally documents which are prepared by the town attorney as they are legally required to be included as an exhibit with the agenda item.
There was no document prepared by the town attorney that was attached as an exhibit for the mayor’s signature for a 25-year extension.
Are you OK with that?
This article is not about the extension, it’s about how politics continues to be played in this town despite the removal of the old regime.
If it’s taken the threat of a recall election to make council members live up to their campaign promises and protect the AA, I’m OK with that. But I am not blinded to the fact that there would be no extension of the AA for the town council to consider on March 2, 2015 had it not been for the presence of an Area 96-1 resident who prevented town council members from breaching the AA at the February 3, 2014 town council meeting.
I know this because I am that resident.
It goes without saying that Area 96-1 residents are in favor of an extension, but who determined that a 10-year extension was better than a 25-year extension? Obviously, a term of 25-years is allowed as 25-year’s is the original term of the AA. Under the 10-year extension document circulated by Bruce Arlen, however, Area 96-1 residents forfeited 15 years of additional protection under the AA.
Are you OK with that?
One reason stated by Bruce Arlen for circulating a 10-year extension document was because a 10-year extension was “more palatable” to council members. How could Bruce know this unless he had been told this by one or more members of town council?
Are you OK with that?
The 10-years is “more palatable” assertion by Bruce Arlen indicates that Bruce Arlen, one or more council members, and the attorney who prepared the 10-year extension document may have conspired together to limit the number of years for the AA’s extension.
Are you OK with that?
I specifically asked Councilman Spitzer if he was the member of town council Bruce Arlen was referring to. In a January 28, 2015 email to me Councilman Spitzer wrote: “If he [Bruce] has talked to others on council, he hasn't told me what they said on my explicit statement to him. I have no wish to know what the other council members think on this matter.”
If not Councilman Spitzer, then which council member?
Are you OK with that?
Another reason stated by Bruce Arlen for circulating a 10-year extension document was because it had been prepared by an attorney who is connected to and understands municipal language and therefore the document has all the correct language and formatting to be an acceptable agenda document. However, the name of the attorney who prepared the document does not appear anywhere on the 10-year extension document.
Are you OK with that?
The attorney who prepared the paperwork chose not to attach his name to the document he prepared. But by providing legal advice and preparing the 10-year document, the attorney who prepared the 10-year document is involved in setting policy in this town. And, because his name is not known, the extent of influence he or other members of his family have on members of town council is also not known.
Are you OK with that?
Yet another reason Bruce Arlen stated for circulating a 10-year extension document was because the signatures need to be notarized, a claim not supported by the town attorney’s legal opinion. If notarized signatures were the only disputed issue, then why wasn’t the 10-year document prepared as a 25-year extension document?
Are you OK with that?
Numbers 7, 8, 9 and 12 in the article titled “No Extension of the AA?” cites reasons why notarized signatures are not required on extensions to existing development agreements. Go to www.cavecreektownhallblog.com “Area 96-1 Annexation Agmt.” to read the article.
Without knowing the name of the attorney who prepared the 10-year extension document we cannot know the legal basis for why he claimed an extension to an existing development agreement requires notarized signatures.
Are you OK with that?
The named and unnamed persons involved have an opportunity to step forward, state the facts of their involvement --- including the name of the persons involved in the decision requiring Area 96-1 residents to forfeit 15 years of protection under the AA and why such a decision was made.
If they don’t do that, are you OK with that?
There was no document prepared by the town attorney that was attached as an exhibit for the mayor’s signature for a 25-year extension.
Are you OK with that?
This article is not about the extension, it’s about how politics continues to be played in this town despite the removal of the old regime.
If it’s taken the threat of a recall election to make council members live up to their campaign promises and protect the AA, I’m OK with that. But I am not blinded to the fact that there would be no extension of the AA for the town council to consider on March 2, 2015 had it not been for the presence of an Area 96-1 resident who prevented town council members from breaching the AA at the February 3, 2014 town council meeting.
I know this because I am that resident.
It goes without saying that Area 96-1 residents are in favor of an extension, but who determined that a 10-year extension was better than a 25-year extension? Obviously, a term of 25-years is allowed as 25-year’s is the original term of the AA. Under the 10-year extension document circulated by Bruce Arlen, however, Area 96-1 residents forfeited 15 years of additional protection under the AA.
Are you OK with that?
One reason stated by Bruce Arlen for circulating a 10-year extension document was because a 10-year extension was “more palatable” to council members. How could Bruce know this unless he had been told this by one or more members of town council?
Are you OK with that?
The 10-years is “more palatable” assertion by Bruce Arlen indicates that Bruce Arlen, one or more council members, and the attorney who prepared the 10-year extension document may have conspired together to limit the number of years for the AA’s extension.
Are you OK with that?
I specifically asked Councilman Spitzer if he was the member of town council Bruce Arlen was referring to. In a January 28, 2015 email to me Councilman Spitzer wrote: “If he [Bruce] has talked to others on council, he hasn't told me what they said on my explicit statement to him. I have no wish to know what the other council members think on this matter.”
If not Councilman Spitzer, then which council member?
Are you OK with that?
Another reason stated by Bruce Arlen for circulating a 10-year extension document was because it had been prepared by an attorney who is connected to and understands municipal language and therefore the document has all the correct language and formatting to be an acceptable agenda document. However, the name of the attorney who prepared the document does not appear anywhere on the 10-year extension document.
Are you OK with that?
The attorney who prepared the paperwork chose not to attach his name to the document he prepared. But by providing legal advice and preparing the 10-year document, the attorney who prepared the 10-year document is involved in setting policy in this town. And, because his name is not known, the extent of influence he or other members of his family have on members of town council is also not known.
Are you OK with that?
Yet another reason Bruce Arlen stated for circulating a 10-year extension document was because the signatures need to be notarized, a claim not supported by the town attorney’s legal opinion. If notarized signatures were the only disputed issue, then why wasn’t the 10-year document prepared as a 25-year extension document?
Are you OK with that?
Numbers 7, 8, 9 and 12 in the article titled “No Extension of the AA?” cites reasons why notarized signatures are not required on extensions to existing development agreements. Go to www.cavecreektownhallblog.com “Area 96-1 Annexation Agmt.” to read the article.
Without knowing the name of the attorney who prepared the 10-year extension document we cannot know the legal basis for why he claimed an extension to an existing development agreement requires notarized signatures.
Are you OK with that?
The named and unnamed persons involved have an opportunity to step forward, state the facts of their involvement --- including the name of the persons involved in the decision requiring Area 96-1 residents to forfeit 15 years of protection under the AA and why such a decision was made.
If they don’t do that, are you OK with that?
RSS Feed