ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 TAG: 9610290041
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JEFF ARTIS
RECENTLY, I joined a group of Roanoke citizens to picket City Hall. We wanted to show our displeasure over Roanoke City Council's anticipated decision to forgive a $212,000 unsecured loan to Total Action Against Poverty.
We knew Roanoke City Council was going to forgive the loan, but decided to picket for two main reasons:
* The loan never should have been made to begin with.
Yes, TAP needed the loan. However, TAP needed the loan due to some shady dealings that TAP willingly participated in with Roanoke city government to gain ownership of the Dumas Hotel: property that newly found documents show the city may have acquired illegally.
In addition, TAP and the city knew the loan could never be and would never be repaid. The loan never should have been unsecured. The loan represents bad government. It is not the responsibility of Roanoke city government to be TAP's Sugar Daddy. This is especially true given the circumstances: TAP needed the loan because it played fast and loose with the rules in acquiring the Dumas Hotel.
* The black community is sick and tired of being pimped and raped by Roanoke city government and its allies through duplicitous, immoral and possibly illegal actions.
These possibly illegal actions are spelled out in documents given me by a concerned citizen. The documents include an April 5, 1985, letter from the law offices of Jolly, Place, Fralin & Prillaman, P.C., written by Jack Place to City Attorney Will Dibling. It is titled, "Propriety of certain acquisitions in the Gainsboro Area by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority."
The documents also include a Nov. 10, 1982, letter from Daniel F. Layman Jr. of the law offices of Woods, Rogers, Muse, Walker & Thornton to William Hackworth, assistant city attorney at that time, concerning Gainsboro. A Sept. 10, 1982, letter from Layman to Herbert McBride, then-director of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, concerned the Gainsboro Conservation/ Redevelopment Plan, and a July 21, 1982, letter from Layman to McBride concerned the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program.
Place's letter from 1985 voices his concerns on the acquisitions of land in the Gainsboro area. The letter gives a brief history of the Gainsboro land grab. To acquire land in the area for the Gainsboro Redevelopment Plan, the city established the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Corporation. The GNDC would approach landowners in the Gainsboro area asking them to sell their land.
If a landowner refused to sell, the GNDC turned the matter over to the housing authority. The job of the housing authority was to force the owners to sell. This usually was done either by condemning the property or by telling the owners that if they did not sell, the city would take the property through eminent domain. That's what happened in the case of the Dumas Hotel. Often, the GNDC would claim to have the power of eminent domain, a power that it clearly never had. Once the housing authority acquired the land, it then conveyed it back to the GNDC for $1.
If a landowner decided to sell to the GNDC or the housing authority, the property was often reappraised, lowering the purchase price - again as in the case of the Dumas Hotel. Place noted that, from Nov. 9, 1982 to March 15, 1985, one piece of property was appraised three different times, lowering the price from $7,000 with $1,000 attributable to land to $1,000 . This same property was assessed for tax purposes at $7,800 for the 1984-85 fiscal year.
Place told Dibling that those who formed GNDC, however well-intentioned, ignored Title 36. He went on to say:
"I would opine that the present modus operandi of GNDC, the City and the Authority in acquiring property for GNDC is a dangerous course to continue. If, in a condemnation suit, evidence were introduced: that GNDC obtained appraisals; made an unacceptable offer to the owner; requested the City to direct the Authority to condemn and the Authority did so condemn under the City's directive, I feel that we would be on very thin jurisdictional ice. This would be especially true if GNDC's Articles of Incorporation were introduced along with evidence establishing a pattern of such circuitous acquisition. We could, of course, argue that the Authority considered each request for acquisition by GNDC independently on its merits and, in each case, determined that such an acquisition was in furtherance of the Plan. However, I wonder if the underlying 'Paper trail' and the minutes of the meetings of the Authority's Board, would corroborate that argument, especially if such a GNDC request had never been refused. Boiled down to its simplest terms, I feel that it might be very difficult to convince a judge that the Authority is the implementer of its Plan and its Board is exercising independent judgment in that regard."
Place concluded the letter by giving the city suggestions on how to make the Gainsboro Redevelopment Plan "satisfactory to all parties." The people of Gainsboro were not included as one of these parties.
I am not a lawyer. However, it is clear to me the documents I was given suggest that the city, the housing authority and the GNDC, which acted as a front organization for the housing authority and the city, conspired to commit an illegal land grab in the Gainsboro community. These entities acted like thieves in the night circumventing some laws, breaking some laws and ignoring some laws altogether - a blatant abuse of governmental power.
This city has done nothing but lie, cheat and steal in its dealing with the Gainsboro area. Now we have the documentation that shows it. The time has come for the city to put up or shut up with its All-America city status and its claim of representing all its citizens.
No more worthless meetings at the Roanoke Civic Center. No more phony committees. No more plantation politics. Let's sit down at the table and bring about a solution to the Gainsboro situation once and for all.
I believe an acceptable solution can be reached without having to go the legal route to achieve it. But in order for this to happen, we need full disclosure and a willingness by city government and all of its entities to, for once, be honest. This includes honesty about the Henry Street Development Project, which should be put on hold until a viable compromise is reached.
One thing is certain. If the city can steal from Gainsboro, it can steal from any other neighborhood regardless of race, socioeconomic level or any other criteria.
Jeff Artis was a candidate for Roanoke City Council in the municipal elections this past spring.
LENGTH: Long : 113 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: KEVIN KRENECK/L.A. Times Syndicateby CNB