Downtown plans derailed?

By Gordon Anderson | gordon@rantnc.com

A potentially landscape changing project for downtown Sanford which has been in negotiation and planning stages for the better part of three years could be in jeopardy after the city council in November quietly voted to purchase the property in question before a private developer could complete his acquisition.

Nick Jordan is the founder and chairman of Durham-based software development company Smashing Boxes, and had been looking for opportunities to get into commercial real estate development in Sanford with a focus on rehabbing historic properties. That opportunity arrived in February of 2021, when he learned about the Singer Building.

The Rant reported as far back as January of 2021 that the property, on First Street behind the old City Hall building, was attracting attention “both from (Sanford) city government and potential developers” as a location for a permanent train station that would serve the upcoming “S-Line” passenger rail corridor extending from Virginia to South Carolina. The line will run from Henderson in the north, through Wake Forest and Raleigh and then Sanford and into Southern Pines and Hamlet to the state’s southern border.

“I was immediately interested,” Jordan said, describing the distressed property’s potential for revitalization as a multi-use space that would include office space, retail such as shops, breweries, restaurants, coffee shops, as well as the aforementioned train station.

Jordan, who has renderings of the property which are reminiscent of Durham’s American Tobacco Campus, estimates the private investment he would put into the property in the $25 million range.

For some background, the city had identified the site as a possible location for a train station and secured the option to purchase if necessary. But Jordan at the time approached officials with his plans and the parties eventually worked out a memorandum of understanding in May of 2021 by which Sanford government would relinquish its option on the site if Jordan was able to complete the purchase and enter a development agreement.

From that point forward, Jordan says he worked with city officials to create a plan that would be what he calls “a win win” for everyone.

“All we really needed to work with them on was parking and access, and at first glance it seemed like it would be really easy,” he said, noting that a rerouting of a stream that runs through the property was also a hurdle, although not an insurmountable one in his eyes. He went on to describe a series of what he called “roadblocks” to completion of the purchase, all of which he contends were put in place by the city.

For its part, the Sanford City Council in mid November voted by consent to execute a purchase option on the site, effectively cutting Jordan out of the process. The purchase agreement was signed on Nov. 3 – three days before Jordan was even notified, and 18 days before the council approved it.

Now, Jordan has retained counsel and says he’s considering legal remedies. As of Nov. 28, nothing had been filed.

“Nick has invested considerable time, money and effort in this project,” said attorney Will Gordon, who is part of the team representing Jordan. “He’s attempted to participate with the city along the way, and for a period the city seemed to be reciprocating. But at some point, they went silent.”

Gordon said the city’s process for the purchase was less than fully transparent, noting that the item was placed on the council’s November 21 “consent agenda” – items approved without public discussion because they’ve already been discussed and agreed on at the committee level – after the purchase had already been executed and wasn’t subject to any kind of public hearing.

“(The council) didn’t even identify the property on the consent agenda,” Gordon said. “The only reason you would know it’s the Singer Building is because the budget amendment was for the same amount of the purchase agreement. This seems to have been done in the dead of the night.”

Subsequently, the city has remained almost entirely quiet about the situation. Mayor Rebecca Salmon declined comment, citing the possibility of pending litigation, and City Attorney Susan Patterson gave a brief statement to the same effect, although she did hint that the city may have plans for the property.

“It is the policy of the City not to comment on threatened litigation,” she told The Rant. “Nothing has been filed, and there is no merit to the claim that has been threatened. The City is excited about a unique opportunity that presents itself, which could provide a great benefit to the community.”

The city’s public silence on the matter didn’t dissuade advocates of Jordan’s project from speaking out before the council. Joni Martin, through her role as development director for Progressive Development, has been helping Jordan in his attempt to acquire the property and nail down plans for its use. She asked the council on the night of November 21 to remove the item from its consent agenda so it could at least be discussed publicly. Her comments hinted at possible intentions on the city’s part for the property – and raised some issues with them, most notably that the Singer Building is on the wrong side of the S Line tracks to work as a depot without building some kind of bridge.

“What is the rush by the city to purchase the Singer Building … obligating tax dollars before the council has officially voted on it? Where is the transparency?” she asked. “Tonight’s agenda doesn’t even identify the property that you are voting to purchase for $490,000, or the purpose of the $25,000 in legal fees that you are authorizing. Why didn’t the city vote in open session to purchase the Singer Building before signing a purchase contract? Why did the city wait until after it signed the purchase contract to inform the developer? Why have you not researched other, better possible options that would provide a win-win for both the city and the developer? Why is the property the city is seeking for multi modal transportation one that is located on the opposite side of the S-Line track while there are options located on the correct side of the S-Line? Why would you think it is best to forfeit a $25 million private investment in downtown Sanford that would save a critical piece of our community’s industrial history that would generate perpetual revenues on a $25 million investment … so the city can receive a grant to build a $33 million multi modal station that would generate no tax revenue and would destroy our historical heritage in downtown Sanford when we could have both? We are asking that you, the city council, vote to remove this item from the consent agenda.”

Minutes later, the council voted without discussion to approve the consent agenda.

Jordan remains adamant that legal action is the last thing he wants and that he would prefer to continue talking with city officials about the best way to move forward with the project.

“The main reason we’re looking at (filing litigation) is that they just won’t talk to us,” he said. ” It’s not the first thing we wanted to do. But there’s been no engagement with the council or the staff or the (city) attorneys. Are we litigious people? No. All we want is to talk and to find a win-win.”