 |
|
|
|
|
| 6/28/2009 | Email this article • Print this article | Time to cut ties with developer
Recorder News Staff
On Tuesday, four of the five Amsterdam Common Council members are putting forth a resolution to terminate the city's agreement with Long Island-based developer Uri Kaufman to turn the former Chalmers knitting mill into luxury apartments.
Given the political turmoil, confusion surrounding this project since the deal was struck more than a year ago, we feel this is the best course of action for the city to take.
Last year, the council was all set to tear down the South Side eyesore when Kaufman appeared at the 11th hour with an idea to turn the building into high-end apartments that would fetch anywhere from $1,100 to $1,800 a month.
Although the funding was already in place for demolition, the council took a chance and gave Kaufman until May 12 of this year to meet certain benchmarks or pay $50,000 to extend the purchase option another year.
May 12 has come and gone, and it's still questionable whether Kaufman met those milestones, nor has he paid the $50,000.
A cloud of suspicion and confusion has hung over this deal since it was signed, to the point where the Common Council felt the need to hire an outside attorney to review the deal and offer an opinion about whether the terms of the agreement have been met.
The opinion, issued by Neil Rivchin of the Albany law firm O'Connell and Aronowitz, did very little to clear up the matter, mainly because the city's original deal with Kaufman was subject to interpretation when it came to the developer meeting the benchmarks outlined for him.
The city had required Kaufman to "substantially" meet those milestones, but, as Rivchin himself noted, "the term 'substantially,' is subject to interpretation and not, otherwise, objectively defined."
However, Rivchin said the city could argue that Kaufman should have paid the $50,000 regardless if environmental remediation scheduled for the Chalmers building has taken place, which it hasn't. Supporters of the project, including Mayor Ann Thane and Corporation Counsel Gerard DeCusatis, contend that Kaufman doesn't have to fork over the money if the remediation work isn't done.
There was one specific opinion issued by Rivchin, however, that could and should nullify the deal. While it appears Kaufman has met most of the benchmarks, it's questionable whether he has the construction and permanent financing commitments to make the project happen.
Given the multitude of questions and confusion surrounding the agreement more than one year later, it's time for the city to end the deal. The grant money available for demolition is still there, even though the funding likely won't cover the entire cost of the tear-down because of the delays.
The Chalmers project has also created a lot of bad blood between members of the council, the mayor, and has sparked heated and sometimes hateful debate throughout the city. It's also put many other projects on hold, including a much needed reconstruction of Bridge Street. Those issues cannot be put on the back burner any longer because of a project that may or may not happen anyway.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
|
|
|
