Hockey Dorm hits financial hurdle

[-fluffy-]

The point I was trying to make that ultimately the dispute in court will be between those parties whose names are on the contracts. Still, there seems to be a core of critics, the Penticton Herald included as well as a couple of mayoral has-beens as evidenced this morning, who are intent on placing all the blame on the steps of City Hall, citing lack of due diligence in protecting the contractors from the results of their own failures in performing due diligence themselves. And just where is the real culprit here, the developer?

[Assumed]

Drove by and noticed a new sign where the trailer used to be. Great sense of humor.

[Captain77]

Closing Date: Tuesday, May 8, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. local time. This is the deadline for proposals to purchase the property.
Also - any word on the legal liability for the city regarding liens? Things have been quiet lately, so I assume no news is good news.

[Captain77]

Any news about bids on the property? Closure was yesterday.

[livewire]

Today's Herald

"City Mulls 3 Proposals for Hockey Dorm Site"

To be reviewed by Staff and city manager. Council is remaining at arms length, recommendation will come forward to council asap.

No other details.

[Captain77]

Does anyone know if the bids for the property have been made public yet? The closing date for proposals was May 8th, so we should have heard something by now. It will be nice to get some money in the city coffers!

[-fluffy-]

Haven't heard a peep. The news release back at the closing date said city staff will review the proposals "over the next few weeks" before submitting a recommendation to council.

[twobits]

I think the statment made was that it would be the end of June at the earliest before staff made a recommend, if any, to council. I have heard some unsubstanciated rumours that the lease with the hockey school is not as lucrative as once thought.

[Alex1967]

Driving by the site yesterday I noticed a crew pulling the rebar apart and stockpiled backfill.
Presumedly this is being done on the City dime to make the property more appealing to a prospective buyer.

Having been involved and still involved in many real estate deals (no I am not a Realtor), I find it incomprehensible that the City allowed the buyer/builder to proceed without taking title first, or having clear recourse in place should the project fail.

It demonstrates to me that some major decisions are being made by people who lack the experience and competency to make such decisions, both staff and council. The City for many years retained the services of a very competent and experienced solicitor, Richard Thompson. Had he been consulted, I highly doubt he would have recommended this deal. I can also imagine the discussion between solicitor, staff and council. Solicitor saying it's a poor idea, staff not really knowing, and council wanting to push ahead with good intentions of creating economic activity whilst making themselves look good for doing so.

[twobits]

It demonstrates to me that some major decisions are being made by people who lack the experience and competency to make such decisions, both staff and council. The City for many years retained the services of a very competent and experienced solicitor, Richard Thompson. Had he been consulted, I highly doubt he would have recommended this deal.

Interesting comment but I believe Richard Thompson was still the city's solicitor at the time this deal happened. One might also ask, that even if a solicitor recommeneded against, and the advice was not taken, is the solicitor still not bound to act in the best interest of the city? Then why, did the solicitor not register the notice on title immediatly rather than leave a five day unprotected window during which liens could be valid? Sure sounds like a solicitor faux pas.

[hoot]

One might also ask, that even if a solicitor recommeneded against, and the advice was not taken, is the solicitor still not bound to act in the best interest of the city?

Nope he isn't . he is acting as advisor to council , if council choose not to heed his advice then it is council that is ultimately responsible for any repercussions from not taking this advice. They are supposedly acting in the best interests of the city , that is why they were elected in the first place.

Unfortunately, in this instance they did not act with the taxpayers best interests at heart, and now the city ( the taxpayers ) will have to bear the cost of their incompetence.

[twobits]

I don't see it your way. As soon as it became clear the city was going to allow the developer to start, even if the solicitor recommended not to (and I don't think he did), he should have moved immediately to register the notice on title. That is why we engage solicitors in the first place.....to cover all the legalese.......not just high priced sounding boards to toss ideas off of.

[hoot]

he should have moved immediately to register the notice on title

Only if instructed to do so by his client , in this case the City of Penticton. A solicitor cannot arbitrarily act without his client's say so.

I guess, because of the lack of transparency on this issue, i.e. who said what to whom, our debate is speculative at best.

[twobits]

Of course a lawyer will follow the intruction of his client. But....any lawyer worth even half of a law degree would make sure all the legal points and ramifications of any action, or lack thereof, is pointed out for an informed decision. As I said before, that is why we engage them. If city counsel or staff are all encompassing knowledgeable about all legal matters, they might as well just talk straight to the legal secretary who types up the documents and bypass the lawyer altogether. We know that is not the case so just what in your opinion is the job of the lawyer? Do you not think it is his job to point out all forseeable outcomes? Do you not think he should have said "If you want to allow the developer to commence construction before title transfer, we need to register a notice on title immediately or at least before any works commences"? For myself, that is what we hire them for.

[hoot]

One might also ask, that even if a solicitor recommeneded against, and the advice was not taken, is the solicitor still not bound to act in the best interest of the city?

then you asked :

We know that is not the case so just what in your opinion is the job of the lawyer? Do you not think it is his job to point out all foreseeable outcomes.

Two different scenarios. In the first case the answer is no , the solicitor is not bound to act on their own instructions , even if city council chooses to ignore his advice.

In the second case of course the solicitor should express their opinion of any outcomes. But that is where their job stops. They should not then ignore the actions of council and proceed on a different ( their own )tack.

I am aware that the solicitor was asked to do a corporate check on the purchaser’s backers and financing in this matter, but what his recommendations to council were I have no idea, because this letter was never made public.