Even as I type this, Judge Marlene Hyatt is commencing a hearing to determine whether George W. Pack’s descendants are right to claim that Mr. Pack’s gift of park land to the “public forever” is worth the paper it was written on. The Packs are suing Buncombe County and Stewart Coleman’s Black Dog Realty over the land sale.

If the judge determines that the Packs are in the right, then, according to the terms of the deed, all of the land on Pack Square and City/County Plaza (including the land underneath the County and City buildings) could again become the Pack’s private land. That would be a good and interesting problem to have.

If the judge rules that forever doesn’t mean forever and that the park-level land that’s always been considered part of the park isn’t part of the park, then this controversy moves to the next stage of intervention.

As recently as 2001, the City and County agreed that the land sold to Coleman was part of the park. Anyone who walks over there knows it’s obviously part of the same contiguous parkland as the rest of the square. It’ll soon be time for the County to man-up and get to work on Eminent Domain. Alternately, if this Commission isn’t prepared to do the right thing, it’s time to get to work persuading our candidates for County Commission to right the wrongs of their predecessors.

Tomorrow, Mr. Coleman will be standing before City Council seeking an easement for a road in front of his Parkside. He’s petulantly threatened to move his building further in front of City Hall if he’s denied his easement. Of course, if the Packs win their suit, then Mr. Coleman will be sent packing, so to speak. If they lost, then Council will have to choose whether to surrender to Coleman or to continue to make clear their categorical displeasure with Coleman’s project and strongarm tactics.

I’m going to be working all day, though I think I’d rather be offering gavel-to-gavel coverage of the court proceedings. If you’re on the scene, near the scene, in the scene, or of the scene, please keep us all updated in the comments.

I read this Letter to the Editor over at Mountain Xpress, and I think it bears republishing over here:

In 2003, an article in The New York Times recounted how Asheville developer Stewart Coleman and his brothers hired an accounting firm [that] promised them “bulletproof” tax shelters. When the IRS rejected the scheme, the Colemans sued the accounting firm.

I see similarities in our current situation: The county [commission] gave Coleman a sweetheart deal, basically promising the developer a bulletproof way to build luxury condos that would crowd the landmark City Building and redesigned park.

Now that Coleman’s Parkside condo project is in jeopardy, Coleman has announced he will chop down a century-old magnolia tree unless the city and county pay him—millions more than he originally invested—to abandon the project. Without resorting to a lawsuit, Coleman’s threat is a strategy to leverage a big payback for what Coleman perceives as damages owed him for his failed real-estate venture. Sadly, those extra millions would come directly from us, the taxpayers.

When the rest of us risk money in real-estate ventures, we lose if the project fails. Why should Stewart Coleman be any different? He should not receive a public bailout simply because his project didn’t succeed.

Our leaders should either invoke eminent domain or enforce local development ordinances (for a change), and stop the Parkside project. History suggests Coleman will likely sue, which may eventually cost as much as the buyout Coleman demands, but at least our leaders won’t be giving up our hard-earned money without a fight. Handing millions of taxpayer dollars to Coleman to make his project go away sends a message to other developers that they can do the same.

- David Lynch, Asheville

There are three ways the Parkside controversy can end, in this humble blogger’s estimation.

(1) Coleman builds Parkside on our public park, bringing this series of errors and intrigue to ruinous fruition.

(2) Buncombe County and Stewart Coleman come to some sort of agreement for Mr. Coleman to relinquish the park land.

(3) Either the City or County invokes condemnation, a legal means to effect Eminent Domain.

The subject of eminent domain is anathema to many, but unless the County demonstrates better negotiation skills, or Mr. Coleman suddenly comes to his senses, that’s where we’re headed. I’m going to be on the same learning curve as y’all, so be prepared to participate as we shape our understanding of what Eminent Domain is and how it works. Mistakes will be made.

Read More→

Word is out that the ‘Stop Parkside through eminent domain’ petition has over 6,500 signatures.

Mtn. Xpress has the story:

After a closed session earlier today, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners decided to delay acting on reacquiring the Parkside land until after Aug. 25, when a summary judgment in a lawsuit by George Pack’s heirs is expected. Also, election records reveal that Parkside developer Stewart Coleman and his employees have donated $1,500 to the re-election campaign of commissioner Bill Stanley and $600 to that of Chairman Nathan Ramsey; both commissioners have defended the controversial project.

Some intrepid folks held Ramsey and Stanley’s feet to the fire:

Questioned by reporters after the meeting, Stanley denied that the donations from Coleman and his employees affected his votes.

“Those checks came in the mail. It doesn’t change what I say or how I vote,” Stanley, a Democrat, said, also indicating he opposed the possibility of using eminent domain to get the property back and still believed the original sale to Coleman had been a good deal.

Ramsey also said the donations played no role in his positions. He too has previously indicated that he does not support using eminent domain to gain the property back, partially because a court would decide what amount the county would have to pay Coleman for the property.

“I haven’t voted any differently than any of the other commissioners,” Ramsey, a Republican, said. “We’re all on the same page: We don’t want the taxpayers to get stuck footing the bill” for reacquiring the land.

Read More→