http://rutlandherald.com/article/20130920/THISJUSTIN/709209962
Springfield Schools: Re-vote likely on Union Street property By Christian Avard Staff Writer | September 20,2013 Rutland Herald SPRINGFIELD — The Springfield School Board would like to take another shot at buying a dilapidated property outside Union Street School. The School Board discussed purchasing a multifamily home at 47 Union St. on Monday for school-related purposes. Scott Adnams, during his last meeting as chairman of the board, said the asking price was lowered and the board should act on it now. According to the listing on the Century 21 Energy Shield Realty website, the asking price is now $97,000. On Town Meeting Day in March, voters defeated an article to purchase the property for $231,012. The School District introduced the article just weeks before town meeting and it failed by a margin of 700-991. The article caught residents by surprise, but Adnams said there has been a change of heart in Springfield. “I’ve heard feedback from the community that we should re-do the vote on the purchase of the house,” he said. Superintendent of Schools Zach McLaughlin said the School Board must do a better job of explaining how the purchase will benefit Union Street School. McLaughlin said he thought residents were led to believe the purchase was for school parking. Voters were confused because the article was introduced at the 11th hour and the board did not have enough time to sell it to the public. According to McLaughlin, they should not make the same mistakes the second time around. “We really need to take our time to explain where the money will be coming from,” McLaughlin said. “We need to be careful and very clear with people why we’re coming back to this, because it didn’t work the first time around.” The School District’s motives for purchasing the property are security related, McLaughlin said. At a March School Board meeting, McLaughlin said the school district “wanted to secure the campus” for safety related purposes. Adnams said that the purchase will not impact taxpayers. “It’s not very often we can do something that will not impact the tax rate,” he said. No date has been determined for a new vote to purchase the property.
I find it absolutely and positively reprehensible that the town would even consider entertaining this. What message is being sent here to homeowners?
ReplyDeleteKeep your place in decent shape and watch its value go down as nearby properties owned by slumlords fall apart and house drug addicts and low lifes. These same slumlords will get rewarded (!) by the town when their dilapidated properties become such an eyesore and danger to the community that they are bought up with taxpayer money (!!) at above-market value.
Jean, it is a shame that the town government has forced the schools hand in this situation. Had our town leaders been more on the ball regarding crime, zoning, and enforcement perhaps the union st. area would not be such a decrepit mess. I respect the school for wanting to clean up the area around its property, it is just a shame they are forced to do it.
DeleteHey I have idea. And this would solve the budget problems too.
DeleteHow about....
the school district joins the wealthy segment of Springfield by purchasing this property and then renting it out to the scummiest of the drug dealers they can find. Think of the possiblities. If they offer NO background checks to get a rental they can name their price. And the drug dealers will have a desirable location convenient to future customers.
Seriously I am beyond livid over this. I watch the asking price or a beautiful property of mine dropover 35%. All the while I was there 2 hrs every weekday for two years making improvements while the slumlords who rent in that area are making money hand over fist. Selectboard member Yesman protected them from having to make safety improvements to their properties. And now the school distict wants to buy one of those slums at a price that is easily twice the market value. I can't write what I would really like to as it would be censored anyway.
And If I am not mistaken...I believe that property in question is owned by yesman..I could be wrong. can we clarify this?
DeleteJust call the town office and ask for Lois or Jeff. Find out in a pinch. 47 Union St. Post back. If you don't I will.
DeleteAnd if I am not mistaken, pigs can fly, Obama is a pawn of the illuminati, and the Cosmos football team won on Friday night.
DeleteThe property in question is not owned by Yesman.
DeleteHowever, Yesman stands to realize a financial benefit when the property is sold.
The owner on record of 47 Union St is a Mr Robert K of New Jersey. A search for this address on realtor.com shows that the property was first offered for sale at $117,900 in August of 2009, was delisted and relisted several times since then until it was relisted at $97,000 this past August.
The listing agent is given as David Yesman of Century 21 Energy Shield Realty. A search on that site indeed shows this property as one of the office listings.
Yesman has also uploaded two videos of the property to youtube.
What this means is that Yesman is acting as the seller's agent for this property. If it sells to an individual or entity who does not use a buyer's agent, Yesman's office gets the entire commission. If the purchaser uses a buyer's agent, Yesman's office splits the commission with the buyer's agent.
Bottom line, whoever owns this property and who had rented it to people who were doing drug deals and harboring known repeat criminals has been trying to sell it for four years without success. From what little I know about real estate, this usually means that the asking price is too high. Unless it has granite countertops and hardwood floors I'd say $40-50 k is closer to its actual market value. I think Mr K needs to put on his big girl panties and take the financial hit he deserves for allowing his property to contribute to the deterioration of the neighborhood.
What I would really like to know however is why Adnams, who is on his way to Texas, is trying to push the purchase of a hopelessly overvalued property using taxpayer money whose listing agent is one of the selectboard members.
Wasn't Mr. Yesman one of the ones opposed to the rental registry?
DeleteAnd given the usage the school wants then I suggest strongly that the citizens let the school know that we will support the purchase but at a cost of 40k-50k NOT 117000. I personally do not agree with using the money they want to use and THAT is my big standoff. If they were using monies from the sale of the Old school building that would be a different scenario. I am also concerned about the tax implication it has on the taxpayers. As a post stated it would "only be 15 cents to each taxpayer" however, enough is enough with these crooked leaders constantly saying that it will only be........ to the taxpayer. They say it about the town budget, they say it about the school budget. I draw a line in the sand and say NO MORE.
DeleteAgree completely with Anonymous 7:57. Make an offer of $40k. If nothing else it should provide entertainment value whan Selectboard member Yesman is put in a position of negotiating on behalf of his client and against the interest of Springifeld voters.
DeleteWhat I love is that this was shot down by a vast majority of springfield voters...so now we are going to try to "sell" the idea again but this time we are going to say it is for "safety" reasons. Lets fear the voter into thinking that their kids are not safe unless we buy this house. Cause god forbid we admit that the teachers don't like the limited parking. Look..buy it and use the money from the sale of the old school. But don't use any bond money at all. Quit trying to SELL us a bill of goods.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree...so now we are going to expect the taxpayers to buy run down properties? How about this...how about you spend 100K buying laptops so the school can move towards textbook free schools. How about that! Tell your teachers to get teaching and quit worrying about parking...lets get the schools passing first please!
Aren't we already 150k OVER budget? Wake up people
ReplyDeleteNot true, once again another Springfielder who failed to read the whole article and believes the headline is the whole story.
DeleteAnd once again 8:55 I will address your comment. We understand that the 150k has to come out of somewhere. The POINT is that because of that spending, during the budget process this year, the taxpayers will be told that the budget has to be raised 150k. I suspect we will hear LOOK LOOK what we HAVE to spend. The 150k is what the school cut for the current budget, they "overspent" from this budget in an effort to get that 150K added to the new budget plain and simple. I am not going to argue semantics about the use of the word "overspent or over budget". It is the underlying implication of that spending that is the issue with taxpayers and should continue to be an issue with taxpayers. It is nothing short of dishonest and untruthful and it is these exact tactics that the school uses that gets people stirred up.
DeleteIf the teachers and others need more parking, I offer a real simple solution.
ReplyDeleteThe back fence is the school lot line. More it further into the town OWNED Water Tank property. We don't pay taxes on either side of the fence, and no out of pocket money to add more land for parking. SIMPLE!!
Ummm the purchase of this property would cause an issue with the tax base. School dont pay property tax. Therefore one more property gone from the tax role and as such the rest of the citizens would be taking up the slack.
ReplyDeleteThat would be what, $1,500 lost in a $28 million budget? Would everybody in town have to cough up an extra fifteen cents to cover it?
DeleteWhat about exercising eminent domain to resolve the twin problems of terminal decrepitude and taxpayer expense?
ReplyDeleteAt some point the school and the town is going to give up on trying to solve the issues associated with slumlords and their drug dealing tenants if the community continues to block their every attempt.
ReplyDeleteAnd what exactly has the town or the selectboard for that matter done in the last 20 years to solve the issues associated with the slumlords? I mean before there was a downtown shooting in broad daylight?
DeleteJean, they just tried to enact a rental ordinance which was appealed and defeated. I give the select board (well some of them) credit for trying, but the town's people elected not to support their efforts.
DeleteAnonymous 8:34. Yes they just tried to enact a rental registry ordinance. After over 20 years of allowing single family homes to be converted to multi-unit dwellings with no regard for maximum occupancy, availability of off-street parking, and adherence to fire safety code, the town took a feeble stab at closing the barn door after all the horses had escaped.
ReplyDeleteAnd selectboard member Yesman rallied his fellow landlords to defeat it and ensure that no Springfield slumlord would be obligated to subject their property to pesky safety inspections. The scare tactics were impressive. They convinced their tenants that they would be better off with non-functional wiring and dangerous staircases lest their rent be raised to unaffordable levels. We wouldn't want the safety of the tenants to interfere with profit and free enterprise, now would we?
Please, where was the town 20 years ago when the problems were already apparent? Where were the zoning regulations? I'll tell you: NOWHERE. The attitude was this:
"When there was a growing slum problem on Valley St., I didn't object, for I don't live there. When there was a growing slum problem on Union St., I didn't object, for I don't live there. Now that there is no area left in Springfield that has not been touched by blight and everyone's property values have suffered, the slumlords and their tenants are in control."
Now in keeping with the town's philosophy of rewarding slumlords and punishing decent homeowners and landlords who take pains to keep their property in good shape, Adnams is proposing to squander tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to line the pockets of the very same individuals who contributed to the problem in the first place. Folks, that is not a solution to the problem, it is an insult to each and every decent property owner in town. Why should those of us who dutifully paid outrageous property taxes and at the samje time watched our property values drop 30-40% be asked to bankroll this pork? This is adding insult to injury.